Arabs shock Europeans, refuse to condemn anti-Semitism

[Gimel]

NEW YORK - Arab states at the United Nations are trying to foil a proposal to raise a vote condemning anti-Semitism in the General Assembly this September.

At a closed meeting held recently in New York, UN ambassadors from Arab and EU countries met and the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source.

According to UN sources, the Arab delegates were also critical of a UN seminar on anti-Semitism held last month. A senior Western diplomat said that among the Arabs who spoke with the Europeans was PLO observer Nasser al Kidwe, and he was particularly outspoken in his objections to a UN General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism.

Link to article..

[xchrom]

1. israel shocks world

continues to put israeli military boot on palestinian throat.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. That's what one calls a red herring, sir

Israel's misconduct in the occupied territories justifies condemnation of Israeli leaders. It does not justify condemnation of the Jewish people as a whole.

Specifically, this piece concerns a proposed UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism. A copy of the text would be helpful in order to resolve the conflicting paragraphs in the story:

Jordanian Ambassador to the UN Prince Ziad Hussein argued that the resolution would reinforce the tendency to call any criticism of Israel, anti-Semitic. Moroccan Ambassador Mohammed Banone, said that the seminar against anti-Semitism was a terrible idea and a decision would only divide the world body. Arab League Ambassador Mahamas Hani warned that a UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism would have a negative impact on the Middle East.
The proposed resolution would issue a general condemnation of all forms of anti-Semitism and acts of intolerance, incitement and harassment. The decision would also call on member countries to take steps to block anti-Semitism.

Perhaps the devil is in the details. Nevertheless, on principle, one should be able to condemn anti-Semitism as easily as one condemns all other forms of racism.

I would even add that anti-Semitism, unlike Zionism, is a form of racism per se.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. A copy of the text would be handy...

I guess there's nowhere it'd be hiding online? I had a search and couldn't find anything...

I agree with you that on principle, people should be able to condemn anti-Semitism as all other forms of racism. The same goes for being able to condemn all forms of racism as easily as one condemns anti-Semitism. In fact, those in this thread who believe that a refusal to condemn anti-Semitism in the UN should be equally outraged over this. If they're not, I'd sure like to know why...

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES FIVE-PART DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ACTION TO COUNTER RACISM AND INTOLERANCE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION


Deeply concerned about persisting and growing racial discrimination, related intolerance and acts of violence, the General Assembly would reaffirm its commitment to a global drive for the total elimination of those phenomena, under the terms of a resolution approved today by a vote of 153 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with three abstentions (Canada, Australia, Marshall Islands), as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) concluded its 2002 session.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/gashc3732.doc.htm

I tend to be a bit sceptical of anonymous sources, especially ones that ascribe *shock* and *depression* to delegates. As we don't know who this source is, we don't know what their motives were. If it were a EU delegate, then I'd pay it some heed, but if it were an Israeli or US delegate, then it's clear what their motives are...

When it comes to the UN condemning racism, I was reading a thing about Ireland's approach to it when it comes up at the UN. They refuse to single out one specific form of racism to condemn (at least back in 2002 and prior they did, cause that's the date of the thing I read). The rationale is that in doing that they'd be saying that only this particular form of racism is worthy of being condemned, where they believe all racism should be condemned. I tend to agree with them on that one...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

25. I looked and couldn't find it, either

If anyone finds a text of the draft resolution, please post it here.

As for the resolution against racism, I take not that Canada's abstention was based on their objection to the Durban formula. That is no doubt one of the pretexts the Bushies used to case a negative vote. However, the Bushies also refused to participate in the Durban conference and thereby made no attempt to shape the outcome of Durban. The Bushies may disagree with Durban and vote No if they see fit. However, not participating at all simply exposes their agenda as being one to torpedo any process against racism.

Doing something about racism might cost their transnational cronies money and would undermine the principle of some natural hierarchy that gives wealthy white American males the right to rule over the inferior masses of the earth. We can't have that, can we?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I think I know why....

It was a closed meeting, so I'm guessing that any transcripts or minutes aren't going to be made available. Either that, or I just suck totally at negotiating my way through the UN database...

Violet...

[number6]

15. you got it..

continues to put israeli military boot on palestinian throat ...

and there's a difference between Arabs and Arab states...

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Big mistake. Arabs would get more mileage out of Zionism impeding

on land disputed by both Israel and Palestinians. Zionism is political and relatively regionalized. Antisemitism is ubiquitous and an overall prejudice against an ethnicity no matter what. They are not the same or an equivalent of each other. One can logically condemn both antisemitism and Zionism.

[geek tragedy]

3. Gee, what a surprise.

Next thing you know, they'll be keeping their mouths shut about Darfur.

What a bunch of asshats.

[IA_Seth]

5. Pathetic Really

I will agree in the condemnation of Arab leader in this case in particular.

Instead of bluntly refusing the idea, perhaps they should have added language to include the condemnation of "Anti-Arabism" or "Anti-Islam" sentiments.

Truly this sort of resolution shouldn't be needed in a world body, it should go without saying that racism, classism, or any other such nonsense has no place in foreign affairs. But alas, the world can be a hateful place and what is the harm in passing something that condemns it?

[Gimel]

6. Yes

And so much for "world opinion". It's been out-voted.

[IA_Seth]

7. Please explain?

I am not sure I follow here?

From what I have experienced, and from what I have read, world opinion is still that anti-semitism is bad, and that Israeli occupation is bad. I never said that I agree with everything coming from the mouths of the Arabic leaders?

Which part are you saying is voted out?

[Gimel]

11. The UN conference on anti-Semitism

This was announced as the response to claims that the UN has a pro-Arab bias. This was to even out the score. It looks like the Arab block is going to veto the condemnation of anti-Semitism.

I was agreeing with you that it is pathetic, if indeed that is what you meant.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. They can't veto anything. They aren't on the security council

.

[Gimel]

16. In the figurative sense only, of course

Muslim states are in the Security Council with rotating membership. Currently Algeria and Pakistan are members, as well as the Philippines.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. The don't have veto power

They can only vote to oppose, and who knows whether those two are in the anticamp.

[Gimel]

21. This is a closed meeting

The "veto power" is their automatic majority. By drawing in all Muslim states and their allies and supporters, they can outvote the EU and the US and Israel.

However, the Arabs are trying to prevent the initiative from reaching a vote in the GA.

the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. The Philippines is a Muslim state??

Holy crap! And here I was all this time thinking that it's major religion was Christianity! ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

26. I listed it separately

It does have a significant Muslim population, of at least 5%.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Why list it at all?

You were talking about Muslim states. You listed the Phillipines. The Phillipines isn't a Muslim state. What does the population of the Phillipines being made up of around 5% Muslim have to do with how the Phillipines votes in the UN?

Violet...

[Gimel]

28. Recently

The Philippine PM gave in to Muslim terrorists in Iraq. Need I say more?

[Darranar]

29. That does not make it a Muslim state. n/t

[Gimel]

37. So?

I didn't say it was. It has an influential Muslim population, however.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. It was badly worded, I guess...

You probably should have explained why you included the Phillipines in a sentence listing Islamic states...

I'm not really understanding the argument here. The Phillipines has a Muslim population of around 5%. Are you saying this small percentage of the population is so influential that it controls how the Phillipines votes in the UN?

btw, religion had zero to do with the Phillipines decision to withdraw their tiny contingent of troops from Iraq. This is the first I've heard of anyone blaming the Phillipines Muslims for the decision. The troops were always going to leave Iraq only a few weeks after the kidnapping happened, anyway, so in this case pulling them out that few weeks earlier saved a man's life, and was something the population of the Phillipines was totally supportive of. I read something the other day about how the US wants to punish the Phillipines by imposing economic sanctions, but that's probably more hot air and bullying from the warmongers in Washington...

Violet...

[Gimel]

39. No, not really

I included it because of the recent incident of giving in to terrorists in Iraq. I don't think it was badly worded. If I were actually writing about it in full, I would have taken more time to explain. As it is, I was merely pointing out that while not having the veto power in the SC of the UN, Muslim nations and their sympathizers, are usually members of the Security Council, and their votes do count. There have to be 7 favorable votes to pass any resolution. If the Security Council were voting on an issue, such as responding to terrorist's activities, or issues involving Israel versus Palestine, how would these nations vote?

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Pakistan is a democracy?

That's news to me.

[Gimel]

47. Not totally

There is a democratic form of government in Pakistan, but Musarraf took over in 1999 with a coup, and although there were elections held two years ago, Musarraf still holds a lot of power as a military dictator.

Still, it's a little more democratic than the Islamic states in general or than the PA.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. If Pakistan is a democracy . . .

. . . then I'm a retired kamikaze pilot.

Forms of democracy don't count. Democracy must be practiced.

[foo_bar]

64. where is democracy practiced?

(to paraphrase Gandhi)

[Darranar]

42. They not "give in to terrorists in Iraq"...

they ended their involvement in an illegal, brutal, incompetent, and dangerous occupation. And in doing so, they saved someone's life.

[Gimel]

46. Well it's nice that they saved a life

i agree that it's a very unhappy situation to have to chose between a captive person's life and capitulating to terrorist's demands. I'm glad they saved a fellow's life, but if that happened every time, the terrorists would just keep on taking captives and threatening until they get their way. That would be unfortunate for future generations when chaos becomes the rule of the land.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Dissenting

1. The Philippines' military contingent in Iraq was little more than a single platoon. The only reason the Bushies are crying foul is that even the removal of that hurts their collective ego and diminishes further the facade that the invasion was carried out by some grand international coalition. If they sneered "ah, they won't be missed," one might feel discomfort at the demeanor, but the fact is that they won't be missed.

2. Why should Filipinos die in Iraq? This wasn't and isn't part of the war on terrorism. Why should they die to secure Iraqi resources for American transnational corporations? Even a single platoon was more than was worthwhile to that end for the Filipinos or anyone else, including American troops. It isn't their fight. If the neoconservatives and the transnational CEOs want to pirate Iraqi resources from the Iraqi people, they should buy their own military equipment and catch the next plane to Baghdad (or fly their own Lear jets). Please leave my draft aged sons out of their privatized war.

The Filipion government made the wrong decision in sending the troops and the right one withdrawing them.

[Darranar]

50. The Filipino government should have withdrawn their troops...

hostage or no hostage.

They never should have sent them.

Supporting a brutal, repressive occupation propping up an unelected band of tyrannical thugs is disgusting and atrocious.

[IA_Seth]

30. Point of Reference

Please answer this, is it an issue with Islam?

If a nation is declared a "Muslim State" does that automatically make it a bad thing?

[Gimel]

32. Of course not

No reason to think that Thailand wouldn't side with Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, for example. Pakistan shows some independent thinking aside from the Islamic Block nations, which usually vote together. Aside from Pakistan, are there any Islamic democracies? Most are run by aristocratic families with hereditary positions. They rule with some sort of modified Islamic law according to the whims of the day.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Pakistan is a democracy?

I was not aware of that. To me, Pakistan looks like another autocratic dictatorship with some democratic window dressing to give the dictator a fig leaf, but nothing more.

The other post (no. 41) was misplaced and belongs here.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Definately window dressing...

...and just enough of it to get Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth lifted very recently. It does have a rule that all members must be democracies, and it suspended the membership of both Fiji and Pakistan swiftly after military coups in each. Not that the Commonwealth carries much clout, what with it being a motley collection of former British colonies and dominions, but the entire world as we know it would have come to a grinding halt if it had gotten to the stage where sporting sanctions against Pakistan were introduced and there was one less country for Australia to dominate totally when it comes to cricket and the Commonwealth Games ;)

What I don't get is how anyone could use the words Pakistan and democracy in the same breath, but say that Jordan isn't a democracy...

Violet...

[Gimel]

57. Pakistan was founded as a democracy

That isn't the same for states like Saudi Arabia or Syria. The problems in Pakistan do not preclude that it will regain full democracy in the next few years.

With that quasi-democratic government, similar to Jordan, and Egypt seems to be more firmly a dictatorship, Pakistan has a degree of more merit as a democracy. Yet is is still Muslim and terrorism has settled in it's borders.

Yet, all in all I will change my statement.

Previously I asked:

Pakistan shows some independent thinking aside from the Islamic Block nations, which usually vote together. Aside from Pakistan, are there any Islamic democracies?

I will now ask: Are there any Islamic democracies?

[Jack Rabbit]

60. Some would argue that Turkey is

It seems to past the democracy test, with some serious difficulties in the area of rights for ethnic minorities. This presents Turkey with some problems concerning armed resistance, a little like certain other state that shall go unnamed.


Of course, Kamel Ataturk was determined that the Turkish state would be secular, not Islamic. And, as you point out, Pakistan has passed from democracy to dictatorship more and back more than once. Nevertheless, it certainly is enough to demonstrate that the Islamic faith and democratic government are not imcompatible.

In addition to Turkey, Bangladesh, a predominately Islamic country, has free elections and a parliamentary government. As of now, both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are women.

Egypt under Mubarak is no more democratic than Pakistan under Musharraf. As for Jordan being a "quasi-democracy", whatever that is, please don't make me laugh. The King can ignore and dismiss parliament at will. It's no less a royal dictatorship than Saudi Arabia.

[Gimel]

61. Turkey and Bangladesh

Turkey has succeeded in making reforms, and Bangladesh is a democracy. Both are fending off civil wars, an indication that there are enemies to the governments or powers of the state, Turkey has a problem with Kurdish people that have been exiled, and Bangladesh is trying to cope with acts of violence such as acid throwing:

At least 302 persons received burn injuries due to acid throwing for refusal to recognize affairs and 120 persons became victims of acid throwing due to dowry demands and not consenting to second marriage.
{link:nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_11215.shtm|Link..]

Acts of violence in family feuds is not a problem with a governmental form, but it is a problem that the government should deal with in a democracy.

[IA_Seth]

13. Indeed that is...

Yes ma'am, that is indeed what I meant. It is pathetic for any world leader to deny the condemnation of any form of racism, classism, or any other type of discrimination, as I said before.

You seem quite content to question my motives. I assure you I hide no feelings here. I refuse to pick at your personal motives as you seem happy to do with me.

There should be no "score" in the UN, any more so than there should be here on DU. Anti-semitism is not only hurtful, but stupid really in its very premise, just as I see any form of discrimination. Some Arab leaders don't see it that way, and I will disagree with them as much as I disagree with you.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. I have a feeling there more to this story

Look at the quote from the Jordanian minister

Jordanian Ambassador to the UN Prince Ziad Hussein argued that the resolution would reinforce the tendency to call any criticism of Israel, anti-Semitic.

While it is good to condemn antisemitism there is also no doubt that the organizations that sponsered the conference and probably this resolution think criticism of Israel is antisemitism.

[geek tragedy]

9. So we should just pretend it doesn't exist?

The real answer to this riddle is that these governments don't see a problem with a little old-fashioned Judenhass--it keeps their populace diverted from bringing their corrupt governments down.

Yeah, the problem with the UN is that it's too one-sided in its support of Israel. :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

10. I think they believe it will be like the Catholic statement that

antizionism is racism. That statement demonizes Arabs as racist for not wanting their homes taken. It is completely understandable that Arabs were against Israel's creation and they aren't racist because of it.

That has nothing to do with ignoring antisemitism.

[geek tragedy]

14. The only ones mentioning anti-zionism are the Arab governments.

Fact: The Arab governments oppose condemnations of anti-semitism.

One can spin that however one wants, but that's the fact. They are opposed to the condemnation of a form of bigotry and racism. How convenient that these same governments happen to encourage the spread of anti-semitic propaganda.

They don't want to condemn anti-semitism because they are complicit in its spread.

They are on the same moral plane as Jim "I'm outraged at the outrage" Inhofe.


You don't suppose situations like this have anything to do with their decision:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP22501

<snip>
Concluding the show, the host, Dr. Faisal Al-Qasem, read the results of the internet poll held on the Al-Jazeera web site comparing Zionism and Nazism. 12,374 people participated in the poll and the results are as follows: "84.6% of Arabs said that Zionism is worse than Nazism; 11.1% said that Zionism is equal to Nazism; 2.7% said that Nazism is worse than Zionism. All that is left for me to do is to congratulate the Zionists for this painful result; indeed, they have excelled in exceeding the Nazis."
<snip>

[Classical_Liberal]

18. If the antisemitism resolution includes and antizionsm is racism plank

they may have good reason to oppose it That is not spin. That is a fact.

Comparing zionsim with nazism is dumb too, bit it doesn't justify demonizing arabs who were against the creation of the Israeli state as racist.

[geek tragedy]

19. Where does it say that?

There's no evidence that it says that "antizionism=racism."

If you can find evidence to the contrary, please proceed.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. The Jordanian minister was concerned about it

in the quote in the article. I put it in my original post. Jordan is a moderate country with respect to Israel. That is why I don't think Haaretz is telling the whole story.

I have seen the way Israel including the center left spins and destorts Arab positions and I wouldn't be surprised if they are distorting this story as well. Haaretz originally claimed the ICG didn't address the problem of terrorism in its decision on the wall. Haaretz also reported that the ICG objected to the wall in general instead of its location.

I have become an extreme sceptic on claims made by Israel, and its supporters.

[Gimel]

22. The conference

was to make that distinction. What is behind the Arab states position is what is stated.

the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source.

Jordan is an Arab state, although moderate. Therefore it is trying to see both sides of the issues. It falls flat.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Doesn't fall flat on me. Look at the catholic statement that

antizionism is antisemitism. The Palestinians didn't want an Israeli state for the obvious reason that it required ethnic cleansing so that demonizes them.

Haaretz also claimed that the ICJ decision opposed the wall when it just opposed the location of the wall.

It also claimed the decision ignored terrorism when terrorism was specifically addressed in the decision.

Haaretz isn't always very honest in it's charaterization of things.

[Gimel]

33. The ICJ decision

Going back to those reports, you'll see that saying that the ICJ opposes the fence in their ruling is exactly correct. The ruling could only be for that portion of the fence which is over the Green Line. So any other part of the fence wouldn't even be in the case. Also the only reference to terrorism was in quoting Israel's position, and no proper assessment was given to that. It was merely dismissed.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Weasle words, since they could only rule on the portion not on the green

line, than they couldn't possibly rule against the fence in general. Dah.

Not mentioning this fact was a sin of ommision on the part of Haaretz and only proves my point that Haaretz has a tendency to leave important points out of stories.

[Gimel]

35. Could you point that out?

I believe it was mentioned, if only as footnote.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

40. UN anti-Israel bias

The major points concerning the anti-Israel bias of the UN, includes the compostion of the security Council, which although a rotating membership, and by UN LAW, every UN the 'principle of the "sovereign equality of all member states" ' should give Israel an opportunity to serve on the Security Council. Thus, the UN violates it's own statutes. The UN should be declared illegal under international law. "Israel is the only country in the world that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council".

The U.N. has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets - including xenophobia - but has consistently refused to condemn anti-Semitism. It only was on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the U.N.'s founding, that the word anti-Semitism was first mentioned in a U.N. resolution (GA Res. A/53/623).

More..

[Violet_Crumble]

63. That's a pretty crappy and outdated link there...

Newsflash: Israel is a member of the WEOG and is eligible to serve on the Security Council...

Violet...

[Djinn]

65. xenophobia isn't specific

they havn't called on the world to denounce anti-arab hatred either - is there any reason why anti-semitism should get special treatment over and above any other form of bigotry

[bemildred]

43. A few comments:

1.) Jordan being part of this may be taken as another sign of
declining US influence. Jordan may be mending fences, they may not
feel they are able to rely on Uncle Sugar to protect them, they
may have internal political issues that must be dealt with. One
can tie all this to the failure in Iraq, too, which has put Jordan
in a very ugly position.

2.) One has to wonder whether Jordan's position is related to the
dispute over Air-to-air missile sales?

3.) If one's actual interest is to end anti-semitism, this is not a
good sign, we seem to be going in the wrong direction. Maybe it would
be wise to consider why that is so, rather than wringing one's hands
and condemning things even more frantically than before.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. Response

1.) Jordan being part of this may be taken as another sign of
declining US influence. Jordan may be mending fences, they may not
feel they are able to rely on Uncle Sugar to protect them, they
may have internal political issues that must be dealt with. One
can tie all this to the failure in Iraq, too, which has put Jordan
in a very ugly position.

If we are going to dispute how many teeth has a horse, then we might want to find a horse and open his mouth.

Without seeing the resolution itself, it would be difficult to say what the motivation for Jordan's opposition is. Jordan is charging that the resolution is an attempt to stifle criticism of Israel by labeling it as anti-Semitic. We've certainly seen enough of that to know it's a legitimate concern. But is it in this instance?

It is also true that Arab regimes, like base racists anywhere else, have tolerated some vile anti-Semitism in an attempt to undermine support for Israel.

2.) One has to wonder whether Jordan's position is related to the
dispute over Air-to-air missile sales?

Again, without seeing the resolution itself, we don't know how well or poorly founded are Jordan's objections to it. If it turns out that the objections are poorly founded then we may begin to wonder what motivates Jordan.

On the other hand, all Arab regimes are taking a stand against this resolution, not just one with a pending missile sale. Are their objections any better founded than Jordan's?

3.) If one's actual interest is to end anti-semitism, this is not a
good sign, we seem to be going in the wrong direction. Maybe it would
be wise to consider why that is so, rather than wringing one's hands
and condemning things even more frantically than before.

I agree that we are going in the wrong direction. We must bear in mind that the I/P conflict is fundamentally a racist conflict and that neither side is free of racism.

This has gotten so bad that, as we should all recall, it isn't even possible to pass a UN resolution condemning the killing of children.

[bemildred]

49. I'm not sure how much we disagree.

I don't disagree with what you say, except as follows:

You (apparently) feel Jordan's position with regard to the
resolution is likely based a good deal on the content of the
resolution. I am skeptical about that, I think Jordan's position
on the resolution is more likely based on political considerations
of various sorts. Neither of us at present is in a position to
know.

I found Jordan's position most interesting because it has generally
been considered "reliable" and "moderate" and so on, so this
appears to be a shift. One could make similar comments about a
few other muslim states, but Jordan was the one that has struck
me as being most out of character here.

You are quite correct that having the language of the resolution
before us would help a good deal, and it is odd, perhaps even
telling, that we do not.

[Jack Rabbit]

51. You're wrong. I am skeptical of Jordan's position

However, without seeing the draft resolution, one cannot be certain.

[bemildred]

56. Then I don't see where we disagree. nt

[bemildred]

58. It was you who instructed me some time ago that

"all diplomats are liars", a lesson I have taken to
heart, and I thank you for it. I am therefore little
inclined to spend time parsing their words, had they
even been available, but prefer rather to consider what
facts and speculations might explain their actions.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. True, I was and they are

Diplomats, attorneys, politicians and salesmen are all occupational liars.

Now we need to see what they're arguing over. After all, the resolution was written by . . . diplomats.

[Djinn]

52. Just tit for tat bullshit by the look of it

Israel and the US REGULARLY veto statements condemning the latest bunch of Palestinians shot or blown up the IDF because the statement doesn't ALSO condemn suicide bombings.

P'raps the Arab countries are trying on a bit of stupid pedantry themselves. Personally I wouldn't be comfortable with the UN giving out general pronouncements like this either - whether it be vague condemnations of Israeli behaviour in the OT or vague ones about "anti-semitism" especially if we're to beleive the Israeli governments definition of anti-semitism.

If there is something SPECIFIC to condemn, do so, otherwise condemn ALL bigotry, antisemitism isn't worse or better than the anti-arab hatred coursing through much of the developed world right now or the hatred ingrained in the Indian caste system or that seen in Australia towards aboriginal people.