I have not seen anyone yet address the jist of the article itself.
Perhaps because the article is barely worth commenting on.
Just as an example:
The list of hijacked U.N. organs goes on. The General Assembly operates through six committees of the whole. One of them, the Fourth Committee, routinely devotes 30 percent of its time to the condemnation of Israel.
So 1 of 6 committees devotes a third of it's time to the Israel/Palestine problem. Assuming all committees are equally important, you get one third of one sixth of General Assembly committee time is spent on the issue, or just over 5%.
But saying 5% of General assembly committee time is spent on the Israel/Palestine issue doesn't sound quite so bad, does it?
Every schoolchild or member of the public who walks into U.N. Headquarters today (and the entire month of December) will be greeted by a large display in the front entrance put on by that main U.N. body, the Committee on Palestinian Rights.
So a display is mounted in the UN foyer for a month about the Palestinians. Considering the issue has been festering for nearly 60 years, I'd have thought it would get a display every so often.
Or is the whole issue one that should be swept under the carpet and never mentioned?
How (or why) is it that this world body has devoted so much time/money/resources to promoting the Palistinian cause, and so much time/money/resources condeming Israel?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the premise behind the question.
The UN is the body that basically created Israel in the first place. I'm unaware of any resources spent on condemning Israel, other than people sitting around talking about it.
The UN has called for peacekeeping troops for many much smaller conflicts, and hundreds of thousands of peacekeeping troops have been deployed worldwide.
What's unusual about such a long running international conflict is that the UN hasn't yet called for peacekeepers, which is due to the intervention of the US and Israel, which would not allow them.
What the author of the article is ignoring, and hope you will ignore as well, is that the UN has no mandate to get involved in internal affairs of a country. It was set up to facilitate peaceful relations
between countries. Few of it's memebers would be happy if it was allowed to intefere in purely domestic affairs.
How is it that they have not yet been able to come up with a simple definition for "terrorism?"
How is it America never did?
An Arab killing Americans, Europeans or Jews was always a terrorist to America. An Irishman killing British people, well that's a "complex issue", and said Irishmen visited the US, were guests of honour at St Patrick's day parades, etc.
I could try to dig out a photo of Gerry Adams, leader of the most active and bloody terrorist group in post war Europe, meeting Clinton and shaking his hand at the White House.
The US allowed fund raising for the IRA in the US, and never moved to prevent it (in fact, it still goes on, to fund the dissident republican groups behind the Omagh bombing)
So if the US can't define terrorism, how is the UN< which is composed of over a hundred member states, supposed to?
