UNpanel adopts measure on PA children

[papau]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/358123.html

UN panel adopts measure on Palestinian children
By Reuters

UNITED NATIONS - An Egyptian-sponsored resolution demanding that Israel protect Palestinian children was adopted by a UN General Assembly panel on Thursday, while a corresponding measure on Israeli
children was postponed until next week.

Israel, the target of hundreds of critical UN resolutions,on Tuesday introduced its first assembly draft in morethan a quarter century,
mirroring the Egyptianmeasure.

But diplomats said chances of approval were slim. It would condemn attacks on Israeli children byPalestinian suicide bombers. <snip>

[rini]

1. I was so sure the resolution would pass

What little respect I had left for the UN is gone. My Congressman submitted a resolution asking the UN to leave the US. I was against this. I will now write him and ask him (pending the vote next week) to resubmit the resolution.

[drdon326]

3. The Spineless UN.

should be called UNFSBOI....

United Nations For Shameless Bashing Of Israel.

[Darranar]

5. ?

How exactly are they "spineless"?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

7. Well, let's see:

Egypt pushes protection for Palestinian children.

The U.N. refuses to deal with the Israeli request for protection of Israeli children.

Could it be the U.N. is showing a lack of spine in standing up to its Arab constituency and their supporters by not approving the protection of Israeli children? The answer is: Yes, not only could it be - per usual, it IS.

[Darranar]

10. They didn't not approve anything.

[Djinn]

12. Yep best we get rid of it

and just let Bushco get on with the process of putting us all in danger?!?!

Just a question re the "lack of spine" do you berate your own governemnt for pouring BILLIONS into Israeli coffers EACH YEAR but not giving equal amounts to the Palestinians??

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

17. No, Israel gets more...

not "approximately the same".

And Egypt isn't Israel's enemy.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

22. Yes, Israel gets more.

Israel gets 2.2 and Egypt 1.97.

[Djinn]

56. Nice of you top come out

and basically state that you think all palestinians are terrorists

try swapping the word palestinian for jew and then try making the statement again - you wont get two words out before someone screaming that you clearly have nothing to add because of your rampant anti-semitism -- the same applies to generalisations about palestinians.

[rini]

23. considering their PAs

esteemed leader (who has never done an honest days work in his life) is now a billionaire, why do they need more money? Get back what was stolen.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

28. LOL, rini

:yourock:

[newyorican]

13. Did you read the article?

The word used is postponed, not refused...

The only "refusing" in the article is the usual gang of suspects:

The Egyptian draft resolution was passed by a
vote of 88 to 4 but with 58 abstentions. The
United States, Israel, Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands voted against it, while the 15
European Union nations and Canada were among
the abstentions.

Though the prospects don't look good, is it really surprising in light that Israel voted against the measure for Palestinian children? It would seem common sense that Israels vote today closes the door to getting any support for their resolution. You can argue that Israel would not have gotten the support anyway, but with todays vote against Palestinian children, we'll never know for sure. Another diplomatic failure Sharon will spin into the UN simply hating Israel(and by proxy Jews).

[papau]

18. "slim chance" for mirror resolution submitted at same time

I read that as refuses.

And I 'll put $25 toward your horse among the 9 if it passes next week!

[tinnypriv]

20. That also makes the Israeli envoy: a) a liar, b) manipulative, or c) both

To wit:

"We (Israel) would prefer neither to pass, but if Egypt's is passed, then ours should be passed as well"

Obviously Israel voted against the Egyptian resolution in order to prevent their own from being adopted, in line with official GOI policy. :eyes:

If anybody wanted the Israeli resolution to be adopted, they should take it up with Israel. All other commentary is irrelevant.

[papau]

26. the logic you are using - please explain

the Israeli wants the UN to stay out of Israel/PA diputes.

Prefers nothing passes.

and this means the Israeli wants the UN to not feel protective of kids - and wants palestian kids protected, and jewish kids not?

And once the UN decides against the Iraeli position of passing nothing, the Israeli resolution must be voted down by the protect the kids folks becaue of what reason?

[tinnypriv]

37. This is all trivially obvious

In international voting forums, the system works basically like all things in life: you try and adjust your actions to bring about outcomes in your favor, basing this on predictable consequences.

The easiest way of making sure the Israeli resolution doesn't get adopted is for Israel to vote against the Egyptian one. Exactly what happened. Completely predictable.

Now, the GOI envoy is not an idiot and knows this. It therefore follows the actions he took were intended to have this consequence. Given the public comments by him, it also follows that official GOI policy is:

a) prevent any of these resolutions from being adopted (total victory).

If that can't be achieved, then the propaganda fallback is:

b) act in such a way as to prevent their own resolution from being adopted, whilst ensuring the Egyptian one will be (partial victory).

Not:

c) vote with the Egyptian resolution, giving their own resolution the best possible chance of being adopted (this would be a stalemate).

If you want both resolutions adopted, blame Israel for not taking option (c). If you want just the Israeli resolution adopted, you're crazy, and if you want just the Palestinian resolution adopted, thank Israel for helping to bring that about.

[papau]

43. The Jew finds victory in getting crapped on?

sorry - but that kind of "victory" is not part of my logic.

Oh wait - the Jew wants to be a victim so that he can look like a victim and therefore be beaten or killed - - the Jew wanted to be beaten or killed because he wanted that precious victim status.

I am sorry - that is logical after all.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

44. You are wrong

Please substitute "Palestinian" for "Jew" in your 2nd paragraph above.

You want to fit in here, doncha?

[tinnypriv]

50. Amusingly, you're actually both right (nt)

[Darranar]

47. Why bring "the Jew" into the picture?

What does his religion matter?

[tinnypriv]

49. Of course

Exactly the same as Egypt wanting a propaganda victory making the Palestinians seem like the only victims. Hence, they excluded all references to Israeli children in their resolution.

The GOI would have been right to attempt to correct that (by introducing their own resolution), but that wasn't their aim in the slightest. They were only interested in keeping the UN out of their oppression of the Palestinians. They failed in that attempt, but achieved an easy propaganda victory of their own regardless.

Win/win for Arab governments and Israel, lose/lose for Palestinians and Israelis.

The usual story.

[Darranar]

52. Well...

how do you know that that wasn't their aim?

The GOI would have been right to attempt to correct that (by introducing their own resolution), but that wasn't their aim in the slightest.

[tinnypriv]

54. Because they voted against the Egyptian resolution

Best chance of Israeli resolution adoption:

Israel votes for both resolutions.

Worst chance:

Israel votes against the Egyptian one, but votes for its own.

It did the latter. It follows that it did not want to have its own resolution adopted. Hence, its goal was something else.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

6. Especially interesting is

when I posted the fact that Israel had made her first U.N. proposal, I was trounced. Everyone who posted (P, that is) stated how easily this would pass, how it was some sort of pay-back to Israel. The thread/the news article was disparaged in the way so many that are not disparaging of Israel seem to be in I/P. So, guess what? The U.N. is still behaving like the U.N. - shocking, I tell you, just shocking!

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Where does it say the resolution hasn't passed?

The Resolution has been postphoned, a completely different thing. And if the prospects of Egypt voting against a Resolution calling for the protection of Israeli children is what makes any respect you had for the UN to go, I have to ask why you had any even before this when Israel and the US voted against the resolution calling for protection for Palestinian children? Or when the US refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Or how they sided with fundamental Islamic states to vote against conventions concerning women? Why doesn't all that matter to you?

p.s. Please hurry up with writing to yr Congressman. I'm hoping to eventually be working for the UN and I'd much rather it was anywhere else than New York. I vote for relocating UN Headquarters to the north coast of New South Wales ;)


Violet...

[Darranar]

2. Neither one really matters...

nothing will be accomplished.

All that will result is more UN-bashing.

[Jim Sagle]

9. And maybe that's a GOOD thing, after all.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

11. Great spin!

:yourock:

[Jim Sagle]

34. Likewise.

:bounce:

[ForestsBeatBushes]

42. Just noticed your signature line:

it's grrrrrrrreat!

[Jim Sagle]

57. I like yours too.

[tinnypriv]

4. "Refuses"?

I don't see that in the article.

Nor did you cut and paste the fact that the entire EU abstained.

[tinnypriv]

14. Also - "PA children"?

How are innocent Palestinian children owned by the Palestinian Authority?

At least write "GOI children", then you'd be wrong, but consistent. :eyes:

[papau]

21. Palestinian area kids - man -o-man --- thw question is why the UN

types say the protect jewish kids version must be "postponed" - and that it has no way in hell of passing.

Jewish kids blood is not red enough?

or is the UN biased against kids with parents in Israel?

[tinnypriv]

32. I suggest you just admit the error and drop the racist terms

And either:

a) adopt consistent racist terms on both sides:

"PA children", "GOI children".

b) adopt non-racist terms for both sides:

"Palestinian children", "Israeli children".

Your questions I addressed elsewhere. Fulminating in an attempt to distract is rather unbecoming in my opinion.

[papau]

35. GOY children?

:-)

and "racist" ??? --- nice hot button word when both sides "pass" as the other.

You do know that race has no scientific basis? - just another word for tribe - although in the US we use skin color for race - we just can't tell anyone at what hade one moves from white to black.

:-)

[tinnypriv]

40. I'm aware of the academic discussions on 'racist' as a usage

I use it in the serious sense, i.e. commonly understood usage. Not some ivory tower nonsense.

Associating children as "belonging" to their government in the sense of:

Palestinian children = object of PA

is racist.

Just as:

Israeli children = object of GOI

is also racist.

Next you'll bring up dialectics. :)

[papau]

46. "belonging" as identified with as in the basis for a distinction that you

se - you the "racist"??? I know your not, but you threw a slow one over the plate :-) - in any case it is a distinction I do not see.

Want to have a go with dialectics?

This has been fun - but old men (me) must go to bed when the meds hit -

till tomorrow!

[papau]

19. EU did abstain - but EU is also not pushing protect jewish kids either

not that the UN resolutions mean much these days

[tinnypriv]

24. *Israel* didn't want it's own resolution adopted

It specifically stated that it wanted both thrown out, or both passed. The latter is a lie, since it voted against the Egyptian one. Hence, it wanted the former.

Take it up with the GOI.

Unless of course you happen to think that Israel should be allowed to vote against a resolution protecting children it occupies, but the allies of those under occupation are supposed to vote to protect the children in the occupying state? :eyes:

[papau]

30. That is spinning - not logic: How can it vote for PA resolution if it

wants neither to pass.

A test of your point would have been if the Iraeli resolution was voted on first - and if the Iraeli did not vote against - your point about his statement is true.

But that did not happen.

"not proven that he told the truth" is the best you - we - can say about his statement.

[tinnypriv]

38. Israel held a single position before the vote:

It said that it wanted either:

a) both passed
b) none passed

It also said it preferred (b) (This is an "either/or" situation, not "and/also")

Israel could have voted for the Egyptian resolution consistent with a), or voted against consistent with b).

Now that the vote has taken place, it is clear that wanting position (a) was a lie. The logic is correct, the Israeli spin is what is false.

This was obvious as soon as the envoy opened his mouth about it.

[papau]

41. The announced preferred position - for 25 years - is UN out of picture

Why do you think that for this vote the Israeli position was "we can take either - equally"?

But we will see if those child protecting countries will vote for the Israeli resolution next week - or ever - and prove the folks that believe the UN biased against Israel wrong.

We will see.

Indeed the $25 I offer to donate to the one of the 9 that is your choice will be money I will be most happy to pay.

I want to be wrong about UN bias.

But I do not think I am.

[tinnypriv]

53. You're probably not wrong

But if the Israeli resolution is adopted, it will be in spite of the best efforts of Israel to prevent that from happening.

They introduced it with the same amount of seriousness as the US has for nuclear disarmament talks - i.e. they meant it to fail.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. What about Israeli kids??

Kids who are citizens of Israel aren't important enough to be protected if they're not Jewish? If yr actually talking about Israeli children, then refer to them as Israeli children and not Jewish children...


Violet...

[Gimel]

64. Yeah

Only the PA is uni-ethnic.

On edit:

The article says:
It would condemn attacks on Israeli children byPalestinian suicide bombers

Clear enough?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. How about reading the post I'm responding to?

I was referring to a comment made by Papau, not what the article said...

Clear enough?


Violet...

[newyorican]

8. That's not the title of the article you link to...

and I don't see where the UN panel "refuses" the proposed resolution.

On Edit: Nice try but no cigar.

[papau]

16. Title changed to article title - but note 3rd paragraph -Jewish kids

have a "slim chance" in UN.

[newyorican]

25. That is not the title of the article...

and I'm amazed at the blatant intellectual dishonesty. It's almost pathological in that it is so easily disproved. When I click on the link *you* provide the title of the article is:

UN panel adopts measure on Palestinian children

Period (as in end of title). If you have a problem with the title, take it up with Ha'aretz; if you have a problem with the rules, take it up with Skinner.

Don't try to be too cute by half and wink while breaking the rules. There is plenty of room in body of the post for your editorial comments, which is where they belong BTW.

My thoughts on the slim chances of the Israeli resolution are in my #13. If Israel expected any support for their resolution, they should've considered the effect of their voting against Palestinian children today. A point some seem determined to overlook as the shoe obviously pinches on the other foot.

[papau]

31. Explanatory comments after article title have been used for 2 years

on this forum

your point?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

27. You are being stubborn...

The title is:


UN panel adopts measure on Palestinian children


Please change it - it's da rules...

[papau]

33. For you - ok - but it is not necessary

:-)

[ForestsBeatBushes]

39. Thank you

This is too interesting to get the thread locked and I did see others "mentioning" it...

B-)

[rini]

29. Now perhaps I have missed something here

like children are children regardless, where did I read that? Guess Israeli kids don't count. Foolish me, I thought the argument was over policy. Wrong again!

[newyorican]

36. If it is as you say...

and the correct stance should be "children are children regardless", perhaps you can square that laudible sentiment with Israel voting against the resolution for Palestinian children today?

The follow-up would be, are you surprised that the chances for the Israeli resolution have diminished given the Israeli vote today?

[papau]

45. Again the UN could have tested your theory by voting on the Iraeli

motion first.

If the Iraeli voted for that resolution - and then against the Palestinian resolution - your point would be true.

But in the order they are being taken up, the folks that have heard of the Iraeli position that the UN should be not involved in Israeli/Palestinian affairs - and have not heard that Israeli had just changed from that position - would assume that Israeli would prefer no resolution - and would vote that way - as they have.

Now Israeli's vote for - or against - will not pass the Israeli resolution - so let us see if the child protecting countries want to protect Jewish kids - those countries obviosly have the votes.

[newyorican]

48. Your logic is convoluted...

and that is being kind. The test of the "theory" would be for Israel to vote yes today and see who is hypocritical next week. Not being prepared to do that, there is no test.

If you can't (or refuse) to see that Israels vote on the Egyptian resolution today, negates any possible test for their own resolution next week, then debate is useless. Diplomacy is the name of the game at the UN, and the current GOI is a dismal failure at diplomacy.

On Edit: Sorry about the snide logic remark, it wasn't called for. A better way to put it might be; the point you are valiantly contorting logic and yourself to try to make require some stark examination as to why the contortions are neccessary. Hmm...that still sounds snide to me, but it is unintentional.

[tinnypriv]

58. I disagree in part

I think it is quite a clever diplomatic move on the part of Israel.

They surely know that the headlines will be "UN: protect Palestinians, don't protect Israelis".

Instead of "Israel: don't protect Palestinians; Arabs: don't protect Israelis".

Unless of course, the Arab states in spite of themselves figure out how to nix the Israeli moves and vote on the Israeli resolution. Extremely unlikely, because they're pretty stupid.

[newyorican]

59. There seems to be a surplus...

of stupidity.

Your on the mark with this being good for propaganda purposes and bad for everyone else.

[The Magistrate]

60. Your Excellent Description Of The Process, My Friend

Only drives home the point that this is a text-book definition of a tempest in a tea-pot. Neither resolution had any real purpose, save possible use in future as a propagandist's talking point, and for that, of course, rejection serves as well as passage.

[tinnypriv]

62. Exactly

Though the best line of the thread goes to newyorican:

"good for propaganda purposes and bad for everyone else".

:thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

63. That Is A Good One, Sir

[The Magistrate]

61. The Machine Hiccoughed

[Jackie97]

66. All children should be protected.....

Anybody who won't go for that type of a resolution needs to go suck an egg.

I notice that some countries, including the US voted against the resolution to protect Palestinian childen. Shame on us.

I have to say that I do think that a point has been made about the fact that the Palestinians have been under a 40 year occupation, making those children in more need of protection. They're in more need of protection because IDF has killed quite a few of them. I can see shooting at a crowd of kids about to stone a person from IDF that has no machine to hide in, but otherwise, it's uncalled for. Furthermore, IDF has been known to kill kids just for breaking a curfew.

I also have to add that Palestinian children need more protection because some of their elders (such as those from Hamas) are trying to recruit them to fight the Israelis. The Palestinian children are not only in danger from the IDF, but also from groups such as Hamas.