At 14:44 03-05-2002 -0400, Gautam Mukunda wrote: >There is an obvious assumption here. That they will receive a fair >hearing. But there is absolutely nothing in the history of the UN that >suggests that Israel is likely to receive a fair hearing from the UN. >Given that fact, why should they let in a commission one of whose members >has already been plausibly accused of anti-semitism? Let's set aside >whether the accusation is true or not - it wasn't possible for the UN to >find three people none of whom has made anti-semitic comments in a public >forum?
It is quite possible that those people were not considered anti-Semitic by the UN, and perhaps not even *are* anti-Semitic. I have noticed that some people are very quick to label someone anti-Semitic (sometimes so quick that it borders on paranoia) even when they are not. I for one am not anti-Semitic, yet you and some others have repeatedly accused me of being just that. Me: That's not the point, Jeroen. The man compared the Star of David to the Nazi swastika. Now, maybe he's not anti-semitic. Maybe he is. But it is reasonable to think that he might be. In the US such a statement would be immediate evidence of bias enough to exclude you from such a commission. The UN couldn't find _three people_ who had never made such statements? Not even three? The point isn't whether he actually was biased or not. Serving on such a commission isn't a right that has to be accorded justly. You choose the three people who are most likely to seem fair. This person obviously will not be perceived as fair by anyone. Does fairness to Israel matter to you, or is that not a disqualification? Out of curiosity, Jeroen, other than the statement "I hate all Jews" what would you consider evidence on anti-semitism? >Either that's true, which is a remarkable indictment of the UN, or >Kofi Anan just didn't care whether that was true of the commissioners, >which would also be an indictment of the UN. If they cooperate and are >unjustly found guilty - and the Palestinians themselves are now saying no >war crimes were committed, so based on the evidence that we now have, the >only way that they could be found guilty is if they were found so unjustly >- then that would do great harm to Israel. Better to use it as (yet >another) example of the UN's constant anti-Israel bias. If there is no evidence that Israel committed war crimes, not even the UN can find Israel guilty. If the UN finds Israel guilty they will have to provide proof of it; Israel can then try to show that the evidence given is false. I find your suggestion very worrying. Rather than giving Israel the chance to improve its image, you want the world to think of Israel as guilty of war crimes without an investigation so that the UN can be discredited. That would only serve any anti-UN bias on your part, not contribute anything positive to the situation in the Middle East. Jeroen Me: But I don't think anyone in the world whose opinion matters does think that Israel is guilty. The _Palestinians themselves_ say that no massacre took place. Photographs and eyewitness testimony have been produced of the Palestinians faking the deaths of people at Jenin. They themselves say that 56 people were killed, almost half of them Israeli soldiers. A commission as apparently biased as the on the UN assembled could only harm Israel. Now, there was one person on the commission I trusted - Bill Nash, the military advisor, who happens to be an old friend of mine. I would have been very curious to hear what he had to say if there had been any serious question about what happened. The Israelis say there was no massacre. The _Palestinians_ say there was no massacre. The only person who seems to think that one might have happened is...you. Gautam
