UN Member States and Non-State Parties
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/09
Some time back I created a thread about what appears to be a blatant United Nations bias against Israel. People brought up various counter arguments that were valid but did not explain why Israel is subject to more scrutiny than any other nation. So, I considered my point as of yet un-refuted. However, I was recently discussing the topic with a peer of mine and he brought up a very good point.

It is true that Israel’s crimes do seem to get more notice than that of other nations. It’s also true that the United Nations passes more condemnations against Israel than any other nation. However, that’s not because they’re biased against Israel. It’s because the conflicts Israel gets involved in aren’t usually with other member states of the United Nations.

It’s like the issue with Iran. The United Nations is proposing strict sanctions of Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program, but they’re overlooking the arsenal of nuclear weaponry known to be possessed by Israel. Well, that’s because the United Nations has no authority to sanction Israel because Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign that treaty so it’s in violation of the international agreement, which is all that international law amounts to, so the United Nations does have room to sanction Iran.

Hamas is not a member state of the United Nations. So the United Nations cannot pass resolutions condemning Hamas because Hamas exists outside of the United Nation’s authority. Israel is a member state of the United Nations and thus has agreed to international law and is held accountable as such. Joining the United Nations is like agreeing to follow a code or be punished for the failure to do so.

My friend linked me to this article:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/017EEFB458011C9D05256722005E5499

The link is a transcript of a UN security council held on October 27, 1953. It discusses the situation along the green line separating Israel and the Westbank which was at that time a region in the Arab nation of Jordan. There were occasionally flare ups from between the two sides. These were not just terrorist organizations that occupied the territory owned by Jordan, but rather Jordanian forces firing missiles across the border into the Jewish portion of Jerusalem and other border states. This is not like Gaza now, which is Palestinian Authority territory occupied by Hamas forces.

Now, if you read the article or just scroll down to the summary at the end you’ll see that there were non-state groups involved in the conflict, particularly on the Arab side. These private organizations are not condemned be they Jewish or Arab. However, Jordan and Israel are both repeatedly condemned. He points out that by my same logic that it’s not fair for the United Nations to pass resolutions that condemn Israel but not Hamas I can say that the United Nations was biased against Jordan for condemning them but not the terrorists firing missiles into Jerusalem.

To further stress that the United Nations was not biased against Israel he pointed out that there were actually more condemnations against Jordan than Israel and the same measure of attention was paid to both states. If they were biased against Israel they would’ve scrutinized Israel more than Jordan and passed more condemnations against Israel than Jordan. Instead, they simply condemned violations of UN member states while ignoring topics outside of their jurisdiction like the behavior of individual groups amongst the civilian bodies.


It seems to be a legitimate argument to me. Israel is being condemned because it’s a member state. Meanwhile Hamas and terrorist groups are not being condemned because they’re not member states.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

It’s like the issue with Iran. The United Nations is proposing strict sanctions of Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program, but they’re overlooking the arsenal of nuclear weaponry known to be possessed by Israel. Well, that’s because the United Nations has no authority to sanction Israel because Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign that treaty so it’s in violation of the international agreement, which is all that international law amounts to, so the United Nations does have room to sanction Iran.


Actually the treaty binding all nations on the world, either those who possess Nuclear Weapon, using it for peaceful energy and those who even do not possess any nuclear facility nor wanted to have it. As the article of NPT says:

Undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

In a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.


Treaty Pillars
From second pillar:
The NPT's preamble contains language affirming the desire of treaty signatories to ease international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals.

Also from third pillar:



Now, why only those 4 countries do not signed the treaty? From over a hundred of nations on the world has signed it, even though they don't have nay intention to develop nuclear facility.

India = Political Purpose, Mainly because of China and their conflict of border war. "If China can have it, why we cannot?"

Pakistan = Political Reason, given by US. And politics play. "US is always right"

North Korea = War and Political Purpose. They use this to gain International attentions as trump card to against World's sanctions. "We have Nuclear, so be 'considerate' to us"

Israel = Political Reasons and Purposes. Supported by US, being forgotten by UN and the world. And its bad relations to Middle-East nations. "We do not being proven has Nuclear Weapon, simply because UN never had intention to check it"


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hamas is not a member state of the United Nations. So the United Nations cannot pass resolutions condemning Hamas because Hamas exists outside of the United Nation’s authority. Israel is a member state of the United Nations and thus has agreed to international law and is held accountable as such. Joining the United Nations is like agreeing to follow a code or be punished for the failure to do so.


That's true, because even Hamas wanted to join United Nations. The Palestinian government which is NOT being eleceted by Palestinian people in 2006, doesn't want to recognized them and prevent them to do so. As they wanted to stay on the top of Palestinian people and gain support by Israel and US government to gain control (Which is actually most Palestinian didn't choice Fatah) and saying Hamas is terrorist just because they lost the election, thus disrupt the country into chaos because of it.

Well, this is the face of democracy which is turned to regime as Puppet Leader to control and following what US did.(Well, this time is not really, though. Because what Israel did is really unacceptable as Mahmoud Abbas condemned it and the peace treaty is not working)



SeraphAlford wrote:

The link is a transcript of a UN security council held on October 27, 1953. It discusses the situation along the green line separating Israel and the Westbank which was at that time a region in the Arab nation of Jordan. There were occasionally flare ups from between the two sides. These were not just terrorist organizations that occupied the territory owned by Jordan, but rather Jordanian forces firing missiles across the border into the Jewish portion of Jerusalem and other border states. This is not like Gaza now, which is Palestinian Authority territory occupied by Hamas forces.


It's actually understandable. From the report, what I can see is the Israel's attack to civilians people in villages.



Now, for what reasons Israel attacked those villages and killing innocent people in process?
If we're being attacked it's only natural to fight back, right? It's called self-defense in my opinion.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Now, if you read the article or just scroll down to the summary at the end you’ll see that there were non-state groups involved in the conflict, particularly on the Arab side. These private organizations are not condemned be they Jewish or Arab. However, Jordan and Israel are both repeatedly condemned. He points out that by my same logic that it’s not fair for the United Nations to pass resolutions that condemn Israel but not Hamas I can say that the United Nations was biased against Jordan for condemning them but not the terrorists firing missiles into Jerusalem.

It seems to be a legitimate argument to me. Israel is being condemned because it’s a member state. Meanwhile Hamas and terrorist groups are not being condemned because they’re not member states.


But they are also Palestinian people. they have rights to choose who is appropriate to lead the country. But because of the other side loss the election and can't accept the result, they can't be helped but struggle to keep the real voice of Palestinian people that been chose Hamas as the winner in 2006 election.

Same goes to Afghanistan, if they do not being recognized and their voice always being transmitted as terrorist, it'll spread conflict across the country. As the government do not want to recognize their voice and also wants to hold power supported by big power nations, the militant (opposition) would always against their own government, their own people, killing their own countrymen because the accusations by 'legalized government' meanwhile those militant are 'legalized people' who represent their true voice by not agreeing having such Puppet Leader.
You must be logged in to post.