Israel to block Irish UN religion motion

our_man · December 13, 2003, 09:37

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...HM1MOTION.html

Basically Ireland is proposing a general motion that condemns all religious intolerance, and Israel is angry that anti-Semitism is not getting a specific mention. This is ridiculous; to promote anti-Semitism above other forms of religious intolerance is wrong. Israel is acting irresponsibly by acting against this motion for no good reason.

Irelands compromise proposal was to propose a seperate motion to deal with anti-Semitism (which I personally consider to be a more sensible approach and fully support). However this was blown out of the water by (yup, you guessed it) those wonderful Arabs/Muslims, which considering that they are the main perpetrators of anti-Semitism, isn't really that surprising.

So, what is everybody's opinion on the current state of affairs? Do any of you actually support Israels bigoted stance on this?

Az · December 13, 2003, 09:46

I don't tolerate religion.

Sandman · December 13, 2003, 09:50

Quote:

Ireland, which has sponsored the resolution for 20 years, declined Israel's request this year to include a condemnation of anti-Semitism, on the grounds that it would lead to the perception of a hierarchy of religious intolerance and detract from the resolution's universal scope.

Absolutely correct, in my view.

Combat Ingrid · December 13, 2003, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I don't tolerate religion.

Shi Huangdi · December 13, 2003, 10:26

Since when could Israel kill UN Motions?

our_man · December 13, 2003, 11:55

Shi, I don't fully understand myself how whether the motion passes or not hinges on Israels support, but the article explicitly states that Israels consensus is required for it to go through.

Bereta_Eder · December 13, 2003, 11:58

Perhaps it requires a unanimus vote and Israel is the only one refusing to either vote for or abstain?

our_man · December 13, 2003, 12:04

Paiktis, this motion is being put in front of the 191 member general assembly however, and I find it hard to believe that Israel would be the only group with a bee in their bonnet over the resolution.

Maybe they are the only ones though. Which makes their refusal to play ball even more shameful.

Bereta_Eder · December 13, 2003, 12:15

Interesting that the word "anti-arabism" appears in the text. About time.

Az · December 13, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Perhaps it requires a unanimus vote and Israel is the only one refusing to either vote for or abstain?

riiight... that's how all those crazy anti-israeli GA resolutions have passed. Israel voted for... but not this time.

mrmitchell · December 13, 2003, 12:51

This will make great fodder for the anti-Semites. "Israel hates all other religions! Does not support intolerance motion!"

Whaleboy · December 13, 2003, 12:58

Azazel:

Anti-semitism = religious intolerance. I dont see Israels problem.

Yes the holocaust was bad. Doesn't mean the world has to revolve around Jewish sensibility.

Bereta_Eder · December 13, 2003, 13:18

Then is US supporting Israel on this? Why is Israel specifically mentioned and not other countries? Just asking.

Bereta_Eder · December 13, 2003, 13:24

BTW this is really the "cold war". Arabs say something, Israel to block it. Israel says something, Arabs to block it. And then of course even if a 3rd party proposes something, both sides rush to capitalize on whatever it is. Although I suspect this must not be the only such occurence. Must be other constantly opposing duos too in the UN.

MrFun · December 13, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by our_man
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...HM1MOTION.html

Basically Ireland is proposing a general motion that condemns all religious intolerance, and Israel is angry that anti-Semitism is not getting a specific mention. This is ridiculous; to promote anti-Semitism above other forms of religious intolerance is wrong. Israel is acting irresponsibly by acting against this motion for no good reason.

Irelands compromise proposal was to propose a seperate motion to deal with anti-Semitism (which I personally consider to be a more sensible approach and fully support). However this was blown out of the water by (yup, you guessed it) those wonderful Arabs/Muslims, which considering that they are the main perpetrators of anti-Semitism, isn't really that surprising.

So, what is everybody's opinion on the current state of affairs? Do any of you actually support Israels bigoted stance on this?

I am usually pro-Israel when it comes to issues concerning that country, and the Palestinians.

But Israel is just being arrogant and unreasonable with this.

GePap · December 13, 2003, 15:01

The motion could be tied up in committee-after all, before something makes it to the whole body it has to go through committees.

The Israeli position is silly but understandable, at least from this government.

Az · December 13, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Anti-semitism = religious intolerance

not so at all. was the Anti-semite posterboy, Hitler, concerned with religion? didn't think so.

Sprayber · December 13, 2003, 16:50

A UN motion.

The world trembles

St Leo · December 13, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Anti-semitism = religious intolerance

not so at all. was the Anti-semite posterboy, Hitler, concerned with religion? didn't think so.

Yeah, Hitler sent people who were 1/16 Jewish to Happy Happy Fun Fun camps. Meh. I would have doubly qualified.

Anti-Semitism is different from Religious Intolerance in that it is a common Jewish view that an atheist who meets the descent rules of Judaism remains Jewish.

Az · December 13, 2003, 17:44

I am a jewish atheist.

Nubclear · December 13, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

All religious intolerance is bad. It's just that because Israel exists, anti-semitism is MUCH worse than other forms of religious intolerance.
We should doubly condemn it!

I tire of Israel constantly playing the "We were opressed during WW2!!!! Pay special attention to us!!!!".
But does it really surprise anyone?

Kuciwalker · December 13, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I am a jewish atheist.

As is my dad. I'm just an atheist, though

Az · December 13, 2003, 17:52

Edan · December 13, 2003, 20:07

While morally it's the wrong stance, politically it's the right one - I won't scratch your back if you won't scratch my back.

And the UN isn't a moral institution but a political one.

David Floyd · December 13, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

While morally it's the wrong stance, politically it's the right one - I won't scratch your back if you won't scratch my back.

Morally wrong? So, in your view, Judaism is morally superior, and should be given precedence over all other religions?

Well dammit, I say Christianity should! This motion is anti-Christian!

Edan · December 13, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Morally wrong? So, in your view, Judaism is morally superior, and should be given precedence over all other religions?

Israel's stance not to support the resolution is what's morally wrong (but politically correct).

But don't let me stop you trying to assume things in the future.

Ned · December 13, 2003, 20:32

I cannot understand why England is not also taking a firm stand against this dastardly and defamatory Irish propaganda proposal!

lord of the mark · December 15, 2003, 13:02

could the motivation have been that antisemitism is on the rise this last couple of years, and that the UN has not taken note of this in any form?

Oh, no, its just the JOO's using Hitler to grab vast acres of land in the verdant Pal territories.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 15, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
I cannot understand why England is not also taking a firm stand against this dastardly and defamatory Irish propaganda proposal!

Largely because England couldn't give a ****.

St Leo · December 15, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Largely because England couldn't give a ****.

Henry VIII must be rolling in his grave. Or not.