The UN Celebrates “Palestinians”, Hates Jews
By Alan Caruba
On Monday, November 24, the United Nations will commemorate its annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”, a hate-filled day that ignores its own role in the establishment of Israel.
An international institution that trumpets its Universal Declaration of Human Rights while openly seeking the destruction of the population of one of its member nations is so inherently debased that it should cease to exist.
The notion that the United States of America should continue to participate in the UN on the grounds that it is the only forum or means to resolve conflicts is absurd.
Monday’s observance marks November 29, 1947, the day that the United Nations voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in what was formerly the Palestinian Mandate whose administration had been ceded to Great Britain following the end of World War One.
The State of Israel was not created out of “Palestinian” lands. It was part of the Ottoman Empire that had ruled much of the Middle East for four hundred years and which, at the Versailles conference following the end of WWI, was divided into nations conjured up by England and France. Among the newly designated nations were Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
There were no “Palestinian” people claiming a land called Palestine. Most of the Arabs regarded themselves as living in the southern portion of Syria.
The 1947 UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining twenty percent of the Palestine Mandate. There was to be the State of Israel for the Jews and a new state for the Arabs.
What happened, however, was that the Arabs rejected a state of their own and launched a genocidal war against Israel. The war was the primary cause of the Arab refugee problem that exists today because none of the Arab nations in the region would accept the refugees and the UN facilitated their permanent status and continues to do so today.
There were, however, Jewish refugees. Between 1949 and 1954, an estimated 800,000 Jews were forced to flee the Arab and Muslims lands where they had lived for hundreds of years. In addition, many European Jews who had survived the Nazi Holocaust migrated to Israel. Later they would be followed by the persecuted Jews of Russia and other lands.
On Monday afternoon, the UN General Assembly will convene to discuss the “Question of Palestine” and if this is redolent of the Nazi “Final Solution” the comparison is accurate. The General Assembly is scheduled to adopt six resolutions condemning only Israel for violations of human rights. This will bring the total thus far this year to twenty such resolutions as opposed to four resolutions critical of any of the remaining 191 UN member nations.
Israel is not “occupying” land that belongs to a Palestinian state because no such state exists. It has occupied land won repeatedly in combat for its very existence. In recent years it ceded the Gaza strip to the Palestinian Liberation Authority, Fatah, but the result has been that Hamas drove Fatah from Gaza at gunpoint and now uses it to launch rockets against Israel on a daily basis. The West Bank, by any international standard, is a legitimate part of Israel.
The Arabs who did not flee Israel in 1947 were the lucky ones. They were able to remain in the only functioning, true democracy in the Middle East and today their children and grandchildren number more than a million Israel citizens, some of whom serve in the Israeli Knesset or parliament, on the Israeli Supreme Court benches, and as tenured professors in Israeli colleges and universities.
The United Nations continues to promulgate the most offensive anti-Semitism found anywhere in the world and Monday’s observance is just one aspect of it. Its “Durban II” conference on racism to be held in Geneva in April 2009 will be a repeat of the hateful first conference that was boycotted by several nations, including the United States. It should be condemned and avoided by all nations that take the professed UN Human Rights declaration at its word.
Those attending Monday’s International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People should be hosed down and driven from the chambers where it is held. The General Assembly should be seen for what it is, a place of shame, duplicity, and genocidal hatred in which no civilized nation should take its seat.
November 24, 2008
Once upon a time in a land far, far, away… illegal Immigration was a serious problem and the legal citizens of that land were up in arms about it. Then the issue disappeared. What happened? Methinks the media happened.
Have you wondered why Illegal immigration dropped from the radar screens of the media during the presidential campaign? I have. I suspect many of you have, as well.
Where did it go? The illegal aliens are still with us. Some estimates range as high as 20 million illegals here now. Even more illegal immigrants live and work among us every day in the US. We still have a border so wide open that it begs citizens of other countries to steal across it and take up residence in this country. As a result, they are still coming, by day and by night.
Some recent reports in the press indicate that since our financial crisis arose a huge number of illegals have returned to their hones. Let me ask you…doesn’t that validate the argument many of us made that the illegals are not here to become citizens of this great country? We have been saying, all along, they are here for the money. Now that the money has tightened up, and the job market has shrunk, they’re headed back home.
But why aren’t the two candidates for president talking about it? It is my opinion that there is no meaningful difference between the stances on illegal immigration of the two men running for President of the US.
If the illegal immigration thing ever does bubble to the top of the discussion between the two men the American voter is not going to like what he hears.
For Instance: Remember that John McCain co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill that would have legalized millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. and McCain still supports what he calls a “sensible” guest-worker program for workers who are in the country without legal documentation. Once the heat was turned up on the campaign trail he called for strengthening penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants.
If we go back and look at McCain’s record in the Senate, on illegal Immigration, what we find is very troubling. John McCain has voted in the past to extend social security benefits to illegals who have broken into our country, taken jobs from American citizens, drained the treasuries of our states and local governments by running up welfare costs, overloaded our schools while forcing the local taxpayers to fork over the money to pay for it. Those same illegals have devastated our hospitals, especially the emergency departments, through non-payment of hospital bills, and they have practically crushed our courts and law enforcement organizations with criminal conduct.
On the other hand, Obama has voted not to cut off funds to those “sanctuary cities,” and he voted for the Senate immigration overhaul bill. You may recall that bill was supposed to create stronger border controls, but, when you look closely, you find the bill would actually expand the guest-worker program and, over time, legalize millions of undocumented, or illegal immigrant workers, already in the country today. Obama has also sponsored a bill, which would allow states to provide in-state tuition for illegal aliens and he even supports giving driver licenses to illegal aliens.
But we aren’t hearing about this today. Why is that? Could it be because neither side wants it brought up? The media, so in the tank for Obama, knows that if they bring it up in relation to John McCain, it opens the door on Obama’s stance on illegal immigration. In other words, you can’t talk about one without talking about the other because there is just not that much difference between them on Illegal Immigration.
So… where does that leave the voter. I’m beginning to think the voter is complicit in all this. There is just no way the American voter can NOT know where these two men stand on illegal immigration. That said, why are so many voters going to vote for a candidate they do not agree with on illegal immigration? Because they feel they have no choice. I suspect the voters in both camps believe they are down to a choice between the lesser of two evils… again. I have to tell you… this is no way to run a country.
J. D. Longstreet