.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Monday, August 21, 2006

The Follies of International Diplomacy & "Peace-Making"

UPDATING: 9-30-2006 The pro-Arab, anti-national Olmert regime in Israel, headed by the immensely corrupt ehud olmert, has agreed to the stationing of Malaysian troops [Malaysian prime minister mahathir muhammad is an IslamoNazi]. If olmert did not agree to this, then he has not objected vigorously. If the UN in the person of kofi annan or the UNIFIL command are the ones who decided to bring in Malaysian troops, then Israel should threaten to prevent their arrival by force, and if need be, to destroy those troops in the service of a Nazi government.

UPDATING: Must read [in French] on Lebanon and the Hizbullah,
here and here.


The UN is not capable of making peace, if we go by the UN's past record. That leaves aside the issue of whether the UN --as a grouping of states and a bureaucracy-- wants peace --for Israel in particular. Indeed, how could the UN be capable of peacemaking or even want peace? Consider: The UN is a grouping of states each one of which has its own interests, and furthermore, there are blocs of states within the UN, subsets of the UN, that have group interests [here we define an interest as what a person or group is interested in achieving, not what an outside observer might consider best for the person or group]. So we can see that there are likely to be conflicts of interest between many state members of the UN and between blocs of states. So we see that even theoretically the UN is unlikely to make peace or to be able to make peace [see previous post].Obviously, the major blocs of states in the UN are more likely to get their interests represented in UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and in those of various subsidiary bodies like the "Human Rights Council." Further, the more powerful and influential states and blocs in the UN are more likely to be represented in the higher posts of the UN secretariat, such as the post of secretary-general. Now, Kofi Annan himself comes from Ghana, not an especially strong or important country. But he serves the interests of powerful, influential states and blocs.

The Arab bloc and the larger Islamic bloc are among the most powerful and influential in the UN. So Kofi Annan is servile towards them and hostile to those that they hate [i.e., Israel]. Meanwhile, the West does not view Israel as a part of itself, despite the fantasies of some Israeli politicians and intellectuals. The European Union today, as a whole, is hostile to Israel in many ways that follow in the groove of the past 2000 years of Western Judeophobia. Whereas 100 years ago, European Judeophobes stigmatized Jews as not being true or authentic Europeans --referring to their Middle Eastern [Oriental] origin-- the Jews in Israel today are stigmatized as not being true or authentic Middle Easterners. Fundamentally, the accusation is the same. The Jews are alien here and there and everywhere. The EU grandchildren of those who considered Jews alien to Europe, now consider Jews alien to the Middle East in general and the Land of Israel in particular.

Some of the conclusions ensuing from the above are that, in general, justice is not to be expected at the UN. Nor is any resolution favorable to Israel to be expected. Therefore, those Israeli ministers --first of all prime minister Olmert and foreign minister Livni-- who did not protest the way SC resolution 1701 was shaping up before it was voted on and later urged Israeli cabinet approval of 1701 are either liars or fools. Despite what the cretinous Livni claimed, the advantages she pointed to in urging acceptance of 1701 have evaporated. There is not going to be an international force that will disarm the Hizbullah. Nor will the UNIFIL be increased to 15,000 troops. Nor is it likely that any force, Lebanese or international, will work to prevent rearmament of the Hizbullah by controlling the Syrian-Lebanese border or the air and sea ports of Lebanon. Nor will the Hizbullah criminals be seized and tried. The Hizbullah will continue to dominate Lebanese politics, although it represents only a minority of the population. On the other hand, if Israel had continued fighting it would likely have weakened Hizbullah to the point where the elected Lebanese government would have used their army to suppress the remnants of Hizbullah. However, as long as Hizbullah maintains its strength, the Lebanese government is not going to fight it, fearing that the Hizbullah --as well as Shi`ite loyalties within the official army-- might overcome the government. The shameful debacle of the SC resolution 1701 once again demonstrates the destructive nature of the UN for peace in the world.

Whereas when 1701 was being formulated as well as after the Security Council vote on it, the press was full of claims that France --known to have a strong army-- would command it and commit many troops, now we hear that Italy will take the lead, sending the largest contingent of troops, though not as many as France was earlier reported as ready to send. But Italy is now ruled by a "center-left" coalition government. The foreign minister is a Communist [a democratic Communist, to be sure]. Here are some remarks by foreign minister D'Alema.

D'Alema: "The mission will aid the moderates. . . the situation is full of risks but Italy must answer Yes to the UN request." On the question of the Hizbullah, D'Alema observed that it "is not a small terrorist group but a complex movement that enjoys consensus and a vast parliamentary representation in Lebanon." D'Alema defends his photo taken with the deputy [ representing the] Hizbullah [in Lebanon's parliament]: "Taking into account costs and benefits, the cost of a photograph, that might have irritated and injured, with the benefit of an act of solidarity with the Lebanese people, I believe that I did well and acted in a positive way, even interpreting a positive sentiment widespread in our country. And anyhow, the voters will judge." [Il Foglio, 8-21-06]
D’Alema: “La missione aiuterà i moderati”. Secondo il ministro degli Esteri, “la situazione è colma di rischi ma l’Italia deve rispondere sì alla richiesta dell’Onu”. Sulla questione Hezbollah, D’Alema ha osservato che “non è un gruppetto terroristico ma un movimento complesso che gode di consenso e di una vasta rappresentanza parlamentare in Libano”. . . D’Alema difende la sua foto con il deputato di Hezbollah: “Mettendo in conto costi e benefici, il costo di una fotografia, che può aver irritato e ferito, con il beneficio di un atto di solidarietà al popolo libanese, io credo di aver fatto bene e di aver agito in modo positivo anche interpretando un sentimento positivo diffuso nel nostro paese. E comunque giudicheranno gli elettori”.
Il Foglio- 8-21-06
So D'Alema wants to help unidentified moderates by sending an Italian force to Lebanon. For him, the Hizbullah is not terrorist but "enjoys a consensus" in Lebanon, where it has the strongest armed force and intimidates other parties, and leading personalities. In fact, Walid Jumblatt, and even Sa`ad Hariri [whose father was murdered last year by Hizbullah's sponsor, Syria, as Syria had Jumblatt's father murdered in the 1970s] have shown courage in criticizing Hizbullah [without my necessarily agreeing with everything that they said].

Hizbullah is a minority party in the Lebanese parliament, but it decided on its own to carry out military/terrorist operations against Israel from Lebanese territory without approval of the majority. Yet, D'Alema identifies Lebanon with the Hizbullah. That is, for him, the Hizbullah is the "Lebanese people" [popolo libanese]. Of course, a Communist like D'Alema would not want to understand that Hizbullah acts without consulting Lebanon's government or parliament, so delighted was he to display solidarity with the terrorists by touring the al-Dahiya neighborhood of Beirut, location of the Hizbullah's closed compound with its headquarters and underground command bunker. That's where he was photographed with a Hizbullah parliamentary deputy, displeasing many Italians. But D'Alema could not resist the romantic charm of being in "solidarity" with real terrorists wearing the thin veil of a "resistance" movement. It didn't bother him that these "resistance" fighters stand for a fanatical movement formed in the seventh century, and still operating according to medieval principles, despite using modern weapons.

D'Alema's party is now the Democrats of the Left (DS), founded in 1998 out of the Democratic Party of the Left [Il Partito Democratico della Sinistra (PDS)], described as "post-communist" in character, founded in 1991, after the break up of the Italian Communist Party. The new party, the DS, was meant to "open up" to European [non-Communist] socialism and to "laborite and Christian Socialist forces."

Just what good could come out of an international force sitting on Israel's border and commanded or influenced by the likes of D'Alema seems infinitesimal, if at all. Meanwhile, the American press continues to propagate an attitude towards the UN of enthusiastic adoration.

Condi Rice, George W Bush's foreign affairs paladin, also bears responsibility for the farce of the "cease-fire" resolution at the Security Council, 1701, along with her State Dept which has been Judeophobic since the 1930s at least.
-- text of SC res. 1701 .
-- UN force won't disarm Hizbullah.
-- text of SC res. 1559, which mandated disarming Hizbullah in September 2004
-- Annan, not Israel, to decide on make up of UN force [article]
-- Abandoning Lebanon [Jerusalem Post]
-- The UN force won't disarm Hizbullah [UN official]
For more info on the UN farce [force?] in Lebanon see the Eye on the UN website.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, Britain's nefarious role, etc.

Linked with Robinik.net.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home