Is There Any Hope For The UN To Do Good?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/un.htm

The Truth about the U.N.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Monsters: Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power

Takes One to Know One Gerri Peev reports Samantha Power's opinion in Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Not only do the appetites of the Clintons as well as their groveling before monetary backers have incontrovertibly epic proportions, but Haim Saban as the Hillary campaign's foremost contributor expects top performance from those whom like German Chancellor Angela Merkel he has bought . Samantha Power should recognize kindred spirits, for her willingness to stoop for Washington's worthy genocide establishment is itself a gargantuan phenomenon. In ZNet |Human Rights | Richard Holbrooke, Samantha Power, and the "Worthy-Genocide" Establishment, Edward S. Herman defines "worthy genocide."

It may seem odd to speak of a worthy-genocide establishment, with Richard Holbrooke and Samantha Power as notable members, but we are living in the Kafka era, when major genocidists and their friends and allies can get very passionate and even win Pulitzer Prizes for their denunciation of  some genocides and "problems from hell" while actually facilitating, ignoring and apologizing for others. [1] Worthy genocides are those mass killings carried out by bad people,  notably U.S. enemies and targets, and they receive great attention and elicit much passion; the unworthy ones are carried out by  the United States or one of its client states, and they receive little attention or indignation and are not labelled genocides, even where the scale of killings greatly exceeds those so designated, obviously based on political utility. As the United States is an aggressive superpower that has been "projecting power" and opposing popular and revolutionary movements on a global scale since World War II, a very good case can be made that the unworthy genocides that it has carried out or supported have been predominant over the past half century—that it has been the source of more "problems  from hell" than any other state.

Possibly as an example of the general failure of modern American political scientists or policy analysts to take Jewish ethnic politics seriously, Herman subsumes Power's subservience to transnational autonomous Jewish or Zionist political elites to her service on behalf of the Washington establishment.

The killing of over a million Iraqis via the "sanctions of mass destruction" is unmentioned by  Samantha Power. Again, the correlation between exclusion, U.S. responsibility, and the view that such killings were "worth it" from the standpoint of U.S. interests, is clear. There is a similar political basis for Power's failure to include Israel's low-intensity genocide of  the Palestinians and South Africa's "destructive engagement" with the frontline states in the 1980s, the latter with a death toll greatly exceeding all the deaths in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. [19] Neither Israel nor South Africa, both "constructively engaged" by the United States, show up  in Power's index.

By omitting Soviet and Zionist Jewish genocides (Stalin's Jews and The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine) from A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, Power earned her Pulitzer Prize as she followed the trail blazed by Walter Duranty in 1932, for she left intact the Jewish victimology

• that Zionists use to justify the theft of Palestine and
• that Americans Jews uses to disqualify Palestinians as victims of genocide.

The following blog entries feature Samantha Power's prostitution on behalf of Zionism and the organized Jewish community:

• [S1474] Why is Darfur so important to the Jewish community
• If you liked Iraq, you will love Sudan
• The Looming Crises: If you liked Iraq, you will love Sudan
• Killing Muslims Under Humanitarian Cover
• Obama versus the Israel Lobby

So, is Jewcy going to take down the previous comment, or have batshit-crazy claims of Israeli "low-intensity genocide" become acceptable discourse in discussions on American policy in the Middle East? 

I took the phrase from an Haaretz article by Shulamit Aloni.

She described IDF behavior in the OT as retzah am itti.

American Jews need to face, reject, and denounce the crimes committed in their name. 

 Phil Weiss posted an interesting entry on his blog to discuss the subject: Angry Jew Tells His Parents, Your Alienated, 'Self-Hating,' Pro-Palestinian Children Are Comin' Home. Whoopee!

Joachim Martillo
sapere aude

While the UN failures in Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur are regrettable, they consitutute a secondary mission for the UN. People forget the true mission of the UN, which is spelled out in its full name, the UNAI (United Nations Against Israel). Only when the a final solution to the Jewish problem is accomplished can we devote our time to other matters. My advice to those who feel they have been neglected by us, as above is next time choose your parents more carefully and make sure they are Palestinian, otherwise you will have to wait your turn in the queue

...what the world needs is a more vigorous, more determined world body.
But I have my doubts, and the reason is simple: I do not believe such
body will be more moral—and if I do not trust it to be more moral, why
would I want it to be more competent?

[...] A powerful and effective Security Council is a double-edged sword. More
than once in the past Israel benefited from the fact that the council
did not press for the implementation of resolutions less favorable to
it. The U.S. administration, which has a complex relation with the UN
and its institutions as well, also faces a similar dilemma… Use the
Security Council for your needs, but do not seek to make it more
powerful than necessary so that it will not turn around and bite you.

[...] Do you want a more efficient UN, or would you prefer a more robust
response against genocide from countries like the US, while giving up
on this righteous-UN idea once and for all?

1. As long as we continue to define a "moral" or "righteous" act as one that is in our own interests, we're all up shit creek.

2. The UN was never meant to be "moral" or "righteous". The idea was that international peace was a pragmatic solution - in everybody's best interest. It's a fundamentally pragmatic institution.

3. Because it's set up to be pragmatic, the UN is essentially a process rather than a power. No power resides in the UN itself, only in the member states and the voting blocs that states form amongst themselves. Every policy decision that any branch of the UN makes is always a byproduct of individual states' political goals.

4. The working unit of the UN is the nation state. The UN was set up primarily to try to prevent warfare between states. All the major moral failures of the UN have been where states have turned on their own people or civil war has broken out within states, in other words, problems that the UN was never really designed to address in the first place. Yet everyone still turns to the UN as the forum for solving these internal conflicts. Perhaps the UN is a victim of its own success in pretty much ending international conflict since the end of the second world war (apart from America's little soujourns overseas). Blaming the UN for not dealing properly with these conflicts is like blaming the police for not putting out a fire. We need firemen.

5. On sovereignty: no state has to be a member of the UN if it doesn't want to. Funny thing is, they all want to. Everyone can see that there are great benefits to being part of the global process. To start moaning about loss of sovereignty again is to drag the conversation back 60 years, to a point we have already got past: yes, we all know that every state has a right to its sovereignty, the whole point is that by sacrificing a little you get more security in return. You don't like it, drop out, and the rest of the world won't protect you.

6. The UN as an organization has indeed become corrupt, inefficient and lazy. It has become a marketplace where states trade favors, where every act is politicized. This is the fault of those states who continuously undermine the principles of multilateralism because they cannot accept restrictions on their sovereignty; those states who use the UN process only when it suits them and those who approach the process in bad faith, trying to use every opportunity to further their own strategic goals.

7. Any "moral" or "righteous" anger at the UN's failures should
therefore be more properly directed at these bad faith member states.
There are many, but why not start with the most powerful - the US, the nation that most often asserts its unilateral power, and the Western nation most vocal in its criticism of the UN?

8. The most vociferous critics of UN failures - including the US administration and, sadly, Israel - are, in fact, often those who would most like to see the UN fail, and those who have most helped to weaken and undermine it. It's sickening and hypocritical to then disguise this self-interest with altruistic arguments about the moral failures of others.