Sat, Mar 20, 2010

User login

 "UM Schmum," Or: The UN? Who Needs It? (Part One)

"UM Schmum," Or: The UN? Who Needs It? (Part One)

EricForman
 
Advertisement

Imagine it -- thousands of protesters in the streets of South Africa chanting ‘Death to Israel', screaming ‘Israel is Apartheid,' people holding signs with a star of David, an equal sign and a swastika. Signs read ‘Hitler was Right', others "Zionism = Racism." My initial reaction when I saw the footage -- "You have to be kidding me?!" I had never seen such offensive imagery and on such a large scale. I had never even heard of the 2001
United Nations World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, where these photos were taken. Sixty years after a Holocaust of immeasurable atrocities and people have the gall to call Jews Nazis. It all struck me as completely absurd. Yet there it was.

I had been hired in February 2009 by a small, award-winning media company called Globalvision Inc. to help produce a new documentary about the United Nations and the upcoming Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva, Switzerland that April. The Review Conference was meant to review progress that countries had made in addressing racism and intolerance in their respective borders since the first Durban Conference in 2001. I was still coming down off the intense hopefulness that the election of our new biracial president gave me and I began the project optimistic and excited. It was a new era.  Maybe now the world could finally come together and make real progress addressing the needs of the millions of marginalized, repressed, suffering people on our planet.

Now that the film is finished, after endless hours of research, interviews with many of the main conference organizers, UN representatives and heads of NGOs from around the world; having poured through hundreds of hours of articles, photos and footage, and having thought a great deal about how effective a huge multilateral institution such as the UN is in truly provoking change, unfortunately much of my cynicism has returned. Why?

Let me tell you the inside story of the making of this film - The Battle of Durban II: Israel, Palestine & the United Nations (which you should all see, by the way) - and you'll get a sense of why, when examined through the prism of the Middle East, my positive conceptions on the efficacy of the UN have been shattered.

A bit of disclosure to begin - I was raised a Conservative Jew, was very active in USY in high school and have visited Israel numerous times. As a journalist, I follow world affairs closely and know, as we all do, that the Israeli-Palestinian divide is an extremely heated one.  As an American, although I haven't been directly affected, I do have strong emotions about the situation. Since I was a little boy (the Camp David Accords were signed 9 months before I was born) I've watched it all play out in newspaper headlines, non-fiction literature and fiction (Skinny Legs and All!), in long conversations with friends and family, blogs, Al-Jazeera and the occasional documentary on PBS' POV or at the local Jewish Film Festival. Images of Orthodox Israeli settlers desperately trying to keep their houses while being forcefully removed by Israeli soldiers; Palestinian refugees waiting in long lines only to be turned away at the checkpoint border into Israel; Jewish groups rhythmically swaying during prayer at the Kotel, Jimmy Carter getting lambasted for his new book 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' during conversations at the Passover dinner table, young Palestinian children starving, bombs dropping into Sderot; etc. all continuously swirl in my head when I think about it.  How can one not get emotional?

Though the emotional effect of these images goes only so far.  They never taught me one very important part of the struggle, the strategies both sides of the divide use at the international level to get their message heard. And where else better to get their message heard then the UN, the body that's supposed to be a forum to solve the world's troubles? After seeing and interacting with Palestinian sympathizers and staunch Zionists trying to get their voices heard directly in trying to make this film I realized that this is what much of the conflict is actually about - controlling the message. Not who is right and who is wrong, but who can best convince the largest group of people to believe in their position. Watching the intense political jockeying that took place during the build up to and during the Durban Review Conference was an amazing chance to see and document this process in real time.

The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance had been held in the summer of 2001 in the midst of the second Intifada. World headlines reported daily on suicide bombings all over Israel and about the increasingly desperate plight of the Palestinian people. Figuring that a World Conference on Racism was an excellent chance to get additional media attention to their cause, masses of pro-Palestinian protesters took to the streets of Durban. They fought hard at a parallel forum for representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations, which preceded the official UN conference, to encourage UN officials to incorporate critical language about Israeli treatment of Palestinians into their final report or outcome document.
Halfway through the UN conference the fight got so heated delegations from the US and Israeli delegations walked out in a flurry of protest.

Protesters at DurbanProtesters at DurbanThis was not the first time the Middle East issue had derailed a United Nations effort. Founded out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the UN was meant to be a place where the world could come together and prevent conflict. But when it comes to a discussion of human rights the Middle East conflict tends to occupy most of the conversation. The Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific UN General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Program, 6% of Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. These decisions, passed with the support of Muslim countries represented by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) among others, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

Even though the UN in effect created the State of Israel in 1948, the country has obviously never felt at home there. Many UN delegates believe Israel should not even exist. Zionism was officially declared a racist practice in a 1975 resolution by the UN General Assembly. This was repealed in 1991 but, as we saw on the ground in Durban in 2001, the concept was far from being forgotten. In our interview with Gabriela Shalev, Israel's current Ambassador to the UN in New York, she reminded me of a famous quote from David Ben-Gurion: "UM-Shmum" which roughly translates from Hebrew to "The UN? Who needs it?"  More loosely: "When Israel feels danger, it feels it can't depend on the world community to support it, so why even try?" Admittedly, at times during the making of this movie, I've tended to agree.

Gabriela ShalevGabriela ShalevBut then the journalist in me thinks - why shouldn't it be criticized?  No country is perfect.  If Israel is wronging people it should be held accountable. I also see the way the world quickly divides itself into blocks when Israel is criticized - with the US and Europe invariably supporting it, the Arab countries against it, and all the other suffering people the UN is supposed to help screaming, "What about us!?"  What a mess! 

Part Two will be posted Tuesday, November 24th 

Part Three will be posted Tuesday, December 1st

For more information, you can visit TheBattleofDurbanII.com to watch the trailer or become a fan of the movie on Facebook.



 

Bill Levinson


As shown by the General Assembly's vote to make Syria, which has the lowest possible political and civil rights ratings from Freedom House, a member of the UN Security Council, the United Nations consists of 160 cannibals and 17 civilized people taking a majority vote on what to have for dinner.

 I do not recognize any resolution by the United Nations as worthy of obedience, respect, or even notice, noting that Third World dictatorships like Iran, Syria, Somalia, and Mainland China have the same voting rights as civilized nations like the United States, Israel, and so on. I call the UN the "United Nithings," with "nithing" being a Scandinavian word that essentially means an enemy of humanity and of all civilization, a less-than-subhuman creature to be exterminated on sight. It was the worst possible thing that one Scandinavian could call another, and the person so accused had to either kill the person who had spoken it on the spot or be declared an outlaw (devoid of any human rights). According to Wikipedia,

 "The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was outlawing.
The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin for “outside
of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low German uutlagh,
Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among kinships, outlawry
yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is but one aspect of
outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”"

We should accordingly call the UN what it is, the United Nithings: an aggregation of subhuman (by behavioral choice, not race or ethnicity) dregs of humanity that looks the other way when genuine genocides, e.g. in the Sudan, are being perpetrated while it blood-libels Israel in support of vicious terrorists.

The UN is also an organization of pedophiles, child pornographers, and chid molesters (Google "United Nations" and "sex for food" to see what I mean), and a Megan's Law sexual predator warning sign should be posted right outside the building in New York. UN "peacekeepers" have for example demanded sex from girls as young as eight in exchange for food, and another UN worker was caught with kiddie porn. The United Nations makes no resolutions or decisions that any civilized person is obliged to obey, respect, or even notice.

 Re: "Founded out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the UN was meant to be a
place where the world could come together and prevent conflict."

The UN was actually founded by the Allies for the purpose of fighting the Axis, but it was defective from the start because one of the aggressors (Soviet Union) was admitted as a member. The Soviet Union was just as guilty as Nazi Germany in starting the war, and it changed sides only when Hitler turned on his accomplice. Even when the Soviets were our "allies," they did things like build fancy stadiums while American sailors died on the Murmansk Run to bring them war supplies, and they stood by while the Nazis slaughtered Polish resistance fighters (after promising the Poles a joint effort). Ask any Pole if he or she thinks the Russians were good guys or liberators; can anyone say "Katyn Forest?"

General Patton was right. The U.S. and UK should have stood by while the Nazis and Soviets killed each other in the East, and then finished off whichever was left standing--possibly with the nuclear weapons we were building. Millions of innocent lives would have been saved in subsequent years. In any event, the UN was defective from the start when it admitted one of the aggressors of World War II, and then it let in the absolute dregs of the Third World afterward.





left_but not antizionist


"They never taught me one very important part of the struggle, the strategies both sides of the divide use at the international level to get their message heard. And where else better to get their message heard then the UN, the body that's supposed to be a forum to solve the world's troubles? After seeing and interacting with Palestinian sympathizers and staunch Zionists trying to get their voices heard directly in trying to make this film I realized that this is what much of the conflict is actually about - controlling the message. Not who is right and who is wrong, but who can best convince the largest group of people to believe in their position."

Another thing that apparently escaped you is that while bemoaning the distance and disconnect between real people, the real world and discernible verifiable history and the game board battlefield on which players from around the world can choose one of two rival narratives and play to crush the narrative of their rivals, enlist the largest number of players to play for their side, control the message and win the game, you made a move of your own on the reality challenged game board, pushing your team's little token onto an attack square the moment you  characterized one side as "sympathizers" and the other side as "staunch".     





GroisserYold

GroisserYold


"the United Nations consists of 160 cannibals and 17 civilized people taking a majority vote on what to have for dinner. "

LOL, I liked that.

Anyway, it look like the Obama administration cares a great deal about the cannibals and is willing to go an extra-mile to keep them happy. Hence, someone's got to be eaten, and guessing who will that be is a no brainer.




andrew r


"nithing" being a Scandinavian word that essentially means an enemy of humanity and of all civilization, a less-than-subhuman creature to be exterminated on sight.

I think the leaders of China, Syria and Iran are way underqualified as enemies of civilization.  But if they were, I would admire them to no end.

Also:  You might want to read up on how the US conducts relations with these countries.  Exterminating them on sight has never been on the agenda.