LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

the UN’s israel obsession

Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:11:58 am PDT

In the Weekly Standard, David Tell writes about the U.N.'s Israel obsession.

No fewer than four separate administrative units within the U.N.--two of them directly supervised by Kofi Annan's governing secretariat--do nothing but spend millions of dollars annually on the production and worldwide distribution of propaganda questioning Israel's right to exist. The "Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories," for example, "investigates" Israel's continued "practice" of "occupying" not just the territory taken in the 1967 war, but also the land within its internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders.

And then there is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an operation originally established in December 1949 to assist those Palestinian refugees created by the Arab world's botched attempt at a second Final Solution. UNRWA, as it happens, is centrally relevant to its parent organization's latest outburst of naked Israelophobia. Because UNRWA wholly funds and largely administers the West Bank refugee camp in Jenin where the Israeli army is purported--by various Palestinian militants and local U.N. officials--to have just perpetrated a "massacre" of "unarmed civilians." It is to the site of this alleged "atrocity" that Kofi Annan now intends to dispatch a commission of inquiry chaired by Yasser Arafat's favorite European diplomat, former president Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, and seconded by Cornelio Sommaruga, retired chief of the International Red Cross, a man who once likened the Star of David to a swastika.

In a sane world, the United Nations itself would be investigated. Because the “refugee camps” (and why, after 53 years and untold billions of dollars, are there still camps at all?) were turned into terrorist training schools and weapons factories while under UN management.

It bears mentioning, though one rarely hears it mentioned, that the UNRWA camp at Jenin has been for years what the Palestinians call a'simat al-istashidin, the "suiciders' capital," from which dozens of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al Aksa, and Tanzim terrorist attacks have been launched, killing hundreds of Israelis.

UNRWA funds and staffs the schools of Jenin, where, from fall through spring each year, children are taught that all of "Palestine," from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to them. During summer vacation, those very same schools host training camps in which those very same students are instructed in the arts of kidnapping and rock-throwing and bomb-manufacturing and martyrdom. UNRWA rents the buses that regularly take residents of Jenin on tours of the Israeli countryside--where "their" property, "stolen" by the Jews, is carefully pointed out. UNRWA allows its food warehouses in Jenin to do double duty as munitions dumps. UNRWA pretends not to know that explosives and counterfeit currency factories are housed in the public shelters it has constructed in Jenin. UNRWA cannot understand how it might be that its own administrative offices in Jenin are festooned with graffiti celebrating some of the world's most notorious terrorist organizations. Or how some of the world's most notorious terrorists might have found their way onto the agency's payroll--to the point where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, extreme even in the context of Palestinian extremism, now openly controls the UNRWA workers' union.

This same United Nations, the blood of Israeli civilians still wet on its hands, now dares to question the morality of a modest, defensive, and long-overdue Israeli reprisal?
Advertisement

106 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 David Shulman  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 8:51:52am

I find it absolutely amazing the hate for Israel, the Jews, and to a lesser extent America that just flows through the U.N. The only "good" thing that can be said is that at least it isn't as bad as it was during the Cold War, when every member of the Communist block teamed up with every single Arab country to pass much more anti-Israel garbage than today.

2 Arthur  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:07:31am

Doesn't UNRWA fit into the catagory of "those who harbor terrorists"?

3 Enough  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:26:47am

I find it absolutely amazing the hate for Israel, the Jews, and to a lesser extent America that just flows through the U.N. The only "good" thing that can be said is that at least it isn't as bad as it was during the Cold War, when every member of the Communist block teamed up with every single Arab country to pass much more anti-Israel garbage than today.

Call me a cynic, but I take the UN's attitude for granted. After all, the whole outfit consists primarily of odious third-world dictatorship and their Persian Gulf sugar daddies (that is, when the two aren't the same). And much of Western Europe is turning into a kind of new Communist bloc, with France boldly in the lead.

What befuddles me is that so many regular, non-idiotarian people still view the UN as some kind of respectable outfit. What's needed is a good campaign to expose "the real UN." So far, unfortunately, this has been confined to the far right, a staple of the Buchanan lunatic fringe, who comically suggest that the UN is some dark conspiratorial force out to rule the world. (Please -- the UN nitwits couldn't run a hot dog stand...)

4 Pete Harrigan  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:30:20am

Everyday, I hear people say, "but the Israelis should let the inspection team in, it's impartial, it's the U.N." It is infuriating that people take that organization seriously.

5 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:37:06am

The "UN" is one of these things that sound good in theory.

I find it deliciously ironic how those beautiful words from Isaiah are transcribed on the wall of the UN building in New York.

Damn dirty Jews and their jealous Old Testament God! ;)

6 J Lichty  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:41:28am

Politics make strange bedfellows. I don't care who helps me evict the Arab League, I mean the UN from NY. Be it Buchannon or LePen. The UN is one of the greatest evils to come out of WWII.

Although the U.S. does not directly fund the Palesterrorists, it does so indirectly through its funding of this tool of the third-world dictators.

This is where Congress (I have lost my hope for the Bush Administration) needs to be focussing its attention. Such a public effort will do far more good for Israel than the $200 million in emergency aid which was nixed by Bush.

A concerted campaign against the UN can succeed if championed by the bi-partisan friends to Israel. If people keep bringing to light the UN's sinister record, eventually people will take notice.

The American public deserves to know where its "UN Human Rights" money is going.

If the U.S. quits and kicks the UN out, the UN will have as much clout as the Arab League, because it will be one in the same. Let the UN move to Riyadh or Amman and end all the legitimacy (and money) that the U.S. gives it.

7 Michael Glazer  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:52:50am

2/3 of all resolutions passed by the UN since its inception have been to condem Israel.

In the UN there are 53 arab/muslim countries.

A democracy and a tyranny both get the same and equal vote in the UN.

Instead of fixing their despotic regimes most of these arab countries literally spend every waking second attacking Israel one way or another.

A UN conference on aging and racism both turned into the usuall UN bashing of Israel this year.

If that isn't international legal law legitimized by all countries spending all of thier might and energy to crush Israel the I don't know what is.

I am reminded about an anecdote of german brutality toward the Jews in WWII. Even when the allies were gettign closer the Germans at the concenrtation camps, instead of running or hiding, spend their last minutes right before the allies came to kill as many jews as they could. To the detriment of themselves they saw no nobler cause (even self-preservation) than to kill a few more last jews. Even when they had run out of bullets they would try to beat to death as many of the concentration camp prisoners who had still survived.

The point is to correlate how far people who hate will go to destroy those they hate even to the detriment of their own lives.

That is also why it is so important to never forget acts of human brutality against other humans so we, as a whole, don't repeat and do not allow to repeat these same evils of the past .

8 Michael Glazer  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 9:58:37am

- J Lichty - There is a petition at the petition site but I do agree a more concerted effort is necessary if not incumbent on all of us to attempt.

[Link: www.thepetitionsite.com...]

9 xochi  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 10:16:12am

So, the US regains its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission just a week after they adopted their "how dare those dirty jews defend themselves" resolution. Anyone want to bet the vote on that was pushed through in a hurry in anticipation of this?

10 Matt Moore  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 10:22:04am

The UN is nothing but a corrupt joke, and not just about Israel, but also about America. This is the same organization that allowed China to vote America off of the human right's council. An organization that gives China a forum to lecture America on human rights is truly laughable.

11 J Lichty  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 10:38:50am

I just went to the petitiion site linked by Michael Glazer (see his comment above). I guess the lawyer in me believes that this petition is not clear in that it calls for an investigation into unspecified UN abuses.

Who is to investigate the UN, and for what purposes?

The goal must be clear. We accuse the UN of bias against Israel. We call upon the US presence the UN to expose this bias and to confront it.

Of course the most effective way to confront these dictators is to cut off their supply of US money (i.e. US out of UN) and to cut off the foreign diplomat's access to the strippers at Scores (expulsion).

We will see how long Europe stand by the third-world's greates friend.

12 trout  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 10:50:44am

"so many regular, non-idiotarian people still view the UN as some kind of respectable outfit. What's needed is a good campaign to expose "the real UN.""

u r correct Enough! just by virtue of its name, UN, it carries a mandate of respectability.

13 Tatterdemalian  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:06:38am

You know what's ironic? Just one year ago, everybody I knew was claiming that the UN was an evil, zionist organization controlled by a "shadow government" of Jews determined to take over the world and make it a one-world government.

These days, it seems these people have all crawled back under the rocks that spawned them and their conspiracy theories. Pity, I would have liked to ask them if they thought the UN was still being manipulated by zionists.

14 file13  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:07:34am

I look back at my childhoos and I feel all that much better now for having pocketed all of that money I would have otherwise handed over as a UNICEF collection. Amazing what crap the UN publishes and fosters today... I figure that the evil and exploitation inherent in the manufacture and production of the candy bars I bought were far less than the suicide bombing schools and hate-screeds the UN committees allow today.

15 berichws  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:07:52am

Remember when Ted Turner pledged $1 billion to the UN?

What if we focus our efforts to make him reschind his pledge?

That'll ought to put the spotlight on the UN! It only takes one to start the domino.

16 CastorOil  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:12:43am

More about the the UN - "The U.N.'s Refugees" by M. Rubin - WSJ - Opinion Journal

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

'Comes a time when the brown matter hits the fan.

17 trout  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:25:54am

i'm all faklempt. here's a topic; the un is neither u nor n.

discuss.

18 Eric the CR  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:33:55am

Unfortunately, the best way to get your message out to America is to start a lawsuit. The Left has done with many casues and the Right with bill Clinton. Even now the networks are drooling over the Blake trial.

So, the lawyer in me says -- sue the UN. It would get media attention and the plaintiffs would get time to do discovery and lay out their case. Whether the case is successful or not is irrelevant -- we would be looking for a bully pulpit...

1. Jurisdiction -- do the US courts have jurisdiction over the UN? What is the legal status of the UN?

2. Cause of action -- perhaps a relative of one of the victims of a homicide bomber who came from Jenin could sue the UN, the custodian of the camps?

Any other lawyers out there (I heavent practiced in years) -- lets put together a case!

19 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:57:32am

You know what's ironic? Just one year ago, everybody I knew was claiming that the UN was an evil, zionist organization controlled by a "shadow government" of Jews determined to take over the world and make it a one-world government.

That's the paradox of antisemitism. Jews are evil because they're:

- the communists
- the capitalists

- too traditional
- too assimilated

- the leeching rich
- the leeching poor

etc. etc. etc.

Jews are the corrupters, have too much power, are disloyal, are 'too successful', have a 'persecution complex'... Jews are 'too loyal' to each other, as if loyalty isn't a value otherwise extolled...

Bottom line: Jews told the world that there is a creator who makes moral demands and the world said "you're right" but has never forgiven them for letting them know.

That fruity 'illuminati' theory that Pat Robertson and other conspirators ascribe to holds that Jewish 'financiers' are so pernicious that they're even behind Hitler. Did you know that the Zionists were behind Hitler? I mean, obviously! The Zionists benefitd from Hitler... and on and on it goes.

So with mindsets like those, why wouldn't the Jews be behind the pernicious evil of the UN? After all, the Jews are so evil they even orchestrated the 'Holohoax' for gain...

Antisemitism known no logic. Surely the fact which history bears witness to that 'if it's bad for the Jews it's eventually bad for everyone' (and it's reverse as personified by the United States) doesn't occur to sick minds?

20 J Lichty  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 12:12:20pm

I like the idea of a lawsuit, but I am sure that there are immunity provisions in the UN by-laws.

I am not aware of any world court (at least thank god not yet) with jurisdiction, so the jurisdiction would have to lie in the U.S. or Israel.

In the US we recognize immunity for diplomats. Even if there were not a law in Israel granting diplomats immunity, there is probably an agreement not to sue in the UN the by-laws, which Israel is bound by signing.

Perhaps a war crimes/criminal investigation in Israel against individuals employed by the UN might work. However, again, I am sure that there are immunity provisions exempting UN employees from being sued.

I really thnk that Congress is the key. AIPAC needs to strike while the iron is hot, and while primaries, elections are looming to get some meaningfull pro-Israel, anti-UN legislation passed.

Once the US invades Iraq, all eyes will be on that. Let us use this microscope to show the US (I have lost hope for the rest of the world) exactly what is going on in that whorehouse on the East Side known as the UN.

There is unprecedented bi-partisan support for Israel in Congress right now and so now is the time for Israel's friends in Congress to call for investigation into the UN's operation of refugee camps in Judea and Samaria with U.S. money.

21 Eric the CR  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 12:47:49pm

J Lichty,

I agree that the immunity would be the biggest stumbling block.

But I was thinking of using the US court system in a civil case against the UN (or just UNWRA). The plaintiff would be a relative of a victim of a Jenin based homicide bomber. The claim would be for $ damages. The amount would be unimportant since publicity is the goal.

In my experience, smart lawyers can get a judge to entertain even cases agaist soverign nations. I know that there are currently suits against Saudi Arabia, and I believe that cases against Iran (for the hostages) have been successful.

The case could be structured similarly. Success in court is not neccesary -- imagine just being able to put a lien on the UN building or having a judge freeze UN accounts in US banks...

Media exposure galore to tell our fellow Americans about the reality of the UN...

22 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 12:55:16pm

The Flatow family collected $22 million of a $250 million judgement against Iran.

She was killed in a Hamas homicide bombing in 1995.

I know nothing lasts forever, but does anyone really forsee a day when the U.S. finally causes the UN to dissolve?

23 Mikhal O'Dalaigh  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 1:37:19pm

Fox News' "Special Report" just completed and excellent segment with former Gore advisor, Marc Ginsberg, exploring the and discussing the facts contained in David Tell's article.
This broader coverage of the UN's culpability in fostering terrorism cannot but help discredit the many false accusations by liberal anti-semitics.
Now, if we can just find out more about why numerous Jenin "booby-trap" trap bombs are exact copies of bombs designed by the IRA to accomplish the same ends. Strange bedfellows, Irish Marxists and IslamoFacists.

24 J Lichty  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 1:56:25pm

The IRA is working with the Islamofascists to develop a new marshmallow shape for Lucky Charms cereal. To go along with pink hearts, yellow moons, blue diaminds and green clovers. the newest shape will be red crescents.

James, thanks for the link. I have pulled some of the cases cited in the article you lnked to. It looks like the jusidiction for the UN will rest on an interpretation of the UN hosting agreement.

The Klinghoffer case discusses diplomatic immunity and I have not had a chance to read the cases yet. But I think that there is an immunity provision for the UN under the US hosting agreement. The Klinghoffer case may give me some leads.

25 Enough  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 1:57:43pm

I know nothing lasts forever, but does anyone really forsee a day when the U.S. finally causes the UN to dissolve?

I am not sure that the U.S. alone can do it, though certainly withdrawing from the UN, and refusing to fund its projects, would rob it of much of its critical mass and credibility. At the very least, the media will have to report the U.S. gripes against the UN, with possibly even some good investigative work into its abuses, and just what we get out of all those paper pushers. Bipartisan support of the effort would be essential; otherwise, it will simply look like the return of Jesse Helms.

Ultimately, I think the UN will tear itself apart, even without American help. The General Assembly is already a fully-ignored confab for third-rate third-world dictatorships. Now that the USSR is no more, the once-mighty Security Council has become a pompous facade with no real purpose. The other organizations -- UNICEF, WHO, etc. -- have noble names and noble purposes, but have clearly been ineffective and too often, harmful.

The U.S. mostly seems to use the UN for diplomatic cover when it needs to put some soldiers in without being accused of invading or colonizing. But that purpose can be served through on-the-spot multilateral alliances with interested nations, without interference from Annan's peanut gallery. There is no need to consult Mauritania about actions in the Philippines.

Ultimately, as the UN becomes more and more of a third-world mouthpiece, the more respectable countries (including states like India) will quietly withdraw and ignore it, in fact if not in name. Durban was a good example -- the U.S. and Canada left outright, while Western Europe distanced itself. No mention has been made of the conference's resolution since its closure. Without U.S. backing and Western European support, the UN will have no more influence than the Arab League or OAS. Actually, I'm not even sure European support would help much.

Still, there is no need to sit there and wait passively for the UN to fall apart, while continuing to let it bilk us out of millions, take up valuable real estate in New York, and abuse us and our allies.

26 Joseph Alexander Norland  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 2:18:23pm

The problem with the postings here is that they all preach to the converted (a group that includes me). Question: Is there a similar forum on the “other side”, where one can engage in a CIVILIZED dialogue with opponents?

And while in question mode: how can one channel the energy invested in the foregoing comments into action that leads to results? In other words, what can one actually do to help beleaguered Israel other than sign the petition listed above, write to members of parliament (in the US: Congress), write letters to newspapers, and participate in the occasional rally? I would really welcome new ideas.

Finally, my thanks to Charles for the site and for permitting the posting of these comments.

Joseph Alexander Norland
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

27 Eric the CR  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 2:45:47pm

Looks like 18 usc 2333 could be a winner!

Even if the case never gets to trial -- just discussing the jurisdictional issues would bring up much of the case against the UN. It is worth a try...

28 MKBar  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 3:04:16pm

Just a comment on the IRA signature bombs found in Jenin. Debka.com reports the involvement of non-Arabs in the most recent murderous attack on Jews in the West Bank. The question thus is -- are the Palestinians contracting their work out to hired killers or has the IRA and that ilk found a new place to slake its bloodthirstiness?

29 David Brown  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 3:17:53pm

someone mentioned something about suing the UN. I think the only solution to that quandary is that once they pass that stupid international court get someone in one of the countries to ...... prosecute Kofi Annan and every two bit UN anti-semite out there.
THAT would be deliciously ironic.

30 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 4:28:43pm

Debka is like a broken clock, sure to be right at times. But those are just accidents. I wouldn't take anything written there seriously. They're wrong far more often than they're right and when they're right, other sources report the same thing.

As far as possible IRA/ PLO involvement, that's a no brainer. Birds of a feather truly do flock together. All terrorist organizations and the governments who aid and abet them have a common enemy (i.e. the West) and therefore a common goal. This is why the Soviet Union sponsored the PLO and Eastern Europe was littered with terrorist safe houses and training camps.

On a recent Steve Malzburg radio program he had on two fine New York congressman; Peter King and (damnit, I forget who). King is a good guy, but an IRA apologist -- and a supporter of Israel. So Malzburg lobbed one at him, pointing out that PLO representatives were present at some sort of recent Sinn Fein shindig. So he said something like, "Wellllllll.... the IRA has disarmed, is adhering to the ceasefire etc. etc. and their pro-Palestinian bent isn't any different than most mainstream opinion in Europe".


Which is true. But the links are there, and have been noticed. Now there may be some smoking guns? Good. Maybe the Brits will come around and join the good guys (though I doubt it).

31 Will  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 4:44:05pm

How about going directly to the media and demanding they investigate the story. Getting the story from publications like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to more workaday publications and media outlets like Fox News, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, the Washington Post and Time Magazine may possibly be one way to turn up the heat on our politicians to at least talk about the issue.

And how about writing members of congress? Even though my congressman is Charlie Rangel I think I'll write him anyway. And senators Hillary and Chuck desire to appear patriotic and in support of Israel.

This issue won't go anywhere without mainstream attention across the political spectrum.

32 Eric the CR  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 5:03:45pm

Will,

The media does not investigate anymore -- it just repeats whatever crap the loudest guy is saying.

If you want media attention -- you need to create a spectacle -- a courtroom...

33 Enough  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 5:40:43pm

What Will said.

There are two goals here, separate though related:

1. To help Israel in her fight against terrorism at home, and against the smear and de-legitimization campaign conducted globally. By extension, to help America's struggle against terrorist murderers.

There are lots of ways to do this, a bunch of which have been helpfully listed here. I'd add one more: volunteer. I am thinking of doing this once I have enough vacation time saved up to make the trip worthwhile.

In the meantime, if your community is holding a rally, attend it. Don't worry, this won't be the antiglobo twitfest you usually see on TV. Pro-Israel rallies are attended by people who have manners, hold jobs, and shower regularly. They won't be burning any flags, chanting "Death to" anyone, and you won't be embarrassed to be seen with them on television. (For the record: I am not an organizer for any of these rallies or anything, but I do have very pleasant first-hand experience.)

By the way, while Israel-related events obviously tend to feature primarily Jews (go figure), it's certainly not a requirement. Other faiths (and lack thereof) are especially welcome -- outside moral support is invaluable. This applies to volunteers, too.

2. To dump the UN, this freeing us from its aggressive, rampaging idiocy. This one you can't affect directly, since it's a wholly political matter for our State Department. Still, it's certainly possible to strip the veneer of credibility that the UN relies on. That means speaking out against it, pointing out to people that it is not a real "disinterested arbiter" of anything; that it is dominated by dictatorships and thugocracies whose opinion we'd never solicit on its own, but who for some reason are "respectable" as a group; that it is generally anti-U.S. and anti-West; that it takes our money while giving us absolutely nothing in return; etc. Write to your paper or your government officials -- politely, calmly, and briefly. (Yeah, briefly -- like I should talk.)

Also, don't underestimate blogs like this one. We already know that columnists peruse them. Far from just preaching to the converted, they act as a compost heap for ideas to be planted and grown and developed, and occasionally capture a columnist's imagination and end up written up in National Review, or the WSJ, or the Times. From there, it can travel to the newswires, and TV networks. In addition, since bloggers are not beholden to any interest, they demonstrate that there is grass-roots support for these ideas, and ordinary, bright, talented people care enough to donate time, money, and reams of effort, with no hope of compensation, just to see them brought to light. Their very existence is a powerful message to the politicians, as well as invaluable support for those who share our views and principles. And of course, they can point out, mock, and slice through bullshit from Arab News or Robert Fisk faster than a regular columnist can say "deadline."

34 Ben Noah  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 5:56:44pm

Although I agree with the jist of what Enough has said, I don't think there is time to impact the facade of the UN through grass roots opinings such as blogging.

Rather I agree with J. Lichty that there needs to be increased heat now while there is a basis for media interest. The media is not focusing 65+% of its resources on the middle east because it feels it serves the interest of our society, it is doing it because it is as Eric CR put it, a spectacle.

The Catholic Church and Robert Blake is a spectacle as well, thus gaining the remaining 35% of media bandwidth.

The key to keeping the spotlight on the UN and its systemic corruption is to engage in some kind of series of actions that has a residual effect.

While harranging the media and their ombudsmen, volunteering etc. is all important, its not going to have that "never go away" quality that a court case does.

What to do? Why *don't* we take a page out of the books of our enemy's. Inflate the scandal and prosecute it (although in our case we'll actually be unearthing a real scandle, not a contrived one).

Prosecute it in the media and in the court, even if its only a civil case as Eric CR suggested. These types of actions have that quality of always popping up as they evolve.

Here's an example, instead of trying to sue the UN itself, why not file a civil case against one of the individuals or volunteers who worked in those refugee camps?

As that case starts to unroll, another case is filed with a similar basis but against a different defendent.

We need to construct a faster moving anti-idiotarian movement that gets the attention of the media front and center, rather than being a compost of ideas for the rare occasion when the media actually realizes it is parroting the same drivel day after day.

35 Eric the CR  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 6:44:41pm

Ben,

I agree with you, but the blogsphere so far has resisted the formation of a political movement.

I'm not sure how one would go about creating a political force. I suppose it would start with a web page (say here) and a clear agenda -- Goals and Methods.

Then proceed to raise awareness. This, it would seem to me is the most difficult task. I favor the lawsuit method because it works so well here in America. Just look at the Paula Jones case. Whatever you though of Clinton before -- no one in America doubted the fact he was a pervert after a while.

So our goal is the same. To make it clear to everyone that, like it or not, the UN is ineffectual and perhaps dangerous.

The lawsuit could be tied in to a political awareness campaign with Congress. God knows there are enough people there who would vote to cut off funds to the UN.

The big problem for the blogsphere is momentum. We all like to talk, but I for one have done nothing else useful. Maybe at some point we could get a political agenda together?

Anyone game?

36 Meryl Yourish  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 7:24:04pm

Okay, call me crazy, but why not use the same kinds of stunts the wacko left uses?

Find a college kid or three with nothing to do this summer but sit outside the UN and protest it. For three solid months. Or sit on a flagpole for all I care--something that will get attention.

Something partly nuts, so the media will get a kick out of covering it.

It still irks me that Kofi Annan had the nerve to say "Is it possible that Israel is right and the whole world is wrong?"

Um--Kofi--if all of your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, does that mean you should do it, too?

Talk about your inherently stupid statements. Sometimes, the majority IS wrong. Duh.

37 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 7:48:02pm

The problem is that nutty college kids willing to do nutty things usually come across just as the nutty college kids who swallow the leftist booshit do: as nutty college kids.

I don't think that approach would create awareness among normal people. Normal people don't take moral direction from Rage Against the Machine fan potheads who "like are against oppression and stuff and for solidarity with brown peoples".

So I've reason to believe that Joe Clueless American who doesn't know much about the UN except that it's a neat theoretical idea won't take direction from said kooky kids. Right?

I dunno, I could be wrong. You're on the right track. Blinking neon works better than muted pastels.

38 Ben Noah  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 8:02:54pm

Eric,

First, you note something quite important, that the blogsphere has so far resisted the formation of a political movement. As much as I think the majority of us who frequent/contribute to the anti-idiotarian community would form the crux of this so far hypothetical movement, I think its crucial that its not grafted on to the fibers of its member's source of independent thoughts and viewpoints.

So far what binds us together is that we share a common viewpoint. I would hate for any of us to lose the independent voice that this environment offers by forcing our respective views to bend towards a more watered down baseline that represents the goals of a political movement. Then before you know it those that do recognize us as an independent and honest voice might begin to see us as a collection of counter-radicals.

That said.. I am game for establishing a political agenda, one which would be very focused and consist of a terse set of objectives. And one which we could offer as *independent* in its own right, with the purely optional support of those of us "already converted", the "quire" so to speak. This way it might be seen more that anti-idiotarians are supporting a set of principles and objectives, rather than shoehorning our collectiveness into *being* that agenda. Hopefully I'm making sense here with my admiditly murkey distinction.

In attempt to keep this post from going on forever, I will end by adding that I do agree with Eric on the issue of the court case as being a very interesting track to investigate as a central course of action. I think we should (whoever we end up being) consider the various ways this could work only *after* we arrive at a set of objectives.

Are we merely interested in discrediting the UN based on their corrupt and biased policies? Are we specificaly a "pro-israel" group which would perhaps broaden our objectives? All good questions..

Does anyone else care to chime in? I think I have about had it with listening to the Hasan Abdul Rahmans of the world respond to charges of UN bias against Israel by "reminding the viewers" that the UN created Israel.

39 ally in TX  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 8:04:43pm

Per James, "Debka is like a broken clock, sure to be right at times. But those are just accidents. I wouldn't take anything written there seriously. They're wrong far more often than they're right and when they're right, other sources report the same thing."

I have to respectfully disagree with you James. Are you now or have you ever been in the military? We have been in Europe in the recent past when Debka was reporting on orders my husband's unit were executing which were only hours old out of command. Debka's eyes on the ground have both experience and a track record to back up most of what they report. True, not all they say is rock solid, but it's way better than most. I've learned by experience to take what they say seriously.

40 James  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 8:34:26pm

Well, they've reported an imminent Iraqi invasion of Jordan several months ago. Troop formations that it seems no oone else in the world picked up.

Okay, it's true. I'm no miltary expert. It's been my overall impression and that of people who seem (to me) to be knowledgable that neither is Debka, but I'll defer this one. :)

41 cb  Tue, Apr 30, 2002 11:11:43pm

What is anti-idiotarianism anyway? Nicer to be "pro" something than "anti" (although people often define their identities by what they aren't rather than what they are).

Certainly it's pro-Israel's right to exist, even if not everyone would agree with all details of its current government's actions. But it seems to me that this movement (call it what you will) started with September 11, not the latest Middle East crisis.

Based on the views expressed here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, I'd argue that the common ground we are seeing is one of:
(1) support for international Western liberal democracy (as opposed to social democracy, and not specifically US liberal democracy);
(2) recognition of the threat posed by violent, fundamentalist fanaticism -- particularly but not limited to Islamofascism; and
(3) a determination to defend (1) against (2).

Support for the state of Israel goes hand-in-hand with this -- it's a democracy, and the Islamofascists desire for genocide is neither liberal nor democratic.

PS: an interesting site for military info/analysis is http://www.janes.com/. Much of the good stuff is subscriber-only, but they're pretty level-headed.

42 Léo Le Brun  Wed, May 1, 2002 3:26:33am

I know you guys must think Europe, and particularly France, is overwhelmingly behind the Palestinians in this whole thing. Most of my fellow French countrymen are, but there is still hope. Come to my site for a unconventional French viewpoint on the MidEast. Mostly in French, with some English.

43 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 3:57:21am

- Léo Le Brun - Saying the French this or that is obviously a falacy. Any generalization of any group in it of itself is false.

So don't take it pesonally. I actually beleive most of the anti-semitic attacks in france are done by the inner-city young arab immigrant class not the native french.

44 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 4:34:56am

I think that a beginning political movement should focus on a single task. That will give us concentration and unity of purpose. In time the movement can expand to other related agendas.

The specific agenda should be unmasking the real UN. Its a focused task and we will spend less time discussing the goals as opposed to working towards them.

I agree that its a better selling point to be "pro" something and not "anti." So, how about Association for International Justice, or something similar?

If anyone is interested, what should be the next step? Any other lawyers out there who could help?

45 Hey Im a poet  Wed, May 1, 2002 5:04:12am

Leo Le Brun:


Some would say the French are whores,

Or at best, truly arrogant bores.

But we here have a different take,

And think them merely callous and fake.

And hope the arabs swamp their shores.

46 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 5:42:00am

I am interested in joining, Eric. Should I contact you through your web site?

47 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 5:43:55am

Yes, please.

48 CastorOil  Wed, May 1, 2002 6:28:49am

1. THE LAWSUIT
I think Eric's idea of a civil lawsuit on behalf of the terror attack victims is brilliant, for media attention.
We may be considered cynical, for exploiting the victims, but I think ultimately we DO want justice for the terror victims, because they are grossly ignored by the media.

2. THE PARTY
I don't think it's necessary to start another new party, just work inside the one that's already in place, ie Republicans in the US, Canadian Alliance (the jury's still out on this one!) in Canada. If you are ready - have the time, the resources and the goals established, get involved and use your grassroots influence within a party that is inclined to be sympathetic to your cause. Convince others inside that party that the UN is corrupt, that Israel is right to defend itself, that Islamofascism is a real threat, etc. Be the media PR for your party, so you will be quoted by the media.

3. RELIGION
If you are affiliated with a church, synagogue, hindu, buddhist temple, mosque (maybe not) - do some convincing inside your congregation. They already trust you, since you are one of them. That's what the Islamofascists have been doing all along within Muslim communities.

4. PUBLISH A BLOG-ANTHOLOGY! (Am I the first one to coin this one?)
Collect the Blogs that are meaningful to your cause, supported by the articles they refer to (ask for copyrights) and publish your views. The blogs make for a super-interesting reading, and you pick the best topics and the best posts.

Has anyone thought about publishing the blogs in print form? There are countless people who don't even know they exist, or have no internet, but would like to read them.

Let's start a publication!

49 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 6:38:29am

I think CB suggested an interesting framework for what such a group's goals should be constrained by, however Eric points out that there also needs to be a very focused tactical goal.

In other words, CB's goals are broad and sweeping (not a bad thing), where exposing the UN is a more immediate tactical effort.

I think they compliment each other.

Anyway, I don't know the significance of the Anti vs. Pro prefix, but what I find interesting and appealing about Anti-Idiotarian (and kudos to Charles for sprouting this), is that it bucks the trend of labeling groups that are always FOR things.. FOR the rain forest, FOR this or that. Not that its bad, but am I wrong in suggesting that most of the mainstream public has begun to tune out the trumpets of seemingly fringe groups that are FOR something?

I think we need to think of this emmerging group as being more of a seemingly mainstream lobby group, like an AIPAC (and I'm not suggesting these interests need to be directly tied to Israel, just giving AIPAC as an example in the sense that it has been a very forceful group, maybe there are better ones.)

That said, I think CB is also right that Israel's interests go hand in hand with these broader goals.

I think it would be wise to create an open blog site where these ideas could be further explored and commented on. Maybe there is a genuine interest here, or maybe we secretly desire to remain composte for mainstream journalist's occasional whimsical journey? I dunno.

Another point that I agree with is Lawyers.. It would need them, many of them probably. Without it we can waste hours of time talking about tactics that are either not legal or legaly innefective.

BTW, I agree with CastorOil's point in that this doesn't need to be a political party, but I think the world would benefit from a more focused effort by people who feel the way we do. The problem is the mainstream media, they infect the minds of the average american, and the average American is not seeing the whole picture on the issue of the UN.

50 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 6:43:00am

- CastorOil - I started one called 'OffCenter perspective' [Link: magz.4arrow.com...]

It is not cynicall to sue on behalf of victims it is honorable.

51 CastorOil  Wed, May 1, 2002 7:09:32am

Yes, that's what I meant, organize the blogs by topic, but have it also in print.
There are far too many websites, and a lot of people don't know the blogs exist, get sidetracked by links, don't have internet (older people), or just don't have the time to sit at the computer. A book or a magazine:
1. makes money (maybe, maybe not)
2. reaches other audiences outside cyberspace
3. can be read on trains, airplanes, in bed, etc., and can be passed-on to others, eventually to public libraries...(wishful thinking)

52 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 7:20:00am

OK, I will take a stab at outlining a case against the UN.

I am a lawyer in theory -- I graduated from NYU Law in '96 and am member of NY bar, but I have worked in finance all my career. I have many friends from NYU who are lawyers, but mostly they are the corporate types.

Does anyone know a litigator with experience in international law?

53 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 8:30:40am

I was able to read the UN Hosting agreement. For anyone interested, the the note of 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (West 1990).

Basically, as suspected the UN has broad protection in the US. Immunity provisions and Jurisdiction, namely service of process, are the huge hurdles. In short, there can be no service of process at the UN without the consent of Kofi the Cabby. Although

Basically any UN member diplomat has absolute immunity. The annotations cite some cases discussing attempts to sue UN diplomats. I don't have time for a legal memo on the subject right now, I promise I will do one later.


I have not had a chance to read too much in depth about whether employees of these organizations can be sued if they are acting within the scope of their duties. I suspect that they are immune.

A couple of other interesting provisions.
The U.S. cannot kick the UN out of NY. Only the UN can voluntarily leave. See "Agreement between the United Nations and United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations ("Hosting Agreement") Section 23. This agreement was made by the President (Truman). I would need to look further into the agreement to see how it could be revoked/abrogated.

In 1999 Congress passed a statement regarding the UN Policy on Israel and the Palestinians. See the pocket part of the hard bound USCA if interested.

The gravaman of this resolution was that "it shall be the policy of the United States to promote an end to the PERSISTENT inequity experienced by Israel in the United Nations. . . ." In addition Congress passed a policy aimed at abolishing certain UN groups which are "inimical" to the ongoing Middle East Peace process. It lists several UN "pro-Palestinian" groups.
Finally the Secretary of State must submit a report each January 15 of the status of these objectives. I haven't found the codification of this law yet, only the Public Law number. I wonder if the law was signed by Clinton, in between cigars, and if so, did Powell issue this report January 15?

The bottom line that it will not be easy to get jurisdiction anyone at the UN, who can be served. Over the weekend, I will try to take a look in more depth, unless anyone else has some insight.

Eric: I sent you an email at the att address listed on your blog.

54 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 9:29:00am

- Eric the CR -

QUESTION: "As a litigator what would you say would be a viable lawsuit outlining a case against the UN on behalf of terrorism victims.

Stating the UN as the international legal and legitimized body has allowed, aided, abetted, encouraged terrorism to thrive in its midst. Whether via physical or intellectual aid.

The anti-Israel and pro-PLO stance it has taken throughout its history.

The contemporary UN sanctioned and sponsored child education in arab countries and refugee camps that promote terrorism..."

ANSWER: "Maybe Rico- criminal conspiracy or look into the torture victims protection act."

55 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 9:42:47am

- Eric the CR -

False & defamatory statements about the country of Israel and or persons of the Jewish religion can be filed against media conglomerates and countries who support or allow anti-semitic and anti-Israel propaganda (non factual or libel) to be dispersed might also prove successfull.&

56 Joseph Alexander Norland  Wed, May 1, 2002 10:02:49am

Re CastorOil’s posting of May 1, 8:28 am PST:

1. Don’t forget to add to the list of your four headings (law suit, party, religion, anthology) a fifth, namely, the petition, as referenced in the posting by Lichty, 30 Apr, 11:58 am (see above).

2. With regard to “party”, I suggest to consider “movement” rather than party. Movement can transcend party and even national boundaries, and in this case it should transcend both.

3. As the short-term objective of the “movement” I propose investigating the complaints against the UN and its staff, such as sexual improprieties (as posted on the net); Kofi’s culpability in the Rwandan genocide; UNRWA’s role in permitting the accumulation of weapons in the camps run by UNRWA, as well as disseminating hate literature and incitement in the schools UNRWA runs.

4. As the long-term objective I suggest the dismantling of the UN, which is no more than a “wholly owned subsidiary of the Arab League”, to borrow a phrase from Charles Krauthammer.

5. To start working towards 3 and 4, it is necessary to obtain such fundamental documentation as the UN budget and list of activities (if any, apart from denouncing Israel). Does anyone know where one may obtain such data?

6. This thread has drawn a great deal of attention - let us not dissipate this asset -- Let’s act now!

Joseph Alexander Norland
Ottawa, Ont., Canada
3:05 pm EDT

57 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 10:16:54am

I would add re: Michael Glazer's latest post about libel suits against the media. We should be careful about doing this, if we also hope to gain any attention in the mainstream media for any other endeavours we pursue.

If we are on one hand sueing the media for libel and defamation, and the other asking them to cover filed cases against UN or its employees, we will run into a brick wall.

There are a number of media watchgroups like CAMERA and MEMRI, etc. that have a better handle on that. I think we should focus on legal strategies that put pressure on various UN groups while enticing media coverage at the same time.

Joseph AN's suggestion about UN staff sexual improprieties shouldn't be overlooked, although I was just thinking that if we can't get to UN staffer's and volunteers on legal issues pertaining to complicity in aiding terrorism in the Palestinian refugee camps, what about targeting their familiy members with lawsuites? Are there any grounds for this? Has anyone investigated how their family members might be also participating and are they somehow given an umbrella immunity based on their immediate family?

58 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 10:24:53am

Just another note regarding point 4 of Joseph's post. I think this should probably be an understated and unsaid goal.

If the said goal is the dismantling of the UN, potential media coverage may immediately dismiss it as extreme. We don't want that.

Perhaps a more subtly "noble" goal would be the buttressing of the 1999 Congressional statement on UN policy on Israel, as covered in J Lichty's post above. Or something more confined and seemingly innocuous.

59 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 10:56:23am

- Ben Noah - RE: proclamation or movement here is a great one that may be used as a sampler by the 'FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONGRESS ON BIBLICAL ZIONISM' in 2001 to give you some ideas

[Link: christianactionforisrael.org...]

60 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 11:06:39am

The cause of action against the UN would be your average every day tort. The big question is immunity as J Lichty has described. So perhaps the focus should be on UNRWA (as opposed to UN). I wonder if that would change things.

I don't think that we should go after individuals, people don't always like it when someone is singled out. However, a massive face less bureaucracy makes a great target. We could always include individuals as time goes on...

Defamation / Libel suits are very difficult to prosecute in the States due to the first amendment. I think they would also create great hostility from the media, which would not be useful.

As for the lawsuit, I think that there are two things that we are going to need:

1. US citizen whose relative has been killed by a homicide bomber from the Jenin (or other UNRWA camp).

2. Intelligence regarding UNRWA activities in the camps -- organization, personnel, funds which we can then and cross-reference to know anti-Israeli, anti-American activists (the masterminds) and actual killers.

Finally, Joseph's point number 6 is the key -- we should not loose momentum!

Thanks,
Eric

61 Joseph Alexander Norland  Wed, May 1, 2002 11:21:01am

Here's a piece of news (from Canada's National Post) that gives the term "Chutzpah" new dimension:

Zimbabwe elected to UN rights watchdog
Democracies urged to act: A new member for the 'abusers' caucus'


Michael Petrou
National Post
The United Nations Human Rights Commission reinforced its ranks yesterday with some of the world's worst human rights violators, including Zimbabwe, which got the call even though Robert Mugabe secured his own re-election as president in a violent campaign widely denounced as rigged.

Rights groups attacked the move, pointing out Zimbabwe joins China, Syria, Sudan and many nations that flout human rights on a commission meant to protect people against just such abusers.

End of quote.

They sure succeeded in getting me fired up with this one. On to action!

Ottawa, 4:25 pm EDT

62 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 11:34:03am

On to action indeed. As Eric pointed outl, Joseph's point 6 can't be underestimated. Let's not lose momentum here.

In retrospect I think Eric might have a point about not targeting individuals, at least not initially.

I just sent an email to Eric CR re: an idea about media coverage of such a suit.

In short I think there is president for some mainstream media coverage regarding suit by families of victims of terrorism. Namely the family of victims of terrorism by the hands of Iranian terorrists. MSNBC ran a lengthy segment on it a few months ago.

I think Dan Abrams, the legal correspondent for MSNBC who has his own 6pm timeslot might be someone who would cover a lawsuit by a family victim of a homicide bomber.

But here's another twist we should consider. There have in fact been Americans who have died at the hands of Arrafat and his operations, a suit brought by an American might gain an edge in coverage here in the US.

Just some more food for thought.

63 Michael Glazer  Wed, May 1, 2002 12:17:35pm

- Ben Noah -
American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks....

[Link: coding.4arrow.com...]

64 Christopher Johnson  Wed, May 1, 2002 12:18:57pm

I have nothing new to add to the debate--I think we should have rid ourselves of that Turtle Bay fraud years ago--but I have some anti-UN stuff available for sale here:

[Link: www.cafepress.com...]

65 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 12:29:06pm

I will be continuing my research over the week, but I need to some work to feed mother and child.

Michael, my prelimnary research indicates that the UNRWA and like organizations fall under the pale of the UN's immunity protection. Their families are, at least to some extent also covered, although I have not had time to research this thoroughly.

Initially, it appears that the Antiterrorism Act 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2338, is the most powerful statute, i.e. holds accountability for acts outside of the U.S. The Ungar case, which I cited above will provide a good blueprint for a Complaint.

There are several additional reported cases discussing attempts to sue diplomats which I have not yet had a chance to review. Although, on the face of it, it looks like it will be difficult to serve process on any UN diplomats or organizations under the "hosting agreement," I will have some time this weekend to pour through some of this and hopefully have at least some creative theories under which to proceed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires a factual and legal basis for all claims or the attorney bringing them may be subject to sanctions.

Eric and I intend to pour through the relevant law and see if there is a legitamate cause of action.

I agree with the comment that an attack on the media is ill advised in general. If there are specific libelous articles then that is a possibility, but I think at this stage we should set our goals narrowly (as if taking on all the third-world dictatorships is narrow).

It is great to keep the ideas coming, but let us not lose focus on the task at hand.

A thanks to Charles Johnson for letting us discuss these issues on his site.

66 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 12:47:32pm

Unrelated to the war against the UN, but compeletly related to the war on terror, is one action we all should be doing: Buy Israeli.

Buy Israeli goods, food, stock. The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com) has a link to Buy Israeli. Everyone should also visit if you can. My wife and I are planning on going this summer.
Helping the Israeli economy is an action that we can provide a very immediate and real impact on Israel as she resists this onslaught. God knows the Europeans aren't buying Israeli products anymore.

The only true "victory" of this jihad has been the assault on the Israeli economy. Every dollar pumped into thier economy helps.

67 Kevin in Dallas  Wed, May 1, 2002 1:07:59pm

You can also buy Israeli Bonds.

[Link: www.israelbonds.com...]

68 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 1:18:24pm

I think there are several efforts here that can be done simultaneously.

1) J Lichty and Eric CR (and possibly other legal minds) review the different legal angles here.

2) We should consider researching potential media outlets that are more likely to cover any potential legal actions that could come out of the legal analysis being done.

3) We might consider developing a written and visual timeline that chronicles the increasingly disturbing record of the various UN groups and members. This could serve as the public face of our efforts. The average person who wants to understand why we are shining a light on the holy UN might find such a timeline very informative. You know those new drug ads that tie drug use to terrorism? How about a similar string tying UN support to terrorism?

Another thing that we might want to shed some light on is our strengths. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in suggesting many of us here would want to contribute to this effort. Who are we, where are we located (roughly if you are not comfortable with exact locations), and what are our key strengths. On that note I am NYC based and have technology, research (tramendous access to LexisNexis and resources of that ilk) and writing skills, in that order.

I think the close look being given will heavily influence any further direction, but in the attempt to continue to brainstorm, I think we should consider the importance of American's injured or killed in Mid East terrorism attacks (thanks Michael Glazer for the link). That is one absolutely undeniable reality that we should seriously try to take advantage of, being that average American's take things seriously when we have our lives at stake. Since the US branches of government can be the straw that breaks the UN's back, should we probably focus our efforts on influencing American opinion and American media?

Finaly, I 2nd the kudos to Charles for allowing us to use this as a forum. We should at some point at least find a cleaner format for sharind ideas. This comments thread is getting a bit unweildly.

69 Yehudit  Wed, May 1, 2002 1:40:32pm

some links that might be useful ....

[Link: www.unwatch.org...]

[Link: www.us-israel.org...]

This one is my favorite:
[Link: www.us-israel.org...]

70 Tiger Lily  Wed, May 1, 2002 1:50:46pm

Sorry I'm so late to the huddle here--but count me in.
I've got a forum y'all can use if it makes tracking this stuff easier. Scroll to the bottom for the anti-idiotarian sections: legal, philosophical, and tactical forums under the anti-idiotarian category.

[Link: www.boundupdesigns.com...]

This is not a shameless promotional thing. You're welcome to use the space--but there's no pressure. I've just been too lazy to kill this forum for a while and people still use my smiley collection.

I've got scads of space on the server for document storage or whatever else we need.

71 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 1:59:36pm

Nice links.. and from that comes an even handed analysis perhaps:

[Link: www.unwatch.org...]

Maybe it would be a good point to focus any potential talking points that come out of these efforts to the distinct flaws and corrupt elements of the UN.

I know most of us feel that the whole thing should be scrapped, but as Bono once said, there's nothing worse than "a placard-waving, knee-jerking, fellow-travelling activist".

Well I distorted his qoute a bit there but the point is let's not muddle our efforts by casting a shadow of idealistic extremism, an element that has really hurt the leftists.

I think this point has been made before but it bears repeating.

72 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 2:18:35pm

In the interest of protecting any further attorney work product and privileged communications, the discussions about the legal avenues should be held off line.

I am no technocrat, but perhaps setting up some sort of instant messanger system. Eric and I should discuss this offline via phone or email.

Therefore, the political arm, should continue to discuss on blogs. But if we are serious, and I think we are, we need to come up with a secure mode of communication.

I do not want to chill this excellent anti-Idiotarian discourse, however we want to insure an effective response. So at least as far as the legal avenues go, all contacts should be direct through email.

73 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 2:21:17pm

Thanks Tiger Lily. Very generous. Let's make use of it since the forum style can be a lot easier to manage and keep up with then scrolling down, although its been real fun seeing this comment thread grow to a whopping 72+ posts!

74 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 2:31:33pm

Interesting point by J Lichty. If I understand the idea is to keep the cards close to the vest? Is that what you're getting at?

That makes perfect sense, yet lets make sure we don't fragment and end up spending cycles in the wrong place.

Email sounds like a good form of communication for the more private nature of the discussion. As well as instant messaging. Both provide means for encryption as well.

Tiger, could you setup a restricted area on your forum where we can discuss legal analysis?

My AOL IM is oldbertywooster

My email is wodehouse@hotmail.com

Lets add our names/skills/locations over at Tiger Lily's forum.

[Link: www.boundupdesigns.com...]

75 cb  Wed, May 1, 2002 2:42:23pm

CastorOil, I disagree with this: Republicans in the US, Canadian Alliance (the jury's still out on this one!) in Canada. If AI (Anti-Idiotarianism but I'm a lazy typist and like the acronymic pun) is anything, it's absolutely against the religious fundamentalism that infects both parties. Sorry, but I can't sign up to something that makes common cause with people who want me dead, or with those whose economic views are decidedly Idiotarian. The desire to move into print is also, shall we say, intruiging, but for unrelated reasons. (yep, the web is going to cut a swathe through existing media, sure)

(Anyway, there's no suitable equivalent here party in Australia, where the rural party is called the Nationals, the conservative party is called the Liberals and the racist party is called One Nation.)

Ben Noah, you're right, the lawsuit thing and my proposed broader framework ARE complementary. While the initial goals should be tactical and focussed, like the lawsuit, I also think it is absolutely essential to have a clear view of the broader framework from the outset. It avoids inadvertently making common cause with Idiotarians/crypto-fundamentalists/etc who just happen to support Israel.

76 James  Wed, May 1, 2002 3:09:03pm

This be one big thread.

77 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 3:43:10pm

I definitely agree about the work product, but we can't go completely off line. We need to keep everyone informed of what's going on to keep up morale and not to lose momentum.

As for the host for our political activities -- I vote that we stay here, if Charles would have us. The reason is simple -- we all met here and come here often. Maybe Charles can gives a corner for our discussion?

Eric

78 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 3:46:07pm

Can we get this thread to 100? Just wondering?

79 J Lichty  Wed, May 1, 2002 4:18:30pm

I agree with Eric about keeping it here if there is a viable way to communicate.

It is not my inent to lose momentum, and political discussions should continue,and often and loudly at that. Regarding the legal issues, we should generally keep stating that we are working on legal action aimed at the UN's role in the murder of American citizens at the hands of terrorists in Israel, and that anyone who is interested in donating their services to our noble effort should contact us offline.

In addition, I think that general updates are warranted in public. I merely meant to state, that if we develop and strategies that are protected mental impressions, we are opeining ourselves up to a claim that we waived privilege. That is something we don't want to do. The "legal" team needs to work through easier and more secure communication channels.

80 Joseph Alexander Norland  Wed, May 1, 2002 4:46:44pm

1. Note to CB ( who posted 5/1/2002 04:42PM PST)

In creating ad hoc coalitions, one often finds oneself in bed with people one would normally avoid; think of Churchill and Stalin in 1941-1945. The forum being discussed here deals with the UN and its agencies; we should accept anyone who is interested in exposing this “wholly owned subsidiary of the Arab League”.


2. Note to Eric (who posted 5/1/2002 05:43PM PST)

There is no indication that we are really welcome to use this site. On the other hand, Tiger Lily has extended an explicit invitation to use his site. We should decide quickly between the two, so as not to waste energy on a marginal issue.


3. As to actually joining the working group, the following is the statement I posted at Tiger Lily’s site:


“Count me in.

I'm a retired Canadian demographer and I can lend my research skills and experience to the project of preparing data on the UN and its agencies. Using the data, let the people decide whether it's worth investing that much of the tax payers burden for the greater glory of vilifying Israel (does the UN do anything else?)”


I sure hope that the group will consist of a large group of people.


Joseph Alexander Norland
Ottawa, Ont., Canada
9:45 pm EDT

81 Eric the CR  Wed, May 1, 2002 5:21:32pm

J Lichty,

You are absolutely right -- lets talk tomorrow.

Thanks everybody!
Eric

82 Ben Noah  Wed, May 1, 2002 6:04:03pm

There are a couple of issues here:

1) Where to host the public forum?

I agree that it would be ideal to stay here, since this is probably our most frequently visited anti-idiotarian (or is that counter-idiotarian now?).

However, there are two issues, one, we need a more flexible format than this everlasting comment thread. Its becoming unmanagable to follow up on and pretty soon people will stop checking it for that reason.

Two, we would be forcing the fruits of our collective actions on Charles and his singular voice. He hasn't indicated he's ok with this yet, and its probably a good idea not to grapht a political agenda onto the anti-idiotarian sites. As I suggested above, doesn't it makes more sense to have the AI's *support* this movement, rather then *be* this movement?

I will shoot Charles an email and see what he thinks of keeping things here. But lets not have too much energy spent discussing where we are going to do our discussing, if you catch my drift.

2) The issue of keeping certain base legal work from the prying eye of do-badders, I mean evil doers!

This is a valid point, and yet its also a valid point that we have an idea of what our political face is representing, so that we can all feel our efforts are going towards eventual actions we would support, and so we don't waste our own public cycles on efforts that would be counter productive to the work being done by our legal minds.

Right now it seems that Eric and J. Lichty have run with the legal ball and have already started to make a dent in our collective understanding of what's possible. Why don't we continue in that direction, and direct all willing legal volunteers to them.

At the same time, we should have a similar duo of representatives on the political/public side of this that will keep a more candid channel open with Eric and J. Lichty on what direction their legal work is going and on what kind of things they are finding. Suggestions for who that is also open for discussion. Suggestions?

This set of public reps can then express their progress to the broader group in a more protected tone without giving away the whole story.

We so far have had a lot of dicussion between a pretty core group of folks here. I don't know how many others are still reading this thread now, perhaps Charles can check logs and check on the popularity of this thread beyond our core group.

3) We still need to develop a better picture of our skills. We know now that J. Lichty and Eric are legal, Joseph is research and orgizational, myself I will be able to help a lot with media and research (I work only blocks from the NBC and FOX news studios, and I am a valid member of the press, albeit I work for a technical journal).

Michael Glazer, cb, CasterOil, Will, and whomever else I am forgetting. If you guys are still game let us know your skills and location.

Regarding location, if some of us are in the same city, we may be able to meet more regularly or get more out of our meetings. This would be good to know.

4) The last but definitely not least important item is mission statement. As cb pointed out, we need both a more clearly and *agreed upon* set of broad goals (even if its only a temporary agreement that gets revisited.

I think from the conversation here its clear that the UN's corruption with regards to its effect on the safety of democracy is the greatest concern. But my language is my language, maybe I'm not getting the full jist here. A public forum would make it easier to discuss this issue.

We should nail this down soon, I think we're in line with what Eric and J. Lichty are working on, but lets define this soon so their efforts have some baseline goal from which they can continue to work off of.

Bottom line: We need to continue to work quickly, discuss openly our ideas even when we have differences, and we need to establish at least some structure, even if its only temporary, otherwise we will wither back into the compost of great sounding quire songs, being preached to the converted..

83 CastorOil  Thu, May 2, 2002 5:09:36am

I'd be more than happy to do research on the internet for the group. Otherwise, I have no legal expertise and no connections to the media.
I have graphic design skills, if that helps . And although English is not my first language, I can write...

I am fom Romania, I was indoctrinated with Marxism for 25 years (with no effect), I'm a female and an atheist, living in Ontario Canada (hello Ottawa!) and Biblical arguments don't have any value to me.

Having said this, I think we should move off to a separate blog, thanks Charles for your support.

Although I'm not quite sure what anti-Idiotarian is - I have an idea, but would like to have a more precise idea - anything "anti" and the word "Idiotarian" don't have a good resonance. I prefer something positive ("for" not "anti").
Has anybody thought of finding a similarly oriented non-profit organization, for funding an eventual lawsuit?

84 Charles  Thu, May 2, 2002 5:54:35am

I don't mind having the discussion here, but we have storage space and bandwidth limits on this host, so at this point I can't set up a discussion board on this site.

Two options:

1. I appreciate Tiger Lily's offer, and since her board is already set up that's one way to go.

2. If you guys will, among you, come up with $100 to set up a new hosting account, I'll install and set up a discussion forum. I've already registered the domain anti-idiotarian.com, so we have the name.

Opinions?

85 CastorOil  Thu, May 2, 2002 6:45:37am

Tiger Lily's offer is great for now, but I kind of like having a separate domain, that can generate more traffic (search engines) and new members.

Charles, can you set up a PayPal account?
I would pitch in.

86 J Lichty  Thu, May 2, 2002 7:15:08am

I would pitch in as well.

87 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 7:17:34am

Ditto on the contribution. Surely we can come up with $100 between us all. Is that just a flat $100? Is there any monthly charge? Tiger Lily's site is worth using for now until we have something seperate set up.

Regarding a domain name, a seperate independent name would be good. However its been a concern from more than a few people that the name anti-idiotarion may not be the best moniker for these efforts.

Why don't we finalize whether or not that name is acceptable. I'll start a thread over at TL's (tiger lily) to discuss the name.

There are a lot of so called anti-idiotarian bloggers, who knows if they would tacitly support our aims here. They probably would, but again we should be careful not to muck around with a good thing.

88 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 7:35:36am

Here is the link to the Group Name discussion topic on Tiger Lilly's site:

[Link: www.boundupdesigns.com...]

Let's start using this site folks until we have another option available.

89 michael  Thu, May 2, 2002 7:43:22am

We already have a PayPal account set up right here on the weblog. The link is available in the left column. We also have an Amazon account set up, so feel free to use either one to contribute for this. As for the domain, anti-idiotarian.com is already registered and waiting for a host. It can be used immediately. We can always add counter-idiotarian or any other choice at a later date, pending agreement and approval from all involved.

90 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 7:58:42am

How long would it take to setup a forum similar to the one on this potential new site? Would it be similar in functionality to what Tiger Lily has? What about speed? Hopefully faster than LGF (I'm guessing LGF is slow due to the high traffic?)?

91 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 8:06:10am

Regarding Legal updates. Joseph Norland and I have been in contact with J. Lichty and Eric CR on their legal progress. They are working hard on their research and preparing a legal brief.

I'm going to start a thread on TL (and we can transfer all this to any eventual new host later) that covers the legal updates.

J. Lichty and Eric will be giving periodic updates to Joseph and I for the time being, and we will make sure to illuminate the group on the progress as much as possible without comprimising their specific legal minutia that we would otherwise not want falling into the wrong hands.

On a similar note, we should rack our brains for any legal minds we know who might be interested in helping Eric and J. Lichty's efforts. I am sure they will be needing additional free access to legal research sources, as well as a few other sets of eyes to put to use on their efforts. They can ellaborate at a later date as their efforts become more involved and begin to fully take form.

92 Yehudit  Thu, May 2, 2002 11:33:05am


This site has a petition to investigate UN abuses.

[Link: www.thepetitionsite.com...]

The ADL and Weisenthal Center websites also have sections on the UN - groups that monitor anti-Semitism have been watching the UN for years, for obvious reasons.

In other words, no need to reinvent the wheel or duplicate organizations - if someone else out there is already trying to do what you want to do. join forces, send them money, offer to volunteer.

93 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 12:16:13pm

Yehidit: Those are all great resources and possible opportunities for collaboration, but it doesn't change the undeniable fact that so far there hasn't been an effective effort to expose in the mainstream media the corruption and thugocratic nature of the various UN commitees/councils/etc.

The mainstream media has proven that they are uninterested in those great sources of fact, like MEMRI and CAMERA.

They are interested in ratings on one hand, and influenced by political agendas on another hand. The effort that we're envisioning is not really re-inventing the wheel.

The goal is that the next time the UN says jump, the average american thinks twice. Lower their credibility until they earn it back.

But recent posts about this whole potentially emmerging AI movement have made something really clear. One thing that AI's have that these other groups don't, is our networked and tentancled nature. I think that Tiger Lily made the point well here: [Link: www.boundupdesigns.com...]

We are not a central group of people, but a collection of blogs and readers that span many many sites. Maybe that is the angle we need to play.

I think there are enough unique qualities about this phenomenon that is AI that we might have an opportunity to be more impactful than what a central and tied down group can do.

There certainly is no harm in continuing to investigate the opportunities.

94 d  Thu, May 2, 2002 12:18:57pm

Hey, y'all have had a metafilter thread devoted to this. Better watch out for the bitter pacifists.

95 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 12:36:32pm

How cute :)

96 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 1:14:33pm

And which leads me to wonder what others around the blogsphere think of us.. and to which I arrive at this:


But this example of a free and open debate is not digestible for the anti-idiotarian crowd. In their bombastic, manly and patriotic world all dissenting views must be eradicated. What they do - and want everybody else to do - is to bend over and be buggered by the powers that be. And say thank you, too. Therefore, a little Google-bombing was orchestrated, with the purpose of making it difficult for people who would want to read Prof. Herold and use their own judgement to do so.

tee hee.. and what's this? the original germ of the anti-idiotarian movement?

[Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Try try try again we will.. But enough play for now.

97 f  Thu, May 2, 2002 1:39:37pm

I arrive late to this party, but I'd like to add my $0.02 anyway:

(f1) "anti-idiotarian" is a meaningless yet negative term, and therefore useless. Come up with a new one, and one that is pro something (Western philosophy, constitutionally limited democracies or what have you)

(f2) lawsuit idea = good

(f3) you need to develop a comprehensive and consistent philosophical platform; explaining why the UN's "human rights" are largely antithetical to the proper individual rights enshrined in the US constitution

(f4) good luck! you've just started, yet you've come so long. define your mission, lay out a progress plan, and ROCK!

"No Kofi for me, please"

98 Fay Greenwood  Thu, May 2, 2002 1:44:00pm

Good luck with this, I think it is a great idea. If anyone still has doubts that the UN stinks, and the French aren't odorless either,check this out from 1974 (yes it's been going on for that long)

[Link: www.israel.org...]

99 Mark White  Thu, May 2, 2002 4:11:31pm

This site has hit me out of the blue, but it has the clarity of truth...

If the world's muslim leaders spent as much time worrying about how to improve the lives of their populaces (starting with a decent, secularized education system which teaches humanistic disciplines like science, the arts and math instead of just the Koran) instead of blaming "the other", the entire world would be better off.
As it stands, these corrupt, undemocratic countries and the values their leaders espouse (hatred of women, jews, civil rights, homosexuality etc etc) are to me the enemy of what I know is right, and must be opposed at every turn...and those that still wish to appease in our governments are demonstrably conspiring with our enemy...anybody else feel similar here?

100 James  Thu, May 2, 2002 4:55:31pm

That is more or less exactly how we feel, Mark.

101 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 4:57:08pm

More thoughts on this, posted here and over on Tiger Lily's forum:

Mainly f raises the point once again, and I believe the metafilter post cited above shows that the Anti and Idiotarion in "AI" is too easy a target for criticism and too widely defined to really be the name of this movement (gawd I hate that word too, movement, I prefer to call this a project).

Anyway, I will make my plea again for the distinction of the AI's supporting this tangible effort, as opposed to *being* the effort. If people want to say, "see those angry mean warmongering AI's are behind this.." so be it, but its too easy for them to target this as a war mongering movement by naming group AI.

The other reason is that there already is a group called Anti-Idiotarian. We are merely a very distilled and highly focused sub group, a project group that is trying to... to.. to..

Ah, and that leads to the next point. As the MetaFilter entry shows, we are already having our intentions mis-stated, before we even finally arrive at them. It's clear that we need to define as narrow a set of goals as possible, and to continue on with some humility and respect for the effective portions of the UN. I'll post the Morris B. Abram article again, and we should use it to temper our mission statement, and to show that we are not a "hateful" or counter-extremist group.

[Link: www.unwatch.org...]

102 Ben Noah  Thu, May 2, 2002 5:14:19pm

Before I throw another volley of ascii at this comments thread, I just want to say to Mark White what James said, welcome to the alternate reality you've been looking for, where "schtoopidity" (to borrow Charles' preferred spelling of the word) has been reduced by 85%.

Baseline themes to continue to hammer out for this Counter-Idiotarian UN Project:

Is this the ultimate main goal? Just a possibility:

GOAL) Increasing the mainstream media coverage of the already well documented facts about UN corruption which threatens the basic Western freedom structures:

example A: complicity in the terror efforts coming out of Jenin (or any refugee camp).

Why? So as to decrease the effectiveness of using the various UN councils as a weapon against [Isreal, the US, the Western Civilization as we know it, etc..]

The idea being that when one invokes the name UN in an effort to imply objectivity or in an effort to bolster the credibility of their claim, the *average american* stops and thinks, "oh, the UN."

Is this possible? Is it possible to crawl into the collective minds of the mainstream public and awaken them to the ugly facts of various UN groups/councils/entities?

Is that too lofty a goal? Can it be done?

Well, lets refine it if so, but lets also realize that we have a few smart legal heads working on this, and the real crux of the challenge involves seducing the media.

We're not trying to convince the people who posted the metafile entry, we're trying to convince the average joe who without thinking considers the UN as an unbias entity when forming their opinion on
this, that and the other thing.

103 Eric the CR  Thu, May 2, 2002 5:34:30pm

I'm very excited at the number of people who have visited the blog.

It also seems that the representatives of the Stalin Youth are watching our movements and reporting us to their commisars!

To all others, I say please dont lose the momentum and the energy.

Thanks,
Eric

104 michael  Fri, May 3, 2002 7:30:52am

It also seems that the representatives of the Stalin Youth are watching our movements and reporting us to their commisars!

And that doesn't excite you?

105 Elliot  Fri, May 3, 2002 10:08:12am

It's incredible. The Birchers were right all along. Get us out of the UN!

Case in point: imagine being accused of a crime, going to court, and finding out that you're being tried by a tribunal of judges from Iraq, Russia, and North Korea.

106 Steve  Thu, May 16, 2002 5:59:52am

I dislike the UN as much as anyone, but what grounds do you have for suing them? Unless they've personally harmed 'you,' and not merely your fellow citizens or co-religionists, I don't see it. Slander? What literal 'damage' has been done to you? Seeing how us Jews seem to do just fine in the socioeconomic realm, and Israel is doing better than some European countries, the UN's group slander doesn't seem to have amounted to much. Sorry to be a pessimist, but someone, please explain where I'm wrong.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

You are not fair and thank you.


Holiday Gift Finder - Save up to 46% on the perfect gift!
50% off Columbia DVD Sale