the UN is a joke anyway, they are more corrupt than the US government...

Only a joke because america vetos every damn thing that is just and fair.

Funny how silent the media is on all this.

Imagine if Iraq were israel and did the things Israel does.


There shouldnt be two sets of laws for our friends and enemies.

Hypocracy on a grand scale.

Zionism may not be the worst of the plot for world domination. It is just a big part of it.

The protocols are not "Nazi propaganda." They are detailed instructions for world domination which are being carried out exactly as instructed.

The Rothchild and the Rockefeller families are the ones behind globaization and world domination any way you look at it. They are criminals.

You see this denial of the Protocols well known fictional origins
and their widespread use by the Nazis (although they certainly
knew that they were false attacks on Jews) is very wrong.

The false Protocols were undeniably used as Nazi propaganda.
And they were used to bait Jew-hatred. To call Zionists a big
part of it is to ignore demographics and plays into the hands
of antisemites.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most vile
and pernicious antisemitic propagandas and it was demonstrated
beyond question as plagiarized from fictional stories almost
100 years ago. It is beyond ridiculous to give them any credence
now even a century later.

I have read them, I know how vile they are.
And it does not matter what you think they are or how you think they were used by the Nazi's.

Hitler was aided and financed by the Rothchild's and others including Daddy Bush. (Prescott Bush and Co.)

If the the protocols are plagiarized or not, it makes no difference!

It makes no difference who you believe or think wrote them or did not write them. The fact is, they are still being used and being followed to a tea, by the elite bankers and secret societies who are today pushing for Global domination of this entire planet.

I don't know who wrote them or why or where they were "plagiarized" from, all I know is that what is in that document is happening right now in the world and has been happening for more years than the document itself.

Indeed. The "bombs and bribes" policy has been going on way too long. The good thing about national bankruptcy (which is all but inevitable) is that this sort of thing will be scaled back and maybe even ended (at least for a while).

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


***********************************************

Alois Hitler, father of Adolf, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber and Baron Rothschild.

************************************************

The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people.

You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia.

**************************************************

Both Nazism and Communism were fake opposition concocted by Illuminati bankers. As we are dragged kicking and screaming into the next world war, let's recall that the people who issue our currency are behind every war and control both sides.

We spend over 707 BILLION on the "people in America who REALLY need it!"

In fact, 65% of the US budget is helping the "people in America who REALLY need it!"

How much more money should we use on the "people in America who REALLY need it!"?

like you know how "just and fair" anything is that goes on with the UN and their council...

The long list of vetoed UN resolutions singling out Israel is not a
condemnation of Israel or of the US!



This just reveals how the UN and the large block of Islamic states
obsess over Israel and attack it at every turn while ignoring much
worse human rights abuses throughout many of the Islamic
dictatorships and theocracies!



Israel is not on par in terms of human rights abuses with Iran,
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Palestinians, N Korea, Congo, Nepal,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, UAE
etc. etc.



It's hilarious!

The US is absolutely doing the right thing to veto all these absurd
anti-Israel resolutions.

The UN has a long and and irresponsible history of allowing
anti-Jewish member states a forum to deride Israel instead of
actually addressing other serious human rights issues around the
world.

The UN Human Rights Council for example has turned into the
UN Hate Israel Council and serves little other function. Many
have called for it to be disbanded altogether as it serves no
useful function anymore.

You can read about the many many failings of the UN at unwatch.org
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1313899/k.948D/Issues_in_Focus.htm


The anti-Israel apparatus within the UN, therefore, is of considerable magnitude. Here the focus will be on a small part of this large canvas, the UN Commission on Human Rights. The story of the Commission's anti-Israel bias reflects the situation in the UN as a whole.

The Commission on Human Rights as a Case Study

The Commission on Human Rights, comprised of a rotating membership of fifty-three member states, typically singles out Israel for discriminatory treatment in at least seven different ways:

1. The Commission's agenda devotes a special item to censuring Israel.

2. The Commission's debates disproportionately focus on condemning Israel.

3. The Commission's resolutions against Israel equal the combined total of country-specific resolutions adopted against all other countries in the world.

4. The Commission's independent experts subject Israel to irrational scrutiny and criticism.

5. The Commission bars Israel from participation in the regional group system, and thereby from membership in the Commission itself.

6. The Commission's emergency special sessions and special sittings are disproportionately dedicated to condemning Israel.

7. The Commission's NGO panel events single out Israel for special condemnation.

1. The Commission Devotes an Exclusive Agenda Item to Censuring Israel

The six-week session of the Commission proceeds according to an agenda approved annually by its fifty-three member states. There are twenty-one items on the agenda, treating matters such as self-determination, racism, civil and political rights, women's rights, and children's rights. Only two items expressly treat violations of human rights. Agenda Item 9 addresses human rights violations "in any part of the world," meaning violations occurring in all 191 UN member states. Agenda Item 8, meanwhile, is designed to treat human rights violations in one state alone -- Israel — and is entitled, "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine."

The establishment each year of a special agenda item to scrutinize Israel constitutes a blatant violation of Israel's right to be treated equally compared to every other state, as guaranteed under the UN Charter and reaffirmed at the recent 2005 World Summit.6

A few states, particularly the United States and Australia, have objected to the institutionalized, ab initio discrimination of Agenda Item 8, where Israel is denied equal treatment under the law before the proceedings even begin. During the past session in 2005, for example, Ambassador Rudy Boschwitz, head of the U.S. delegation, stated before the plenary:

We have further noted in the past and do so again today the inappropriateness and the genuine unfairness of the presence on the Agenda of this Commission an item -- Item No. 8 -- that deals solely with a single UN member, Israel, while another agenda item - Item No. 9 - suffices for the misdeeds of all the other 190 members of the UN.7 Australia's ambassador Mike Smith stated:

Australia opposes the maintenance of Agenda Item 8. Australia is concerned that this stand-alone agenda item allows for unbalanced criticism of Israel. The singling out of one country for criticism under a unique agenda item is anomalous when there is an existing, separate agenda item for the consideration of human rights issues in all other countries.8

Most UN member states, however, including the European and other democracies, have failed to speak out against this form of prejudice by the Commission. (See below for a discussion of UN Watch's innovative 2004 address under Item 8.)

2. Commission Debates Focus on Condemning Israel

Apart from the special agenda item exclusively devoted to condemning Israel, many of the debates under the Commission's other agenda items -- racism, civil and political rights, women's rights -- are replete with disproportionate censure of Israel, to the exclusion of urgent human rights abuses around the world.

This is particularly so during the first week of debates, which sets the tone for the entire annual session. For example, in the recent 2005 session, under the debate on self-determination (Agenda Item No. 5), the Palestinian claim -- one that Israel has already recognized -- was invoked by some fifteen out of eighteen statements. In contrast, the claims of the Tibetans, the Kurds, or the Basques, not to mention the hundreds of other peoples currently seeking self-determination, were entirely ignored. The organized assault on Israel in one speech after another succeeds in creating its intended effect on delegates gathered from around the world: imprinting the image of Israel as international pariah.

3. Half of the Commission's Country-Specific Resolutions are against Israel

When it comes to condemning specific countries for alleged human rights violations, the Commission typically passes half of all such resolutions against one state -- Israel. In 2005, for example, the Commission adopted four resolutions against Israel, equaling the combined total of resolutions against all other states in the world. Belarus, Cuba, Myanmar, and North Korea were the subject of one resolution each.9 One resolution condemned Israel for settlements, a second for its presence on the Golan Heights, a third for alleged violations in the territories, and a fourth demanded Palestinian self-determination, understood by all as a vote directed against Israel.

Additionally, the Commission adopted a Chairman's Decision to postpone, for the second consecutive year, consideration of a fifth anti-Israel resolution concerning alleged Lebanese detainees in Israel. This assures it a place on next year's agenda.10 The Lebanese, who at the time of the session were still controlled by Damascus, were told by Germany that most member states saw the resolution as frivolous since Israel had already released all the detainees.

An EU resolution on Sudan, submitted under the agenda item of "Human Rights Violations in Any Part of the World," was withdrawn for lack of support. Instead, it was adopted by the Commission in a diluted form under Agenda Item 19, "Technical Cooperation."

The language of Commission resolutions against Israel sometimes rises to the level of incitement. Most notoriously, an annual text used to reference General Assembly Resolution 37/43 of 1982, which affirms "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for… liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" (emphasis added).11 The final words were understood by all to condone Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.12 Although this particular reference was omitted in 2005, the language of the resolutions against Israel remained exceptionally harsh and inflammatory.

4. The Commission's Special Rapporteurs Single Out Israel for Special Condemnation

One of the notable mechanisms of the Commission is the special rapporteurs, a set of individuals appointed by the Commission to examine human rights issues in a particular country, such as Cambodia, or on a particular issue, such as violence against women. Although they are creations of and fully subject to the Commission, the appointees are otherwise independent, and commonly referred to as independent experts. Some indeed come with considerable human rights expertise; others are mere political appointments.

A considerable number of the experts have successfully exposed abuses around the world, achieving far more than the annual plenary session of the Commission, where repressive regimes, which dominate the membership, block most attempts at meaningful action. When it comes to Israel, however, too many of the experts have failed to act objectively, instead participating in the selective prosecution and a priori conviction of Israel. One of the most egregious perpetrators is John Dugard, special rapporteur on Palestine, whose most recent report, released in September 2005, dismisses Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as an artifice and fails to say a single word about Palestinian terrorism.

By now, though, such behavior is expected from the Commission's expert on Palestine, whose mandate is expressly tailored to examine Israeli violations only. Many of the Commission's other experts, however -- those with mandates bearing no particular connection to Israel or the Palestinian territories -- disproportionately single out Israel for censure.

On 4 August 2005, Israel was less than two weeks away from its scheduled disengagement from the Gaza Strip, a plan to withdraw soldiers and destroy the homes of ten thousand Israeli citizens. The move was seen by the world as both a consequential concession and an internally wrenching decision. However, on that day, eight independent experts saw fit to collectively issue a harsh denunciation of Israel.

The experts, it seems, were concerned that insufficient attention was being paid to the ICJ advisory opinion of 2004, and that Israel was continuing to construct its security barrier in the West Bank. Specifically, they objected to "negotiations conducted in terms of the Road Map" that, the experts alleged, paid short shrift to the court's opinion -- and criticized the UN itself for sponsoring the talks. This bizarre charge is elaborated in detail in Dugard's September report, and it is fair to presume that he played a key role in drafting the joint statement.

The recklessness of the timing aside, that Dugard would issue such a statement was not altogether surprising. Less clear, though, was why the seven others, each of whom is authorized by the Commission to treat a defined mandate, went along. These were:

The special rapporteur on housing, Mr. Miloon Kothari
The special rapporteur on violence against women, Ms. Yakin Erturk
The special rapporteur on the right to education, Mr. Vernor Munoz Villalobos
The special rapporteur on "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," Mr. Paul Hunt
The special rapporteur on racism, Mr. Doudou Diène
The chairperson of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, Ms. Leila Zerrougui
The special rapporteur on trafficking in women and children, Ms. Sigma Huda

Whatever her political views on the issues, there is no possible nexus between Ms. Huda's mandate on trafficking of women and Israel's construction of the West Bank security barrier.13 Whereas several of these rapporteurs have published criticisms of Israel, none has ever issued a single statement or report against Palestinian terrorism. Similarly, in June 2004, the annual assembly of independent experts, attended by some twenty-five rapporteurs, issued a joint statement that attacked only one country, Israel. There was not a word about the crimes against humanity in Darfur or anywhere else.

Apart from the joint statements, many of the annual reports to the Commission by thematic experts unfairly censure Israel. The 2005 report of Yakin Erturk, expert on violence against women, effectively argued that when Palestinian men beat their wives, it is Israel's fault. (For an even more egregious case, see below on Jean Ziegler, the expert on food.)

5. The Commission Bars Israel from a Regional Group and from Membership on the Commission

Israel's is the only UN permanent mission in Geneva denied membership in any of the world body's five regional groups, a vital element for meaningful participation in UN bodies. Consequently, when the Commission's fifty-three states, along with the one hundred or so other states that participate as observers, meet in their regional groups to share information on upcoming resolutions or other developments, Israel is the only country left out. Moreover, Israel's exclusion from full membership in a regional group has effectively prevented it from membership on the Commission. Regimes such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Sudan are regularly reelected.

Although Israel belongs in the Asian group, like its neighbors Jordan or Lebanon, opposition from Arab and Muslim states has barred Israel from joining. In 2000, the Western European and Other Group (WEOG), a cluster of democracies including West European countries, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, allowed Israel temporary and limited membership in New York. In Geneva, however, WEOG has refused to admit Israel. It is one thing, say European states, to allow Israel to join their grouping in New York, which is concerned with allocating positions to UN bodies, but quite another thing in Geneva, where regional groups engage in substantive consultations. When it comes to discussing issues such as human rights, say these states, Israel should be barred from joining WEOG because the Jewish state "is not like-minded."

The Europeans, including France and the United Kingdom, are insistent against Israel joining WEOG outside New York. Thus, when WEOG granted Israel limited admission in 2000, it made clear that for a long time Israel would be disentitled from competing for the most sought-after positions, such as a seat on the Security Council, but could compete for certain other places.14 In 2004, WEOG offered Israel one of its assigned seats on the Governing Council of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP), meeting in Nairobi. The Israelis were pleased to gain entry to any UN position, and willingly accepted.

As the UNEP session began in Nairobi, the delegates, as usual, divided into their regional groups for discussions. The Israeli delegate, sent by WEOG, went to the WEOG delegates' room and took a seat. Soon, a European diplomat approached. "May I ask what you are doing here," he asked the Israeli delegate. Taken aback, the Israeli replied that he was representing his country, which was chosen by WEOG to sit on the Council, and hence he was in the WEOG room. "No," said the diplomat, "Israel was admitted to WEOG only in New York -- not in Geneva; not in Vienna; and not in Nairobi. Please leave." The delegate left.

Every country in the UN regional group system is part of a club that excludes its Jewish member. A few, like the United States, are openly seeking to end this bias. Those that are silent, however, abet this discrimination, just like members of a country club that prohibits blacks or other minorities.

Some are beginning to speak out on this issue. Addressing a Jerusalem audience in March 2005, Kofi Annan said, "I will do whatever I can to encourage corresponding groups [of WEOG] in Geneva and Vienna to follow suit. We need to correct a long-standing anomaly that kept Israel from participating fully and equally in the work of the [United Nations] Organization."15 The head of the UN Foundation, Senator Timothy E. Wirth, has also voiced his objection. "Reform must also embrace the full inclusion of Israel as a normal Member State," he said in recent testimony to Congress. "Israel, as the only Member State that is not a member of one of the regional groups, has no chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security Council or the Economic and Social Council, and we must work to rectify this anomaly."16

Although the secretary-general committed himself to do "whatever he can," it is not clear what, if any, follow-up has occurred.

6. The Commission's Emergency Sessions Single Out Israel

During the 2004 session, the Commission convened but one emergency "Special Sitting." The objective was not to discuss Sudan, where more than a million victims in Darfur faced mass rape, killing, or internal displacement, but rather to condemn Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin, head of the Hamas terrorist group. Yassin was eulogized at the Commission as a "spiritual leader." The move to convene the Special Sitting was initiated by the Islamic group and won a majority from the Commission. A disproportionate amount of Special Sittings and Special Sessions, which may be convened by a majority of members any time during the year, have been devoted to condemning Israel.

7. The Commission's NGO Panels Single Out Israel for Condemnation

At influential panel events known in UN parlance as "side events," which are organized at the Commission site by nongovernmental organizations, Israel is routinely singled out for disproportionate condemnation. At the 2005 session, for the second year in a row, a panel discussion organized by the International Commission of Jurists, meant to debate Israel's security barrier, failed to invite a single speaker who would even mention the terrorism that caused the barrier to be constructed in the first place. John Dugard, special rapporteur on Palestine, was among the speakers.

Conclusion: The Commission Denies Israel Due Process and Equality under the Law

As shown by the seven different violations discussed above, the Commission on Human Rights, the UN's foremost body on human rights, is itself a massive violator of the right to equality. A proceeding that subjects a party to selective prosecution, and judges it guilty even before any debate has begun, is void for denial of due process, and a mistrial. However, the Commission is merely one of many UN bodies practicing this form of extreme discrimination against the Jewish state. What is to be done?

The UN Watch Model

There are some who object to the UN's anti-Israel bias but believe that the best approach is to simply ignore the institution as a lost cause. Such an approach, however, has yielded no progress. The better strategy is to contest every instance of inequality in a serious and sophisticated way. Such efforts can bear fruit -- for example, the struggle to admit Israel as a limited member of WEOG in New York, which was spearheaded by the determination of the American Jewish Committee and the diplomacy of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. To make the most compelling case for restoring the UN Charter's ideals, one must marshal both the facts and the applicable international law. That is the approach of UN Watch.

UN Watch was created through the vision of Morris B. Abram (1918-2000). A lawyer from Georgia, Abram served on the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg. He then returned to the American South and participated in the civil rights struggle. He went on to serve five different presidents under various commissions, until his last appointment as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva. When he completed his tenure in 1993, Abram saw the need for an outside body that would monitor the UN according to the principles of its Charter. Together with a group of human rights activists, international law scholars, and former statesmen, he founded UN Watch.

Based in Geneva, UN Watch is a nongovernmental organization that monitors the UN and promotes human rights, acting in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Currently affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, UN Watch monitors the UN on a range of issues and is at the forefront of the struggle against anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias at the world body. The group is chaired by Alfred H. Moses, former U.S. special envoy in Europe and a Washington attorney. This author has served as executive director since 2004, and can offer a few instances from the struggle at the UN against what is in effect a new form of anti-Semitism.

1. UN Watch Turns the Tables on Item 8

As discussed above, the Arab states sought the creation of a special Commission agenda item (No. 8) to condemn Israel. Each year under this item, one representative after another, often from the world's most repressive regimes, pillories Israel for alleged crimes. In response, Israel typically takes the defensive. The spectacle of Middle East human rights abusers denouncing the only democracy in their midst hardly contributes to the credibility of the Commission, nor to the integrity of the UN as a whole.

During the 2004 session, UN Watch for the first time pierced the bias of Agenda Item 8. Despite the intentions of its drafters, the wording of Item 8's mandate, it turns out, fails to limit the discussion to Israel. Instead, the title is "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine." This could refer to violations in Palestine, but also to any other Arab territory under occupation by any other country.

Consequently, in March 2004, speaking before the Commission plenary under Item 8, UN Watch detailed the international law violations committed under Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon, an Arab country.17 The UN Watch speech startled the Syrians, who, certainly under Item 8, did not expect to find their country's record the subject of scrutiny.18 For the first time, a leader of the annual Item 8 condemnations was challenged for its own violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.19

2. The UN Disowns Jean Ziegler's Anti-Semitism

The previous section described how many of the Commission's thematic experts single out Israel for unfair treatment. None is more unrelenting than Jean Ziegler, a former Swiss radical politician. Although his position is "special rapporteur on the right to food," he neglects the world's real food problems to pursue his obsession with Israel. In 2004 and 2005, UN Watch meticulously exposed Ziegler's bias and, after determined efforts, succeeded in leading Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, the government of Canada, and the U.S. Congress to condemn Ziegler for his anti-Semitic statements.

Although some dismiss Ziegler as a mere nuisance, his tendentious reports circulate around the world and cause serious prejudice. When the International Court of Justice declared Israel's security barrier to be a violation of international law, the judges relied on Ziegler's reports as one of their factual sources.20

In the summer of 2005, Ziegler depicted Israel in Nazi terms. He told a crowd of pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Geneva that the Gaza Strip was "an immense concentration camp," and compared Israelis to concentration camp guards. He then called on Europe to boycott Israeli goods, all of which was reported in Switzerland's Le Courrier.21

This was not the first time Ziegler had made such remarks. Yet the UN had consistently refused to confront him about it. Since being appointed rapporteur in 2000, Ziegler has devoted much of his time to accusing Israel of starving Palestinians, and labeling Israel's leaders as "state terrorists."22

Ziegler was nominated for the post by Fidel Castro and Muammar Kadhafi, and his history of close ties to tyrants is well known. In 2002, Ziegler was awarded -- together with Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy -- the Muammar Kadhafi Human Rights Prize, an award Ziegler himself helped establish in 1989.23 Ziegler is popular among Europe's trendy radicals for his anti-American writings and impassioned media appearances. He is also a hero for his frequent attacks on the Jewish state, all issued with his UN imprimatur.

In the summer of 2004, after it emerged that Ziegler was using UN staff and resources to run an anti-Israel boycott campaign, UN Watch petitioned for his removal with a legal brief to the UN Commission on Human Rights.24 It demonstrated how Ziegler repeatedly abused his mandate on hunger by singling out Israel for condemnation on matters not concerning food. The brief urged the UN to consider that Ziegler's wrongdoing "undermines the credibility of the institution of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and of the two bodies under which it operates, the Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights."25 It also documented a series of actions by Ziegler that showed a pattern of selective treatment of Israel, the only country he singled out for condemnation as a Nazi-like state that commits "state terror" and "war crimes."26

The charges against Ziegler received wide media coverage, particularly in Switzerland but also in Europe, the United States, and Israel. According to Le Temps of Geneva, Ziegler went from embassy to embassy in Geneva to solicit support. Effectively, the UN Watch brief had put him on notice: if he continued his anti-Israel abuses, he would be held accountable for violating his obligation to be objective, and the UN Charter's equality guarantee.

For about a year Ziegler refrained, relatively, from his normal abuses against the Jewish state. Yet it was in July 2005 - just as Israel was preparing to make painful sacrifices for peace that would involve the forcible transfer of ten thousand of its own citizens from Gaza - that Ziegler declared Israelis to be akin to concentration camp guards.

UN Watch called on Secretary-General Annan and High Commissioner Arbour to condemn Ziegler's statements. UN Watch noted that under the European Union's definition of anti-Semitism, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a classic manifestation of this form of hatred. The organization also turned to several member states of the Commission on Human Rights that, mostly out of diplomatic passivity, had voted to reelect Ziegler in 2003: Canada, Costa Rica, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.27 Each was urged to speak out. Finally, UN Watch alerted the media to the need for the UN to condemn Ziegler's demonization of Israelis.

The impact was immediate. On the same day, 7 July, the UN Watch press release was cited by a reporter at the daily press conference of Annan's spokesman in New York. Consequently, the spokesman soon issued a statement denouncing Ziegler for his remarks. The next day the spokesman for Arbour did the same, followed later by an even stronger statement by Arbour herself in a letter to UN Watch.28 Canada then sent Ziegler a formal complaint letter.29 Finally, some seventy members of the U.S. Congress wrote to Annan and the Commission Chair seeking Ziegler's resignation.

The story of this unprecedented condemnation was reported worldwide by Reuters, the Associated Press, the Washington Times, China's Xinhua, and the Jerusalem Post. Headlines reading "Ziegler Criticized by UN" appeared in a dozen different newspapers in Switzerland, including Le Temps, Basler Zeitung, and Tages-Anzeiger. For the first time, the UN community had condemned one of the Commission's human rights experts for anti-Semitism. Later stories about Ziegler, such as by the Associated Press,30 have cited this condemnation, for the first time providing readers with the necessary context.

Conclusion

The campaign to demonize Israel cripples the functioning of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The overt bias against one state undermines its credibility and integrity. The same can be said for the UN as a whole. The current period of UN reform demands that this injustice be remedied. It is to be hoped that many more UN officials, member states, NGOs, and others will take part in actively opposing this longstanding inequality.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1314451&ct=1766305

I dont know I have a feeling that even when a majority of americans are jobless and without healthcare and liveing in the most horrid circumstances we will still be shippings arms and money to israel and they in turn will spy on us and betray us at every opertunity if it serves their national interests.

Since the amount of aid we send Israel is only 3.6% of our annual
International Affairs budget, we could cut the International
Affairs budget elsewhere by 10%, continue to give Israel the same
amount of money and still save more than twice as much money as
cutting funds to Israel every year!

And then we could save the money plus continue to support our
beleaguered ally.

I am certain that that money would make a huge differance if it were applied to detroit or Michigan or Ohio in job creation.

Heck it would be better applied building about anything from windmills to solar panels or even extending unemployment benefits.

Its a dead end sendimg them money as we get nothing.

Well we do get something.

We get the hate of the rest of the world and are exposed in our hypocracy.

As an example, Israel has Nuclear weapons and has refused to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, America does and says nothing.
Other countries who have signed the non proliferation treaty have been bombed for peacefully attempting to run a nuclear power plant.

Just one of many examples but all I have time for.

Have to cut the grass and water the garden hitting the beach at one pm.

Like I said. If the goal is simply to save money then cutting aid
to Israel is inconsequential in a 3.5 trillion dollar budget.

You need to cut money in other areas to have any kind of an impact.

You simply want to stick it to the Israelis and agree with the
unjust and biased policies of the UN Bash Israel committee and
the Islamic extremists.

Fortunately everyone else can see the real value of our strong
ties with our Israeli allies.

Here are some excerpts from a recent speech by Hillary Clinton:

Given the shared challenges we face, the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been more important. (Applause.) The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests. (Applause.) And we know that the forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America. (Applause.) And therefore, we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel’s security, we strengthen America’s security. (Applause.)

And why is that? Why is that? Is it because AIPAC can put 7,500 people into a room in the Convention Center? I don’t think so. Is it because some of the most active Americans in politics and who care about our government also care about Israel? That’s not the explanation. Our countries and our peoples are bound together by our shared values of freedom, equality, democracy, the right to live free from fear, and our common aspirations for a future of peace, security and prosperity, where we can see our children and our children’s children, should we be so lucky – and as a future mother of the bride, I’m certainly hoping for that – (applause) – to see those children, those generations come of age in peace, with the opportunity to fulfill their own God-given potentials.

Americans honor Israel as a homeland for a people too long oppressed and a democracy that has had to defend itself at every turn, a dream nurtured for generations and made real by men and women who refused to bow to the toughest of odds. In Israel’s story, we see our own. We see, in fact, the story of all people who struggle for freedom and the right to chart their own destinies.

That’s why it took President Harry Truman only 11 minutes to recognize the new nation of Israel – (applause) – and ever since, our two countries have stood in solidarity. So guaranteeing Israel’s security is more than a policy position for me; it is a personal commitment that will never waver. (Applause.)

Since my first visit to Israel nearly 30 years ago, I have returned many times and made many friends. I’ve had the privilege of working with some of Israel’s great leaders and have benefited from their wise counsel. I may have even caused some of them consternation – I don’t think Yitzhak Rabin ever forgave me for banishing him to the White House balcony when he wanted to smoke. (Laughter.) And over the years, I have shared your pride in seeing the desert bloom, the economy thrive, and the country flourish. But I have also seen the struggles and the sorrows. I have met with the victims of terrorism, in their hospital rooms I’ve held their hands, I’ve listened to the doctors describe how much shrapnel was left in a leg, an arm, or a head. I sat there and listened to the heart-rending words that Prime Minister Rabin’s granddaughter Noa spoke at her grandfather’s funeral. I went to a bombed-out pizzeria in Jerusalem. I’ve seen the looks on the faces of Israeli families who knew a rocket could fall at any moment.

On one of my visits, in 2002, I met a young man named Yochai Porat. He was only 26, but he was already a senior medic with MDA and he oversaw a program to train foreign volunteers as first responders in Israel. I attended the program’s graduation ceremonies and I saw the pride in his face as yet another group of young people set off to do good and save lives. Yochai was also a reservist with the IDF. And a week after we met, he was killed by a sniper near a roadblock, along with other soldiers and civilians. MDA renamed the overseas volunteer program in his memory and it has continued to flourish. When I was there in 2005, I met with his family. His parents were committed to continuing to support MDA and its mission – and so was I. That’s why I spent years urging the International Red Cross, introducing legislation, rounding up votes to send a message to Geneva to admit MDA as a full voting member. And finally, with your help – (applause) in 2006, we succeeded in righting that wrong. (Applause.)

I didn't read your lengthy post.

Its a load of crap anyway.

But I would be happy if they simply cut aid to Israel down to what they give (percentage wise) to everyone else per their population.

As it stands, they play favorites and give Israel way too much.

That's fine if you don't want to learn the truth about it.
Can't be helped.

3.6% of the annual International Affairs budget is hardly too much
for an ally like that.

Fear is the motivation. Israel is afraid of the people they have oppressed.

In America, fear is the motivation and the driving force. Fear the enemy!! That is the what the propaganda is all about.

FEAR THE ENEMY!!

If you want to live free from fear, then stop being afraid, and stop creating hatred from you neighbors. Stop invading small third world countries and assassinating people who don't want your kind of corporate globalization and so-called democracy.

To the elite bankers and corporate terrorists criminals: We know who you are. We know your war crimes. We do not forget. We do not forgive. Don't preach freedom when you spread oppression and tyranny of usury and plunder.

Hilary Clinton does not speak the truth.
To give one single cent to the likes of Israel is to contribute to terrorism and tyranny in my opinion.