Ban Ki-moon and irresponsible rhetoric

By Ted Belman

WaPo titles article UN urges halt to ugly Israeli-Palestinian rhetoric

    UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Friday for a halt to “irresponsible rhetoric” that questions a two-state Israeli-Palestinian solution and incites hatred and violence.[..]

    Ban said the Palestinians have the right to an independent state, Israel has a right to live in peace within secure borders, and a way must be found for Jerusalem to emerge as the capital of the two states “with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all.”

    “There is no place for irresponsible rhetoric that calls into question these fundamentals, seeks to delegitimize the other’s heritage or incites hatred and violence,” he told the opening meeting of the U.N.
    Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

If only he was referring to the Palestinian rhetoric or UN rhetoric for that matter. Besides what is not irresponsible is not calling for a two state solution, the opposite of his position.

According to JPOST, In this same meeting he said to a GA committee

    “Settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law, contravene the Road Map obligations of Israel, undermine confidence, prejudge the outcome of the permanent status negotiations and hamper efforts at bringing the parties back to the negotiating table”.

He sure doesn’t hold back. Aside from being wrong on all counts, he totally ignores the Palestinian culpability for the breakdown of talks. After all, it’s the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate, refuse to recognize Israel, and refuse to compromise.

JPOST continues by advising that he condemns

    “the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” as well as “all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.”condemning Israel’s settlement activity and demanding it “immediately and completely” cease all settlement activities “in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

Look at all the buzz words; “occupying Power” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, This is the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention which I assert doesn’t apply. And what makes it “Palestinian Territory”. It has never been “Palestinian Territory”. Talk about prejudging the outcome. As for allegedly “altering the demographic composition, character and status” etc, there is no such proscription in the FGC or any where else. And the resolutions he is referring to are the resolutions of the GA which are not binding. Finally there is no such place as East Jerusalem. There is only Jerusalem or eastern Jerusalem.

The UN takes every opportunity to reinforce the Palestinian propaganda machine. No lie is too big. Just tell it often enough. Goebbels would be proud. So just who is using irresponsible rhetoric.

Yet he says no one should question his fundamentals.

January 22, 2011 | 15 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

15 Comments / 15 Comments

  1. Yamit hit the nail on the head, with his Orwell comment. This continual semantic attack on Israel is certainly unfair, and illogical. There is a logical reason why all the failed and failing governments of the world should be looking for a scapegoat, but it is not logical that Israel should be the scapegoat.

    Antisemitism? Antisemitism was a phenomenon in Europe and other countries that had a significant Diaspora Jewish population. It was very similar to the anti-Israel (and the parallel anti-American and anti-Evangelical Christian) movement we see today, in that the Jews of those countries provided a scapegoat for the failures of kings. The Jews were a LOGICAL target, because they were resident foreigners, very different from the citizens of those countries. Their failure to assimilate was looked upon as judgmentalism and snobbishness.

    Is that what we’re seeing today? Is Israel trying to be an oddball in the international community? No. In fact, it’s Israel’s neighbors, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, that are trying to assert their individuality and defy accepted norms (not to mention blowing people up around the world). Israeli Jews are universally decried not as a unique people, but as an extension of “American Imperialism” into the “World of Islam”; at the same time, Americans are derided as “Pawns of the Jews”; and in America itself, both Jews and non-Jews attack Evangelicals for their support of Zionism. Since this article is about the UN, it would be instructive to check out the UN votes over the years. There is nearly a 1:1 correlation between Israeli and American votes, and a 1:1 correlation between anti-American and anti-Israeli votes. This is not “Antisemitism”. The reasonable cause for the scapegoating is the same as it was with antiSemitism; and the modus operendi is much the same; but the targets are different, and so therefore is the logic of the phenomenon.

    My opinion is this: There is one thing that links the Zionists with the Evangelicals, and that is a literal belief in the Bible. The enemies of these people are, for the most part, people who either don’t believe the Bible, or flat-out oppose it and want it eliminated from the earth: The Communists, the atheists, the Moslems, the New Agers and Pagans, and the Eastern religions. There are, of course, some exceptions, such as the Neturei Karta, which has an anti-Zionist interpretation of Torah, and perhaps their Christian counterparts of whom I am unaware. There are some African leaders who claim to be Christians, who also oppose Israel; but I would guess that their beliefs do not extend to accepting the Bible literally. Liberal Christians, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ church, rejected the literality of the Scriptures long ago.

    This is the only understanding that makes sense to me, and fits most of the facts. The most poignant contradiction of my thinking is Ban Ki Moon himself, who claims to be a Christian.

    Ban Ki-moon was born in 1944 to a rural family in South Korea. He is married with three children. A Christian, he is member of a “group without Church”, a serious organisation that emerged in Japan at the beginning of last century. Its members, mostly intellectuals, make the Gospel a source of inspiration for their private and public life.

    An interesting note on his affiliation:

    The Mukyokai, or non-Church Christians, constitute one of the best known Christian movements in Japan…Founded by Uchimura Kanzo (1861-1930) in reaction to Western denominationalism, this small (about 35,000 adherents) movement is considered to be the most genuine form of Japanese Christianity. The Mukyokai reject all formal Christian institutions, having no sacraments, liturgy, professional clergy, church buildings, national headquarters, or membership rolls. Instead, this non-churchism is based on independent Bible study groups centered on the traditional teacher-disciple (sensei-deshi) relationship. The teachers have no formal training in the Bible, setting up group when inspired to do so; the group thus disintegrates when its teacher dies or retires. Most of these teachers are regularly employed in outside occupations, often as high school teachers or university professors. The Mukyokai movement has attracted members from all social strata in Japan, but it is particularly appealing to the Japanese intelligentsia –scholars, university professors, graduate students, and professionals.

    This is a very disquieting turn of events, because unaffiliated Christian groups in America, similar to Mokyokai in Japan, are generally pro-Zionist. Their lack of affiliation and hierarchy, of course, leaves them open to takeover by self-seeking people. Those leaders are a fifth column in the Evangelical movement, just as many anti-Zionist Jews are a fifth column among their fellows. When this is taken into consideration, the current international situation is not against Jews nor against Americans not against Evangeliecals, but against the Authority of Torah and, ultimately, the God of Torah. It is an ancient struggle, that dates to a time long before the establishment of either Islam or Christianity — or, for that matter, Judaism. It is a rebellion of man’s self-will against the rule of God. Thank God, He cannot lose.

  2. I would love to see these hypocrites at the U.N. practise what they preach. Have they EVER tried this in their own back yards? And somehow make Jerusalem the capitol of both. Ya right. We will get right on it. Obviously they recognize that the Jews have rights to the land or they would just try to suggest to give Jerusalem to the Pallis. The only way to fight back is to keep going back the days of Moses to reiterate Israel ALL of Israel belongs to the Jews. Remind them how the so called Palestinians are just displaced people from Jordan. And remind them that it was after the Holocaust it was decided the Jews NEEDED their homeland back for their own survival and it wasnt even the Jews who forced the issued. There is no back tracking now. And besides we know that Hamas doesnt even want peace.

  3. One last thought on Ban Moon and the United Nations in general.

    How was it possible that a supposed best friend of Israel following a bloody intifada upon Israel would call for Palestinian Statehood, elevate a Denier of the Shoah to a MAN OF PEACE, threaten Israel that if the Palestinian state is not contiguous,viable and not resemble swiss cheese there would be no peace in the region? How is it possible this best friend cooked up a deal (heard about in the news this week) with Olmert his idiot puppet to give the Palestinians statehood at 67 borders while consistently reminding Israel in public forums around the world that the humiliation of occupation and settlement activity must end for Palestinians to realize their dream of statehood? Worse then that, even worse then not signing the embassy act and worse than not sending a three word note of congratulations or a representative of his administration to the ceremony of the Anniversary of Reunification of Jerusalem was the formulation at his hand and bequeath of the Quartet for Peace composed of three arch enemies of Israel. The EU, Russia and worse, the UNITED NATIONS. Where were our friends when this happened? How can we complain about the EU, Russia and especially the UN on our backs when our best friend made it all happen while our supposed other friends who supported this ‘best friend to Israel’ pretty much threw their influence on him down the drain because of partisanship?

  4. Bravo B;andOatmeal…you are so right however

    let us boil this start reality down to the very essence of truth because NONE OF of 34 PEOPLES/entities (and counting) ON YOUR LIST…live next door to Israel. Much of the world represented by the knee jerk, phony bleeding heart, islamist at heart…delusional state of the United Nation’s give a rats a** about the oppressed anywhere anytime


    the said oppressed live next door to Israel. Period.

    The unending obsession with Israel perpetrated in part in recent world history by the UN


    allowed to ferment by friends and foes alike has a seed; it’s very beginning so ugly yet responsible for the longest running hate of any one people in the history of humankind.

    This perpetration of lying and gross distortion and denial of history by those WHO KNOW BETTER is


    at it’s very worst yet most basic form. Some wear it while others perhaps don’t even recognize it as such within themselves but if there is any underlying cause for Israel the victim being turned into the pariah or the victimizers Antisemitism must be alive and well in every form.

    Sadly, even our real friends are a long way from admitting this ugly truth because it is not only the most repulsive trait within humankind but for the most part innate.

  5. Per,

    Trans-Jordan was legally untrusted as a part of a mandate to the British Empire for purposes of development of a Jewish state. Therefore, I think the government of Israel should assist the PLO in establising them in Egypt in and around the Nile Delta. The land there not only is fertile, but it is also true that large number of Arabs migrated to Aretz-Yisrael from Mitzraim in order to benefit from the growing Jewish economy of the pre-state Yishuv.

    War with Egypt will come a fifth time, when the Moslem Brotherhood overthrows whatever survives of the Mubarak regime following his death, undoing all of Heinrich Kissinger’s diplomatic labors in the 1970s. That will require Israel to trap a fifth Egyptian army in the Sinai, sending them straggling back across the desert, past Mitla Pass, without their shoes; exactly as has always been the case. That will be the occasion to transport the whole of the Gaza Arab population westward to across the Suez canal, before pulling Zahal back across the canal and destroying the bridge.

    After the final solution to the Arab problem in Gaza, will come the turn of the Arabs of Shomron, Yehuda, Gilad and much of the rest of the old mandate lands on both sides of the Jordan River.

    All that is required is national patience, solidity of will of a truly Jewish nationalist government, and maintenance of the national military power for when the day comes.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  6. “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth”

    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

    George Orwell

  7. Oatmeal:
    Don’t forget the Palestinian Druze,Samaritans, Circassians, Bedouins and Armenians who might also need a state of their own with billions of dollars in financial aid to protect them from the Arabs.

    As a final contribution to the peace process, the Government of Israel should now seriously consider military assistance to the PLO for the liberation of Hashemite occupied Transjordanian Palestine where all Arab Palestinians should be finally settled. It was a very grave mistake not to provide such assistance in 1970.

  8. 36. the whites of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas.
    37. the Protestants of Northern Ireland.
    38. the Christians of Lebanon.
    39. the Ainu of Hokkaido in Japan.
    40. the Moslems of Mindanao in the Philippines.
    41. the Serbs of Kosovo.
    42. the Ruthenians of western Ukraine.
    43. the Afrikaners of South Africa.
    44. the Sicilians.
    45. the Tutsis and Hutus of east Africa.
    46. the Russians of eastern Ukraine.
    47. the Russians of Latvia and Estonia.
    48. the Scots.
    49. the Welsh.
    50. the Krim Tatars.
    51. the Latinos of the US southwest.

    Think of the possibilities of expanding the UNO with a General Assembly larger than the US House of Representatives.

    And, by the way. Is Israel the only UNO member that never has been accorded a rotating seat on the Security Council? Or is international injustice reserved for Jews alone?

    If you want to push the cultural definition envelope, there are possibly thousands of “nations” that would qualify for independence, each with its own little capital, army, secret service, and howling voice at UNO meetings.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  9. I agree, and I think one of the articles linked to a few days ago had an insightful point. There was never a significant push for “Palestinian self-determination” during the years that the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. But why not? If the Pal Arabs have a natural right to their own state, what difference does it make that their nascent state is occupied by Jews or other Arabs?

    The problem is not that the Pal Arabs lack a state; the problem is that the Jews do have a state.

  10. Ban said the Palestinians have the right to an independent state…

    Then so do:

    1. the Kurds
    2. the Copts
    3. the Maronites
    4. the Iraqi Sunnis
    5. the Saudi Shiites
    6. the Yemeni Shiites
    7. the Fur
    8. the Baluchis
    9. the Iranian Azeris
    10. the Iranian Turcomans
    11. the Mazandaranis, Lurs and others of Iran
    12. the Afghan Tadzikis
    13. the Hazaras
    14. the Afghan Uzbekhis
    15. the Burushaskis and others of Pakistan & NE Afghanistan
    16. the South Moluccan Christians
    17. the West New Guineans
    18. the Bongo-Baguirmi of Chad
    19. the Ibo of Nigeria
    20. the Yoruba of Nigeria
    21. the Christian tribes of Cote d’Ivoire
    22. the Tuareg of Algeria, Niger and Mali
    23. the Atlas Mtn. Berbers of Morocco & Algeria
    24. the Tibetans
    25. the Uighurs
    26. the Karens, Chins, etc. of Burma
    27. the Balinese
    28. the Basques of Spain
    29. the Catholics of N. Ireland
    30. the Flemish
    31. the Caribs of Nicaragua
    32. the Blacks of the District of Columbia
    33. the Quebec French
    34. the Navajo
    35, etc. the list is endless

    Since when do immigrant groups like the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, a land which has NEVER hosted a native Arab nation, but was the Jewish heartland for hundreds of years, automatically have the “right” to their own country, and the “right” to ethnically cleanse the Jewish inhabitants of those lands? Hitler had a better case for the Sudetenland. Maybe when dreamers like Ban Ki-Moon stop talking fantasy, there will be a chance at peace. The Arabs of Israel are an alien minority. If they don’t like their status, they should choose which one of 22 Arab homelands they want to be part of and leave the Jews alone.