WTF U.N.?

[davetlv]

Firstly I dont approve of punishing the family for the crimes of their offsprings. This style of retribution can never solve anything. I think that if my government has proof that the family knew or where involved with the crimes of their offsprings then they should be tried in a court of law, and not punished by the army.

Secondly, imagine the scenario, fliers are distributed amongst the population saying 'On Monday please evacuate your area as we are going to target so and so' - cant see this working can you? It is unfortunate that in war innocents get harmed, I dont like it, i dont particularly like war, but if those who send people out to murder my people can be taken out i aprove - i fully support targeted assasinations. I dont however accept civillian casualities, and whereever possible we should ensure that these are kept to a minimum - and my idea of minimum is 0.

Thirdly, as for terrorist never having attacked shcools and hospitals - you might be right, i can't remember every single attack, however, children also go on buses, go to cafes, go to shopping malls, young people go to nightclubs - these are all targets. Lets be clear, as far as Hamas and the like are concerned, when it comes to taking Jewish life, they dont care how old we are, 0 or 90.

Fourthly, last year when the Maxim was blown up in Haifa, it was not full of just Israeli Jews, there were also a large number of Israeli Arabs (Haifa is particularly known for it usual peaceful co-existence). The bomber made no differentiation between Jew and Arab - from their point of view is some arab/muslims are casualties then they become martyers. For them its collateral damage!

We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.

[Civic_Zen]

We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.

[asdf_admin]

I am not pleased with the UN. For a peace keeping service, they surely do poorly and have way too many politics. I know too much. hAlp.

[brakada]

Firstly I dont approve of punishing the family for the crimes of their offsprings. This style of retribution can never solve anything. I think that if my government has proof that the family knew or where involved with the crimes of their offsprings then they should be tried in a court of law, and not punished by the army.

Secondly, imagine the scenario, fliers are distributed amongst the population saying 'On Monday please evacuate your area as we are going to target so and so' - cant see this working can you? It is unfortunate that in war innocents get harmed, I dont like it, i dont particularly like war, but if those who send people out to murder my people can be taken out i aprove - i fully support targeted assasinations. I dont however accept civillian casualities, and whereever possible we should ensure that these are kept to a minimum - and my idea of minimum is 0.

I agree with you on the targeted assasinations, although I was bashing you on the old MS about the assasination of Sheik Yassin or whatever was his name, it's not that I disapprove the assasinations, but the Israelis chose the most inappropriate moment. Just when he was returning from the mosque.

I'm glad that the number of attacks in Israel has decreased, though, at least I hope it has. Still not following the news regulary.... :wink:

Thirdly, as for terrorist never having attacked shcools and hospitals - you might be right, i can't remember every single attack, however, children also go on buses, go to cafes, go to shopping malls, young people go to nightclubs - these are all targets. Lets be clear, as far as Hamas and the like are concerned, when it comes to taking Jewish life, they dont care how old we are, 0 or 90.

I know children go on buses, but if you were refering to my idea about "safe zones", I'm rather sure, that terrorists wouldn't attack a bus full of Palestinian children from a refugee camps... If they would, it definitely wouldn't help their public image.

Kids shouldn't be going to nightclubs.... :wink:

Fourthly, last year when the Maxim was blown up in Haifa, it was not full of just Israeli Jews, there were also a large number of Israeli Arabs (Haifa is particularly known for it usual peaceful co-existence). The bomber made no differentiation between Jew and Arab - from their point of view is some arab/muslims are casualties then they become martyers. For them its collateral damage!

I am aware of that.

We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.

thing that worries me with Sharon's election is how could such a guy be elected. I understand that a lot of Israelis are losing their patience, and seek revenge, but Sharon's methods and motives were clear even before he was elected. When is your next election BTW?

[davetlv]

When you reach my age, anyone under 21 is a kid!!!

Your idea of safe buffer zones is intresting. However, if these people care about their youth why do they place their bomb factories in areas surrounded by facilities for kids and civillians generally? Why do they send them out to kill themselves? I guess part of the answer is if Israel bombs them then they take the blame, but at the end of the day the responsibility for their deaths are in the hands of the terrorists. They facilitated them. They are to blame for them.

Now on to Sharon. He got elected for very simple reasons. BOMBS BOMBS BOMBS. The more terror attacks this country faced the more it wanted someone who they percieved as being able to clamp down hard on the mechanisms of terror.

I disagree with you on the whole 'wanted revange'. No one i know here wants revenge. They want to live in peace without the fear of getting blown up on the bus, in the mall. . . When Sharon came to power in 01, and then was reelcted in 03 you have to understand the level of helplessness many Israelis felt.

The Oslo accords had failed, Camp David and Taba was rejected out right and instead of any solutions being put forward by Arafat, terrorism was sponsered. The left in Israel which had put so much effort into the peace process that it was emotionally crippled. They had tried and failed.

The reality on the ground was a nightmare. I came here exactly two years ago (well two years next week). The last time i was in Israel was in September 2000, just before the uprising. The country was flourishing for both Jews and Arabs. There was a great deal of investment, Israelis and Palestinians had work. It really looked like good times were ahead. When i moved here i saw a totally different country. One living in fear, rejected by outside investment, raising unemployment. A country once more at war, and not in the conventionall sense.

Arial Sharon talked the talk. He said what many people wanted to hear. He said that he would ultimetly stop the terror and would rebuild the country. He gave a lot of people hope (albeit false hope in my opinion). Thats how he got elected. It aint particulary pretty, but it happened.

Many people, stupidly, believed he had reformed. But when people are desperate they do desperate things. . . as we know!

Now as far as the next elections are concerned, they are scheduled for 2007 (or 2006 - no one is quite sure due to a change in the law a few years back). Either way, i'm not convinced he will last that long. he's desperatly trying to hold on to his coalition as we speak. Members of his own party disagree with his desire to leave Gaza, he's leading a minority government at the moment. He wants, and needs, the labour parties support. I give him a maximum of 12 months (although realistically i think we will vote again in January)

[acmatos]

I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.

[mylexicon]

So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.

[brakada]

I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.

Well, the suicide bombers are wiping themselves up, so why bother... :wink: Don't you think that by now the Palestinians have already lost.... , or do you think that the bombers, are soon going to be followed by Palestinian tanks and their airforce... I think they loose the suicide bombers and this has turned to guerilla warfare, which is very hard to stop. The easiest solution would be wiping out the whole middle east (sorry Dave :wink: ), and voila, problem solved. But it would be a bit inhumane, though. But I agree that Arafat should be removed from power, somehow.

So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.

So, UNICEF is all about going to war, UNESCO is all about going to war either, UNCHR is going about war, ISDR is all about going to war, the landmines programme is all about going to war,...

Come on, mylexicon. How naive do you think I am. (no need to answer that... :wink: )

Maybe the idea that the UN should be left only with humanitarian tasks, which appeared earlier in this thread, wasn't that bad after all....

[delirious]

So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.

The UN Foundation Children?s Health program has awarded almost $200 million through more than 50 major projects. The vast majority of UNF?s Children?s Health initiatives are being undertaken in Africa, where we have helped to strengthen public health capacity and the ability of host governments to address an array of children?s health challenges.

Our work has been advanced and informed by the many partners with which we are privileged to participate: the World Health Organization (WHO); the UN Children?s Fund (UNICEF); the American Red Cross; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Rotary International; SmithKline Beecham; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; United States Agency for International Development (USAID); International Development Research Centre (IDRC); and others.

Eradicating Polio

Together with WHO, UNICEF, CDC, Rotary International, the World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the UN Foundation is a member of the worldwide polio eradication endeavor aiming to eradicate the disease by the end of 2005. Already, the number of countries where the disease remains endemic has been cut from 20 in 2000 to 10 in 2001.

Building on the experience of the global immunization drive that eradicated smallpox in 1979, the polio eradication initiative has also reduced the number of new cases from 350,000 in 1988 ? when the global eradication effort began ? to under 500 in 2001 representing a very measurable impact on the disease burden of many countries: vaccine delivery; national immunization days and surveillance activities; and days of tranquility in countries experiencing conflict.

This broad global effort to revitalize the polio eradication effort has brought increased partnership development and creative fundraising solutions to the worldwide campaign. We are hopeful that many of the infrastructures (cold chain, laboratory network, surveillance), approaches (microplanning, social mobilization), and lessons (measure the impact from the start, work in the most difficult situations earlier in the effort) from polio eradication will also help to advance other disease control efforts such as measles.

Teamwork against Measles

The UN Foundation?s Measles Partnership with WHO, UNICEF, CDC, and the American Red Cross draws from the polio model to mount an effort to prevent measles, the leading cause of vaccine-preventable deaths among children. Although the measles vaccine is both effective and inexpensive ? costing less than one dollar on average to vaccinate a child ? WHO estimates that over three-quarters of a million children died of the disease in 2000. In March 2001, launching the first phase of the Measles Initiative, UNICEF and WHO, supported by a grant from the UN Foundation, CDC, and the American Red Cross, began immunizing millions of children in eight countries.

With UN Foundation support, more than 34 million doses of measles vaccine were procured and used for measles Supplemental Immunization Activities (SIAs) or ?catch-up campaigns? in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, Uganda, Togo, and Kenya. The data indicates these SIAs are contributing to the reduction of measles morbidity and mortality among children from 9 months to 15 years.

The goal of measles immunizations is to reduce mortality and morbidity by 95% and 90% respectively. By the year 2005, our partners estimate that the drive will have prevented 1.2 million deaths from measles in Africa bringing the number to near zero. Widespread international support for measles vaccinations will help ensure that such hopes become a reality.
Prevention of Tobacco Use

The UN Foundation?s early support for the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) at WHO has helped to raise the profile of diseases caused by tobacco use and to place a long-term struggle against the single most lethal agent of disease ? tobacco ? on the global agenda.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which grew from the work of the TFI, is the first ever global pact in the field of public health. The principle of the treaty is to reduce consumption of, or exposure to, tobacco. The intent of the five projects supported by the UN Foundation is to prevent childhood exposure to tobacco since most smokers begin to smoke before they reach 18 years of age. The UN Foundation?s funding of projects in education, media coverage, legislation, and economics have mobilized and provided tools for many grassroots efforts in developing countries to combat tobacco interests among youth. Our support has also enabled WHO to mobilize bilateral donors for the tobacco treaty convention and to bring NGOs from developing countries into the process as active participants.

Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses

It takes the orchestrated efforts of health workers, teachers, parents, community leaders, and even children to reduce death, illness, and disability and to promote improved growth and development among children under five years of age. That premise is embodied in the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) approach to child health, a WHO/UNICEF-led initiative that focuses on the well-being of the entire child. With support from the UN Foundation, those UN agencies are putting the concept into practice in ten Latin American countries and seven African ones.

IMCI pursues a three-pronged strategy: improving family and community health practices, strengthening the skills of health staff, and improving the health delivery system. The community component of IMCI, imparting preventive health information and care practices to communities and caregivers to improve care-seeking behaviors, has exceptional potential to decrease childhood mortality. Simultaneously increasing access to district health services and improving the skills of health workers at district health centers increases the acceptability of prescribed treatments. As a concrete way to strengthen the capacity of UN agencies to work with local authorities and staff, IMCI can significantly broaden the access of the poorest of the poor to preventive health measures.

Within the UN Foundation?s community IMCI program, nine interrelated projects seek to improve family and community health practices to prevent malaria, acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, measles, and malnutrition ? the leading causes of death for children under five years of age. To carry out these critical programs, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) will work with the American Red Cross in promoting household and community-wide behavioral changes to prevent childhood illnesses. Additionally, the project will develop a long-distance learning community health course and document project experiences to share success stories with other regions. Thousands of Red Cross volunteers, joining other NGOs, will help the UN carry out this ambitious community-based effort on a region-wide basis.

In addition, the UN Foundation provided support for initiatives throughout Africa, and for expansion of the "Promoting Essential Health Interventions in Tanzania" (TEHIP) project. The Tanzania enterprise (in which Canada?s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is an important UN Foundation partner) uses the IMCI approach to empower district health teams ? in collaboration with their communities ? to make rational choices and prioritize essential health interventions for children and their families. Instead of top-down directives, the projects equip local health systems to base their decision-making on evidence of what works (or does not) in practice. The result is a better understanding of how to use existing health programs for disease prevention.

Community IMCI programs work to convey information to households through child-to-child and child-to-parent channels. Community baseline surveys that quantify child health care practices will be used to guide development of informational/educational materials. Through WHO and UNICEF, this grassroots experience in preventive health care is to be disseminated throughout Africa.

http://www.unfoundation.com/five_year_cd/programs.htm

[Yao]

I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.

Problem is, the Palestinians will never let it get that far. I think we might be in for another terrorist resistance war, just like the one in Iraq now. You're adressing it as if it were an ordinary war, but it's not. It has already gone underground and will remain there, no matter what happens in the future. So I don't think one can speak in terms of 'winning' or 'losing' in this case.

I still remember the day that Rabin got assasinated. I was only 15 and watching the news with my parents, and when that newsflash got trough, all I could think of was: No more peace. They're fucked now over there.
Peres tried to save all he could, but he didn't come near Rabin actually.

As for Sharon: what would you expect from an ex-general who is still very militant in his ideas? You could see it coming, and now that he screwed up big time, he is trying to save his own ass. Which hopefully won't work. Question is: what will the Israelians get next?

[mylexicon]

So, UNICEF is all about going to war, UNESCO is all about going to war either, UNCHR is going about war, ISDR is all about going to war, the landmines programme is all about going to war,...

So now that these achievements of various goodwill programs are widely
publicized are you more inclined to empower the U.N. or less inclined to empower
the U.N.?

So the U.N. widely reports its sucesses, and it has the ability to write international
law, and it has the ability to place sanctions on people, and it is a place where
people with different ideas come to debate who is right and who is wrong.
The U.N. is not a charity organization, it is the world's first attempt at creating
one central global government. Only people without legislative power can be
non-political, like charities for instance.

How naive are you? I don't know, but it doesn't look good for you.

[acmatos]

Problem is, the Palestinians will never let it get that far. I think we might be in for another terrorist resistance war, just like the one in Iraq now. You're adressing it as if it were an ordinary war, but it's not. It has already gone underground and will remain there, no matter what happens in the future. So I don't think one can speak in terms of 'winning' or 'losing' in this case.

First off, someone ALWAYS wins.
Well it is obviously a terrorist resistance war similar to Iraq. However, there is a huge difference. The Palestinians have a proclaimed terrorist leader in the open that is allowed to speak at the UN. The fact that it is underground(which I highly doubt anyway) does not mean there are no targets that can be readily destroyed. Nor does it mean that it should not be dealt with like any other conflict/war. That is the fundamental error that everyone is making. People need to realize that Arafat and his intifada, Hamas, and all these other assholes are just another terrorist/guerilla movement that has control over the West Bank and Gaza. This is what is keeping these guys alive. The Israelis should be allowed to send in counter-insurgency groups, like was done all over Latin America, and eliminate the suspected terrorists. (There are currently ex-terrorist/guerilla all over latin america that willingly reformed when faced with certain death). Yeah, some innocent people might die, but this whole sad story could finally end. The Israelis have good inteligence so they probably know where most of the leaders are anyway.

Well, the suicide bombers are wiping themselves up, so why bother... :wink: Don't you think that by now the Palestinians have already lost.... , or do you think that the bombers, are soon going to be followed by Palestinian tanks and their airforce... I think they loose the suicide bombers and this has turned to guerilla warfare, which is very hard to stop. The easiest solution would be wiping out the whole middle east (sorry Dave :wink: ), and voila, problem solved. But it would be a bit inhumane, though. But I agree that Arafat should be removed from power, somehow.

True, the suicide bombers are wiping themselves out, but there will always be more of them. Unless.. Arafat and his goons disappear. Why doesn't he strap a bomb to his chest if its such an honor to die that way?? Cause it's not and he knows it. He can sit back, and as long as these morons are blowing themselves up, and they are at war with Israel, he will continue to get millions of dollars in UN aid to fatten up his swiss bank accounts. (the improvements in Gaza and West Bank over the years are incredible , no? ) I think it will be much easier to stop than suspected, even if it isn't that doesn't mean that it can't be done or the Israelis shouldn't try.

I understand where you guys arecoming from, but give me a realstic, viable solution to the problem other than a victory by one side or the other.

[brakada]

First off, someone ALWAYS wins.
Well it is obviously a terrorist resistance war similar to Iraq. However, there is a huge difference.

I understand where you guys arecoming from, but give me a realstic, viable solution to the problem other than a victory by one side or the other.

Definitely not true. Throughout history there were a lot of conflicts which ended without victory:

- Iraq-Iran War
- Korean War
- Cyprus conflict
- India Pakistani Wars
- Bosnia
- Kosovo
- Macedonia...

and a similar crisis in a far more civilised world:

Northern Ireland...

It is especially hard to win a guerilla war, when probably most of the enemy population supports terrorism. The only solution would be to vipe out the entire nation. The only way out is a peace agreement, respected by both sides, which will be very hard to achieve and will require a lot of patience on both sides.

True, the suicide bombers are wiping themselves out, but there will always be more of them. Unless.. Arafat and his goons disappear. Why doesn't he strap a bomb to his chest if its such an honor to die that way?? Cause it's not and he knows it. He can sit back, and as long as these morons are blowing themselves up, and they are at war with Israel, he will continue to get millions of dollars in UN aid to fatten up his swiss bank accounts. (the improvements in Gaza and West Bank over the years are incredible , no? ) I think it will be much easier to stop than suspected, even if it isn't that doesn't mean that it can't be done or the Israelis shouldn't try.

I never argued that Arafat isn't the right man for the peace proccess, but it's better to try and empower somebody who can take him from power, (he doesn't have any anyway. :wink: ) than kill him and cause even more Palestinian unrest.

[davetlv]

I never argued that Arafat isn't the right man for the peace proccess, but it's better to try and empower somebody who can take him from power, (he doesn't have any anyway. :wink: ) than kill him and cause even more Palestinian unrest.

My favorite subject. . . .

People did try to empower someone, his name was Mahmoud Abbas (or Abu Mazen). His premiership, which BTW had the backing of most of the parties involved with the peace process, lasted four months from May 2003. One of the key reasons for him resigning was that YA refused to hand over crucial powers that would have enabled him to do his job. So instead of bashing his head against a brick wall, this moderate leader felt that the post had no real power and resigned.

Although, a documented holocaust denier, his resignation was a blow to the peace process/road map. His voice was one of the few within the inner sanctum of YA cronies that opposed the use of homicide bombers, and understood that the peace process was a two way thing, and that the only way to force Sharon's hand was not through short term terrorism but through long term negotiations. He also understood that the more homicide bombers there were the less chance of ever getting full back from the US.

The second Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmed Qurei, also known as Abu Ala, also started his premiership battling YA for key controls of key positions within the PA. Although clearly built with slightly more staying power then Abu Mazen, it's still unclear how much power he has managed to wrestle from YA.

So here we have two people, empowered, who have been unable to do anything because of YA. Go figure!!!!

[brakada]

My favorite subject. . . .

People did try to empower someone, his name was Mahmoud Abbas (or Abu Mazen). His premiership, which BTW had the backing of most of the parties involved with the peace process, lasted four months from May 2003. One of the key reasons for him resigning was that YA refused to hand over crucial powers that would have enabled him to do his job. So instead of bashing his head against a brick wall, this moderate leader felt that the post had no real power and resigned.

Wasn't he appointed by YA himself (not the people), because Arafat thought that he will remain "obedient" and under his control? And that once it has shown that that Abbas has his own will, and it was then that YA's interferrence started.

So here we have two people, empowered, who have been unable to do anything because of YA. Go figure!!!!

If no one had any true power, they weren't really empowered, were they? :wink:

This idea might seem a bit radical and drastical, but drastical situations call for dratic measures. IMO it could even be better if Israel would start negotiating peace with the direct leaders of terrorist organizations. YA has prooven that he doesn't have any control over their actions and thus cannot provide peace. Maybe offering them peace and amnesty for their actions would convince them to stop their attacks and maybe they would even overthrow YA. I know you have to be a (whole lot) "bigger man" to forgive and forget, but on the other hand a lot of Israeli and Palestinian lives could be saved. Well, this was just a thought...