Saturday, June 12, 2004

Saudi Arabia coming apart?

I certainly hope so. "It couldn't happen to a nicer country..."
BBC reports 'American shot dead in Riyadh'

This is why the Arab countries - Saudi in particular - need an external enemy like Israel. They are now between a rock and a hard place. A majority of their happy peaceful constituency supports Bin Laden and his objectives. Which means that wether the people realize it or not, they are actually opposed to their benign ruler.
So the maniacs in charge have two choices.
One is to come down as hard as they'd like and be even more suppressive/oppressive (if that is at all possible), and kill and torture everyone remotely connected. Which of course produces more support for Al-Qaeda. Which in turn will inevitably lead to the fall of the oil leeches.
They try the diplomatic way, the nice way. Which leads to people needing to have THEIR say as well, which inevitably will make people conclude there's nothing to be gained by allowing the leeches to remain in power. The leeches get stepped on.

It's a win-win situation. Except that whoever takes over will be as bad as or worse than the scum that now rule. And that is not comforting, considering Saudi is practically a neighbour of Israel, and the country posesses the worlds finest military technology, like AWACS which are meticulously kept up-to-date as well. Saudi also was sold F-15's, still one of world's best air superiority fighters. Initially the Saudi's promised the US not to station these fighters at Tabuk (an airforce base near Israel). The pretext for the sale of the planes - both AWACS and F-15's - was the defense against possible agression from Iran, or Yemen (I swear, that's what they said!).
Well guess what? Entire squadrons of F-15's, combined with their air-controlling AWACS ARE now stationed at Tabuk. The US State department is not keeping the leeches to their promise, and the leeches for some odd reason feel threatened by Iran or Yemen no longer.

But anyway, when someone finally hangs the scum in Ryadh, someone less interested in simply staying in power and more interested in waging total war on anyone not submitting to Allah will gain control of these fine American-made war machines. And use them against Israel. And Israel will not be able to use one of its most potent weapons, which is the element of surprise (that is what AWACS do: Airborne Warning And Control System). AWACS can fly well within Saudi borders, protected by dozens of F-15's, and warn everyone else of any Israeli airborne activity. Nice eh? And if Israel would try to take out the AWACS, it would see the attack coming and be long gone, or defended so heavily the attack would be too costly.
On a side note: It was during Reagan's time in office that the AWACS were sold to Saudi. I liked Reagan as much as the next guy, but that time, he was well and truly fucked by the notoriously Arabist State Department. Reagan believed what the Arabs and their ass-sucking buddies at the State Department told him.

And now the Saudi's do what they want with the AWACS. Untill they're decapitated, or hanged. After which new and improved murderers get their hands on the guns. Guess who'll suffer first?

Friday, June 11, 2004

Muslims killing Muslims

It seems that a political or ideological motive can be found even for killing fellow Muslims. At least they have the guts to attack military and police personel.

Must be because Musharraf seems to have turned away from Taliban/Al-Qaeda. Or maybe any old excuse is good enough to satisfy the craving for violence.

Nah, that couldn't be it.

UN still wishes to punish Israel for Osiraq

On the 7th of June, 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq's plutonium reactor (supplied by that disgusting French slug Chirac).
All right thinking persons and organizations would discard immediately any notion of punishing a country for doing the world such a favour. But such is the corruptness of the UN: Countries (France comes to mind here) who sell WMD and other abhorrent shit to abhorrent countries for a lot of money must be able to convince their clients that no one will destroy their new toys (like Israel did). Saddam Hussein was a good customer, better than most. It must have pissed the French off something terrible, because Hussein was not going to buy anything new until he was SURE the French (or SOMEONE) could put a leash on the Jews. Well, the UN has not stopped trying to do just that since 1948. And a new attempt is under way:
'The Israeli delegation to the UN was surprised this week to find "The Armed Israeli Attack on the Atomic Installations of Iraq" on the agenda for the current UN session. Aryeh Mekel, Israel's Deputy Ambassador to the UN, sent a letter to the General Assembly president, writing, "The General Assembly's agenda must reflect the world reality, in order for the UN to be able to make a relevant and significant contribution to world matters... At first glance, it appears that inserting this old issue is more comical than anything else, but in truth, it shows the built-in problems that must be overcome in order to make the General Assembly an effective organ."'

Iraq was then the 3rd largest oil producer in the world. It had only military purposes for its nuclear plant.
Go here and especially here for an indepth analysis of the why and how, and especially of why it was NOT unlawful for Israel to strike.

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Gee, that's a relief: Turkey's ambassador returns

See my recent thoughts on Turkey for why this should be relevant.

It really is as simple as this.

Israel seems set to leave Gaza. You can call it what you want, as far as I am concerned it is a retreat, if indeed not a flight. Read this if you want to have it spelled out.

Quote: 'What has really defeated Israel in Gaza and northern Samaria - the two areas from which the initial retreat is set to occur - is the nation's fear of international criticism. While Israel is capable of bombing into oblivion the Gaza terrorist infrastructure, it is scared stiff of the worldwide reaction to doing so.'

Israel can always "invade" Gaza again if need be. But it really should be the other way around. Instead of ethnically cleansing an ever greater part of the Middle-East of Jews, claim Gaza and Judea/Samaria as a part of Israel for all eternity. The Arabs can go live in Jordan, Syria and Egypt. I cannot believe world opinion would actually make a difference. The "world" has its mind set on the slow but certain deconstruction of Israel anyway. Israel can't make less friends than it already has.

RoP spreads love and goodwill in Sudan

Sudanese women tell of the atrocities visited upon them by Arab Muslims, the "pro-government" Janjaweed.

But true humanity is shown by this victim's attitude towards the baby she is now carrying, a result of being raped repeatedly, over extended periods of time.
Quote: 'Now I am three-months pregnant. It will be a child from the Janjaweed. But I on't reject this baby. He will be my baby.'

I wish I could say I'd feel the same way I were placed in those circumstances. But I'd probably want to cut the enemy out of myself.

Her way is better.

Note: The BBC also asks itself and its readers if the world should "do more" to help ("Do more" implies anything's been at all...). The debate is closed as far as the BBC is concerned but I have this to add: This has been going on for years. All countries, organizations and people who are in position to help know this. MILLIONS have died, MILLIONS raped and mutiliated. By Arab and other Muslim extremists.

There is a very good reason why nothing has been done, and it is the same reason those same people take every opportunity to attack, villify, harass and obstruct Israel. The agenda of rich Muslim fundamentalists rules all other agenda's. And the Muslim massmurderers doing their job in Sudan are (knowingly or not) part of that agenda.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Nicholas Berg's father holds a speech

I don't know how I would cope if my son was murdered, especially under the circumstances Nick Berg was. But to paraphrase his father in the speech below: "I cannot imagine the circumstances that would lead me to be so ignorant and naive about the world".

Quote: '"There is a topic I’d promised my daughter Sarah I’d address, and that topic is the men that killed my son. She said that people don’t think I blame the men that murdered my son. That is not true Sarah; I do blame them. They should be arrested, subject to trial in a court of law, and if found guilty, never again be allowed to practice the brutality that cost my son his life. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would lead them or anyone to any violent act, let alone the atrocity that was done to my son."

You can't imagine? Because they want you dead, Mr. Berg. Your family is Jewish. Your son was Jewish. The people who killed your son are not merely desperate political operatives, they are religious fanatics that have no tolerance for the existence of non-Muslims, least of all Jews. If they met you in a dark alley, they would kill you in less time than it would take for you to mouth the word "peace."'

Please read it here.

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

More moral equivalence: Turkey this time

But this is a new one: Comparing the persecution of the Jews in Spain and Portugal to the self-defense against an enemy whose officially stated goal is Israel's destruction. This coming from a country that is directly responsible for and GUILTY OF the murder of between 600.000 and 2.000.000 Armenians. A true genocide, eclipsed only by their former allies of WW1.
A country that to this very day as a matter of policy systematically persecutes the Kurds.

Quote: 'Israel was "bombing civilians, killing people without any considerations - children, women, the elderly - razing buildings using bulldozers'

But this one takes the biscuit: '"Saying 'I am the strong one, so I can name anyone I want as a terrorist and anyone I want as a criminal and just kill them and go' - that mentality is wrong," he said.'

Apart from the glaring errors in his statements (if they're not outright deliberate lies), for Turkey of all countries to accuse Israel of strong arm tactics is chutzpah - and they can ask the Jews what that means.

Turkey these days is ruled by a party with strong Muslim roots. It seems their thin layer of secularism has started eroding already. And guess who the first victims of their renewed Muslim vigour will be?

UPDATE: Turkey (why does the name sound apt for the country?) has withdrawn its ambassador from Israel over this issue.
Imagine what you'd have to do to Turkey (that NAME!) to convey your disagreement with the way they treat the Kurds... Islamists are in power in Turkey (heehee...) and they just can't hide their true nature. I'm just glad we didn't already vote them into the EU.

Unbelievable. Just... unbelievable

The UN is holding a special conference on Palestinian Refugees. Yesterday and today.

Not only is Israel not invited (and the conference is run on an invitation-only basis), Israeli reporters are refused press credentials.

Just to get it straight: Israel (which is the only country ever mentioned in connection with "Palestinian refugees") is not invited to a conference dedicated solely to these "refugees" (while fully 67 nations ARE attending). And even their reporters are barred from attending.

Who invited the 67 countries? Who refused the press credentials?

See some of my previous thoughts on the UN for more facts.
But even I am again astounded.

Occupied territories

Once more: Occupied territories, to whom do they belong?

Many people and organizations treat the disputed areas that are not formally a part of any country (Samaria, Judea - AKA "the Westbank" - and Gaza) as defacto Arab-Palestinian land, and a future sovereign state.

The basis for this idea lies in the proposed partition plan of 1947 by the UN. The British Palestinian mandate originally encompassed all of what is now Jordan, Israel and the disputed territories. This entire mandate was once promised to the Jews, but the British later decided otherwise, and the Jews agreed to settle for the remaining 22%, after the bulk of the land was given to the great-grandfather of the current king of Jordan (nice eh, to inherit a country like that?.

In 1947, the UN proposed a further partition of this remaining 22%. A little more than half was reserved for the Jews, a little less than half for the Arabs that chose not to become Jordanians like most of their neighbours had. This part would become a defacto "second Jordan".

The Jews, in spite of being robbed a second time, accepted the proposal, because anything was better than nothing. Take a look at the proposed division here.

The Arabs however rejected the proposal. And in 1948, all Arabs went to war against Israel the day it was recognized by the UN.
The Arabs lost this war, and all successive ones they waged. But after the 6-day war in 1967, the UN adopted a resolution on which all subsequent negotiations and plans would be based.

There's something odd about this resolution though. It seems that to all the world, only the demands made upon Israel are visible and legible. The full text of the resolution is shown below (it's really not that long), with my comments added. I will show that since its inception, the UN and most of the world has been attacking Israel with this document without ever pausing to see what it so clearly demands of the Arabs (yes, ALL Arabs). Also, demands are made to all parties equally (it was not a bilateral problem according to 242, it was MULTILATERAL. And of course it was, and this has never changed).

Note: My comments are colored blue.

---------------- RESOLUTION 242 OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ---------------
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" appears to mean the Israeli's should give back whatever they gained in any war. This is an incorrect view. What it does mean is that land gained by an agressor can never be legally annexed.
If it would mean that a defending country would always be obliged to return land gained in a defensive war (as Israel did with Sinai 3 times!), what's to stop the agressor from trying again (as Egypt did twice so far).

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Note that it specifically does NOT say here: "all territories". After having been forced to fight 3 wars in less than 20 years, the UN recognized that Israel's then-current borders were indefensible. In fact, the Russians of the time explicitly stated Israel was meant to keep some of the land it had conquered.
One of the chief designers of the resolution (a Briton) called Israel's borders "undesirable and artificial". That's quite an understatement, even from an Englishman. Check here to see what Israel looked like at the time, and keep in mind the fact that ALL Arab nations at the time were in an official and actual state of war with Israel.

Well, Israel gave back Sinai (for the second time). This made up 91% of all land conquered in the 6-day war. A very valid point could be made that Israel has fulfilled its part of the contract. The Arabs have yet to do the same.

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

This point is the simplest of all, yet the one universally disregarded by the international community. The UN of those days (things have changed a lot since then) recognized that the problem was between the Arabs in general and Israel. It was clear to all involved at the time that there could be no lasting peace unless and until all Arab nations made a real peace with Israel.
This point holds true today. And it still has not been achieved. Most "claims or states of belligerency" have not been terminated. And it is the primary reason there is no peace in the Middle-East today.

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

People forget so quickly. Egypt was always a prime mover in the wars against Israel. And whenever they felt like it, the Egyptians closed off the Suez canal, and even the Gulf of Aqaba, thereby strangling Israel's only port to the Red Sea.

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

Another collective lapse of memory. Note that this statement specifically omits the word "Palestinian" in connection to the word "refugee". At least as many Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries as there were Palestinian Arabs displaced during the preceding 20 years. All these were absorbed by Israel. No Jew was ever compensated in any way for losses, both material and emotional, suffered during that period. There can be no talk of any form of settlement of the Palestinian Arab regugees without dealing with the injustice done to the Jewish refugees as well.

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

"of every State in the area". This can only mean Israel. All other states were belligerent ones. Israel is the only country whose "territorial inviolability" and "political independence" need even be guaranteed. No other country was under any threat of attack from anyone, let alone facing extinction.

3. Requests the Secretary­General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary­General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
------------- END RESOLUTION 242 OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL --------------

Note 1: Nowhere in this resolution are "Palestinians" mentioned. No matter what subsequent events have clouded global memory, or indeed the UN's own vision on this issue, at the time there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the heart of the issue was the Arab-Israeli conflict. A conflict born as an evil twin to the state of Israel itself. A conflict that will magically disappear the moment the Arabs (ALL Arabs) sincerely accept Israel's existence, and its RIGHT to exist.

Note 2: Up until 1946, "Palestine" was the name of an area administered by the UK. Britain had taken over administrative control from Turkey after WW1. "Palestinians" therefore denotes a term indicating a person living in the mandate.
After 1946 (when (Trans-)Jordan was founded, "Palestine" was what was leftover from the original mandate. "Palestinians" at that time were made up for a significant part of Jews immigrated from Europe and various Arab countries. These Jews bore that name with pride, and even during WW2, there was a Jewish brigade fighting for the British, made up entirely of "Palestinian Jews".

It was Yassir Arafat who hijacked and raped the name "Palestinian" (like he hijacked the name Arafat - his real name is Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini, after his mentor and one of Hitler's best friends) and with the help of Western media established it as the name for ANY Arab whishing to live where now Israel was founded.

NEWSFLASH: Arafat abused international aid for terrorism!

News that isn't news at all. But still.

The Telegraaf, the only newspaper in the Netherlands that can't be labeled leftwing has a report (in Dutch) (thru a German current affairs TV show called "Report Munich") that there is now documented evidence of Arafat's abuse of foreign aid. No amounts are mentioned, but an actual witness (a former aide and confidant of Arafat) named Uzrad Lew claims "Arafat has built the largest financing network for terror in the world". "Report Munich" claims to have hard evidence of the Palestinian administration circulating international aid money through a network of "mailbox companies". This includes the use of bank accounts in London, Cairo, New York and Geneva.

The report also states that the EU anti-fraud agency is investigating if indeed European funds were used for financing acts of terrorism against Israel.
"We are still waiting for a number of documents from Israel and the Palestinian territories before forming a final conclusion", said Franz-Hermann Brüner from the OLAF agency.

OLAF is still waiting. Ever since the first incursions into Gaza, when mountains of documents were seized from the desk of Arafat himself, Israel has been offering evidence to anyone willing to see. But Chris Patten and his cronies aren't all that willing. Someone more cynical than me (heh) might even say unwilling.

Oh well. No surprise there.

UPDATE: Here's a piece with more detailed info on the German report (It's in German, I translated a small part of it). It states that the report contains allegations of 246 MILLION Euro (about US$ 250 MILLION!) being used without any form of audit of control, from EU aid alone.
(Ed: Individual European countries make large donations as well, apart from the EU). But it's clear US aid was also abused by Arafat, part of the abused funds originate from a US$ 898 MILLION grant that disappeared in just five years.
As recent as April 2004, 40 MILLION Euro was transferred from Brussels to the Arab-Bank in Gaza.

Billions and billions are poured into the Jew-killing machine. I don't know what would be worse as a motive for doing so: Negligence and naivete, or just plain old Jew-hatred and pragmatism. Either way, it shows once more what forces Israel is up against. Dozens of countries, donating billions of dollars, completely at the disposal of the worlds oldest terrorist. How does that sound? Sometimes I wonder where Arafat gets the nerve to do what he does. But it's things like this that make it more clear. He has far more friends and allies than the Jews do.

What a world.

Iraqi missile parts (and more?) found in the Netherlands but...

you wouldn't know about it if you lived here.
Bloomberg has a report that should be cause for concern (it does with me, and I live in the Netherlands).
But I've been looking, and the Dutch press is silent. Imagine that.

Monday, June 07, 2004

A few more thoughts on the UN

The UN consists of many permanent organizations (PERMANENT being a key word here). There is of course the General Assembly (notice the first three letters of the second word…), there is UNESCO, UNHCR, etc, etc. All these were established by the GA as a kind of “General Purpose” organization for a specific problem. For example, UNESCO is essentially an organization whose purpose it is to better the world through education. A noble goal, and UNESCO applies itself in all places and countries where the local population is unable to provide education (of all levels) for itself. UNESCO has no particular target group, you can find UNESCO all over the globe.
UNHCR is another example of a UN organization that attempts to take on a global problem. Refugees (wether caused by war, natural disaster or other causes) are a phenomenon of all times and all places, a tragedy as old as mankind, and the UN’s decision to dedicate a major body for just this cause is justified.
There are other areas where the UN has seen fit to call into life an organization with a particular goal, where that goal had a global character. UNICEF for example fights for children’s rights and protection across the globe.

However, there is one group of people on this Earth who, according to the UN, deserves the dedication of separate and distinct (though otherwise entirely similar) organizations. Whereas UNESCO and UNHCR are entirely capable to cover the entire globe for their respective jurisdictions, they are deemed unfit or insufficient to include the Palestinian Arabs in their domain. So the UN has created separate bodies to take care of business, just for the Palestinian Arabs. No other group of human beings is thought worthy of such special attention, is thought to have suffered so much, is subject to such oppression and torture.

The following is a list (not a complete one though) of UN organizations dedicated solely to the cause of the Palestinian Arabs.

Want more on the special status the Palestinian Arabs have in the UN?
For a more exhaustive list of UN misbehaviours go here.

The UN is obsessed with Israel. It is not only the Arab countries, Muslim countries and all those at the end of their financial leash however that suffer from this compulsion.
Europe too is obsessed with Israel. It should be clear by now that, judging from the disproportionate volume of UN interference alone, European meddling is motivated by something other than mere concern for the Palestinian Arabs, and the desire for a balanced and fair settlement to the conflict.

The Arab/Muslim hatred for Israel has become such matter-of-fact that is taken for granted by the world at large. What is less apparent for most people is that the block vote cast in the UN by the Arab/Muslim world and their stooges world effectively and realistically invalidates any resolition concerning Israel.

The crux is this: The democratic principles on which the UN was founded are used against anyone who holds those principles high. Voting - and especially the automatical blockvoting - by the Arab/Muslim world and their financial hostages renders worthless anything the General Assembly has to say on issues regarding Israel.

In the Security Council the situation is slightly different, but only slightly. Five countries can use their vote to veto resolutions they disagree with, an option not available to any country represented in the GA. But this knife cuts both ways. And as Israel has only one friend in the SC (and a tentative one at that), there are always at least three countries ready to lend an ear to the best paying party in town - and guess who that is? Apart ftom the (by now) traditional antagonism the UK routinely displays towards Israel, from the four other countries that have vetopower (France, China, Russia and the UK) only the UK can be said to be on the side of the US. This means that any resolution concerning Israel the US would like to see adopted, the other three are likely to veto.
It also means that even resolutions that have nothing to do with Israel may cause the US to compromize on Israel's security, merely in order to gain the support or at least abstinence of France, China and/or Russia as a form of quid pro quo.

The UN is bankrupt. It has been for a long time. The idea of the UN is based on a faulty premise, which is that any (new) member would be as "decent" (at least as democratic) as the countries originally founding the UN.
Most memberstates are not. The UN has become a perversion of the noble idea that lies at its roots, a place where dictators and autocracies get to act as decent nations and are subsequently treated as such.
As I said earlier, it took a World War to end the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. We may well already be in World War 3. Wether or not that's the case, the UN's expiration date has long passed. Time to get rid of it.

Barghouti gets life. 5 times.

Fatah leader Barghouti handed 5 life sentences

But he doesn't recognize the Israeli court's authority. Oh well, I guess it doesn't count then...

Sunday, June 06, 2004

Our Islamic Fifth Column

Written by an insider. Please read. Please.

'If you prostrate yourself to an all-powerful and unfathomable being five times a day, if you are constantly told that you live in the world of Satan, if those around you are ignorant of and impervious to literature, art, historical debate, and all that nurtures the values of Western civilization, your mind becomes susceptible to fanaticism. Your mind rots.'

Only an insider can describe it like this. Read it all.

The UN: Will they ever stop?

Of course the answer to that rhetorical question is a big resounding No. It took a world war for the League of Nations to be founded, and another for it to be dissolved. It was an unequivocal failure. And what did it dissolve into? That's right, the United Nations. Things went downhill from there.

The idea behind the UN is simpel and nice: Let all countries on Earth come together and work out all issues in a civilized manner.

Of course, the idea was made up by people actually able and willing to work stuff out in a way other than war. WW1 (thought to be the war to end all wars) made people think, A LOT. So the League of Nations came about. It didn't work, WW2 happened, and it was tried again, hence the UN.

What any sane person could have predicted did of course happen. Let just anyone in regardless, and you have an organization that is meaningless and powerless at best, and a hindrance and menace to peace at worst.
When you attempt to talk and negotiate with countries like Iran, China, N-Korea and dozens and dozens of similar countries, you are a fool. And that is what the UN has become: An organization of useful idiots and their puppetmasters.

I dare anyone to show me what good the UN has done since it recognized Israel (for the record, that was 56 years ago). And while I'm waiting, here's a shortlist of glarings misconduct by that same UN, a list that concerns only Israel and is only meant to show that the UN is an actual party in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and not "just" a biased broker, a prejudiced mediator.

Abuse of UN ambulances by terrorists (Or was it abuse? UNRWA is made up almost entirely of Arab Palestinians).

Oops! Got caught, now shifting blame: UN relief agency calls for respect of its ambulance services after incident in Gaza

'The U.N. Human Rights Commission (it really takes a lot of self-control not to put facetious quotation marks around all U.N. titles) now includes Zimbabwe, China, Ukraine, Algeria, Bahrain, Congo, Libya, Sudan, Russia, Syria, Uganda and Vietnam – all strongholds of civil liberty. This April, the commission passed a pro-terrorist resolution condoning "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state. Six European Union members joined the 57 nations of the Islamic Conference in legitimizing suicide bombers.'Go here for incontrovertible evidence of the UN's war against Israel.

You think it couldn't get much worse? Aiding/abetting Hezbollah

I'm not in favour of another World War (although I do think a point can be made we are already IN one...) just to end the UN. But it would be worth a lot to get rid of this catalyst for cancer in global relations. Show me some good the UN has done. Even if you can (and I dare you), I'll show you ten wrongs for every one right.