Catching up on the Gibraltar story

The UK has sent HMS Westminster to Gibraltar or, to be precise, to take part in the Cougar '13 naval exercise. This seems to signal to the media that the situation is getting more tense. Meanwhile, Spain is bringing out the heavy artillery: it is threatening to take its case to the UN where it will have one ally at least, Argentina.

Earlier, newspaper El País said Spain could take the matter to the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council, where Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García Margallo will seek support from Argentina, which is serving a term.

However, other players have entered the game. We hear from EUObserver that Catalan separatists have expressed solidarity with the people of Gibraltar.

Party leader Alfred Bosch told Gibraltar:"Your freedom is our freedom."

Quite so. May I call his and everybody else's attention to this blog's title. Meanwhile, there is a possibility that Morocco might start stirring in the matters of Ceuta and Melilla, which are inexplicably continue to be Spanish possessions.

Samir Bennis, a Moroccan and political adviser on Arab affairs at the UN in New York, said Spain operated “double standards” by dismissing Moroccan sovereignty claims over Ceuta and Melilla as unfounded while pursuing its own claim over Gibraltar.

He gives a kind of an explanation for this anomalous situation:

“What mattered most during the Sixties and Seventies when such things were discussed was for Morocco to recover its territories in the south, including the Spanish protectorate of the Western Sahara,” Mr Bennis, who has published books on the subject, told the British newspaper.

“That was cleverly exploited by Spain who persuaded Morocco not to take the matter of Ceuta and Melilla up with the UN but agree to make it a strictly bilateral issue between Spain and Morocco.”

Will the UN now take up the matter of Ceuta and Melilla? Will it take up the matter of Western Sahara, whose people might not want to be part of Morocco?

Anniversaries

I tend to save anniversaries for another blog but there are two today that are important to the way we see the world and they have to be mentioned.

It is 110 years since the birth of George Orwell, the man who defined much of our modern political thinking (what had been left undefined by Dostoyevsky) and whose ability to grasp political reality despite his left-wing socialist outlook, remains unrivalled. Happy Birthday Eric Blair/George Orwell.

It is 63 years since North Korea invaded South Korea, thus pushing into the open what had been in the shadows: the new world division after 1945 between the West and Communism. The invasion would not have happened if Stalin did not feel reasonably secure because extensive Soviet espionage had given him an ability to rival the United States in the nuclear race; and the war might not have happened if the Soviet Union had not, temporarily, vacated its seat in the UN Security Council, thus allowing that organization to take the one and only sensible decision in its entire history.

My last growl of the year

So many things to complain about when it comes to 2012 and so many I have complained about. No doubt, some will have to be revived next year. However, let me leave this year with an almighty growl about two institutions, one expected, one not so much.

First the UN. Can anyone seriously explain to me why we should still put up with that noxious and highly expensive organization? Some years ago I made similar comments to a shocked Indian acquaintance who immediately exclaimed that he knew for a fact the UN did many good things. Name one, I challenged him. He went very silent and promised to think of some really excellent examples. I am still waiting.

The excellent UN Briefing has come up with a list of the UN's ten worst decisions in 2012. That does not mean there were no other bad decisions; these are merely the worst and pretty terrible they are, too. Some have been covered by this blog, some not. Do read through them if you want to spoil your New Year's Eve.

The unexpected organization that I am growling about is Radio Liberty, until recently one that I admired and placed great hopes in as the BBC Russian Service has been gutted of much news content. Alas, no more. This is a subject I shall have to return to in the new year as the general collapse of the broadcasting of news and analysis to Russia as more and more of that country's media is gathered up by the Kremlin is one of the most disgraceful recent developments. In the meantime, here is an excellent article by John O'Sullivan (yes, yes, he is a great friend and has appeared on this blog a few times) who knows the story in great detail. Warning: it is truly shocking.

What else? Oh yes: let me wish all my readers a happy and prosperous (well, as prosperous as possible) 2013. See you in the new year.

Some good news

The United States, Canada, Australia and, astonishingly enough, the UK have refused to sign the United Nations Telecommunications Treaty that would have opened the way to attempted censorship of the internet. Don't believe me? Just have a look at who the main supporters of this treaty are: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and other suchlike freedom-loving states.

To be fair, some other countries have voiced reservations:

Negotiators from Denmark, Italy, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Greece, Portugal, Finland, Chile, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Kenya have said they would need to consult with their national governments about how to proceed and would also not be able to sign the treaty as planned on Friday.

We shall see how many of them refuse to sign.

Hot Air rejoices, as well it might but adds a rather depressing caveat:

The worst thing about this proposed treaty is that, if put to a vote, it probably would get a lot of support. The United Nations’ ostensible goals include advancing peace and freedom, except plenty of the United Nations member countries have sketchy-to-downright-opprobrious records with press freedom and human rights — making it all too clear that the UN isn’t about peace and freedom as much as it is protecting and advancing the interests of its members, no matter how many moral excuses they can come up with to self-justify.

Sadly, I find it hard to disagree with that and can only approve of the fact that there will be no referendum on the subject anywhere. Or, at least, not anywhere where it counts.

What has been happening?

One or two things seem to have happened while I was off-line. Firstly, of course, there is the story of the appointed Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Monti, deciding to go earlier and pave the way to Italian politics as usual. It would appear that Silvio Berlusconi, whose understanding of economics does not extend beyond the lining of his own pockets, has already started ranting about the "Germano-centric" Monti and his austerity measures. Having been found guilty of various malfeasance, obviously, does not prevent a man from standing in elections or, possibly, even winning and becoming Prime Minister again, though I do rather like the idea of Berlusconi losing votes to the professional comedian Beppe Grillo. Let us not forget that whoever wins this election becomes a member of the UK's real government.

Moving on to the UN, the fount of all tranzi thinking and organization we find a press release from UN Watch, an admirable organization that persists in the righteous fight. Yesterday, let me remind people, was International Human Rights Day as it was the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (stop laughing at the back), adopted on December 10, 1948.

The UN has its own way of celebrating such matters. This year they did so by electing Mauritania, "a country that allows 800,000 of its citizens to live as slaves", to be Vice-President of the Human Rights Council. Poland was elected as President with Maldives, Switzerland and Ecuador (a country of shabby human rights record) also becoming Vice Presidents. It could have been worse, I suppose. They could have elected Syria to be President. As it was pointed out to me just a few hours ago, you cannot spell unethical without UN.

To end this rambling posting, I can report another argument I had with a well-meaning journalist who cannot quite get his head round the idea that some people do really think that the world would be a better place without the EU. When he reported that in Slovakia "extremists", undoubtedly rather a nasty bunch, are getting more sophisticated, I made a sarcastic comment about EU membership working so well. Was this not the main argument used against those of us who said it would not be a good idea for the East Europeans to join the EU and we should stop pressurizing them but sign free trade agreements, that within the EU their nasty old habits would die? It would seem that the extremists are utilizing people's frustration with the system and political activities. A success, undoubtedly. My journalist friend professed  himself to be baffled. Did I mean that I did not think that the 10 East European countries should have joined?

Slovakia is not alone to prove those predictions wrong. Right wing extremism (yes, I know that Nazism was not right-wing but that is how Der Spiegel, inevitably, refers to it and its successor ideologies) is becoming more widespread in Germany, especially and unsurprisingly, in the East, where they had not had years of denazification.

All a huge success.

That should solve all their problems. Not!

As expected and predicted the UN Assembly has voted "overwhelmingly to recognize the Palestinian state". Or so says the headline, though it is not entirely accurate. What they now have is "non-member observer status", which is akin to what the Vatican has.

It is, indeed, a victory for Mahmoud Abbas, though whether Hamas will agree to him representing the "Palestinian state" is not clear, and a defeat for the nine countries that voted against: Israel, United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama. Well, well, and what of our own government and its representative? Abstained, that's what.

The Commentator reminds us of the following:

Israeli politician Abba Eban once noted of the United Nations that if Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the Earth was flat, and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.

And one of them will be the UK, which according to this article has now been reduced to a bit-player in the Middle East. I'd say it happened some time ago but it is certainly true now.

The UN is consistent

UN Watch points out that official reaction from SecGen Ban Ki-moon to the terrorist attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria (not forgetting the Bulgarian bus driver who was killed) has not been adequate but still better than that of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who has said .... nothing at all.

Two reasons why a Romney victory would be desirable

The first and most obvious one is that President Obama has been a disaster for the United States and the West in general.

The second one is that there is a strong possibility that he would have John Bolton as his Secretary of State. Let me put it this way: he actually might; Obama, sure as eggs is eggs, will not.

Why do I want Bolton in that position? Well, the State Department will hate him and that is a good sign; the tranzis will hate him and that is even better; and the UN with all its myriad of sub-organizations will have a collective apoplexy. He might even start the process of dismantling that noxious and evil organization.

For sure he has no illusions about it. Here is a hard-hitting article about the World Intellectual Property Organization.

We learned last month that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which oversees multilateral treaties involving patents, trademarks and copyrights, has been delivering computer hardware and "technical assistance" to none other than Iran and North Korea. The U.N. body's actions are in blatant disregard of Security Council sanctions on Tehran and Pyongyang, prompting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to call last week for freezing U.S. contributions to the organization.

Read it and weep.

Why does this surprise anyone?

News comes from UN watch that Syria is about to get a place on the UN Human Rights Council. I can imagine my readers yawning. As news it comes somewhere between dog bites man and supermodel or sports "personality" takes drugs. (Here are some of the postings on this blog on the subject of the UN and human rights.)

The surprising aspect of it all is the number of people who are shocked or surprised or seem to find this unexpected. That is a truly strange attitude as it implies that there is a possibility for the UN and its many, many branches to be a force for the good but just this once or twice they have gone astray and need to be pulled back or else they will become a sick joke. That is no different from people who think that the EU is really what we would like it to be but it has not turned out to be that but can do if we try hard enough.

The truth is that the EU is exactly what it is meant to be and the fact that its internal contradictions (ha, I can spout Marxist jargon with the best of them) will probably tear it apart is part of what it is set out to be. The same applies to the UN though there, I suspect, some force is needed for its abolition. It is far too well entrenched with far too many vested interests of the unaccountable variety. But first, we must understand that  stories of this kind is the norm for the UN not the aberration.

More than a little worrying

L. Gordon Crovitz writes about the failure on the American government's part, so far, to protect the freedom of the internet from a power grab by the UN, its little known agency the International Telecommunications Union (founded in 1865 but taken over by the UN) and the various "freedom-loving" members thereof who want to control the internet.

The failure by U.S. negotiators to stop attacks on the Internet became known only through documents leaked last week. They concern a U.N. agency known as the International Telecommunications Union. Founded in 1865 to regulate the telegraph, the body (now part of the U.N.) is planning a World Conference on International Telecommunications in December, when the 193 U.N. member countries, each of which has a single vote, could use the International Telecommunications Regulations to take control of the Internet. The U.N. process is mind-numbing, but as Vincent Cerf, one of the founders of the Web, recently told Congress, this U.N. involvement means "the open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now."

As to what other countries have in mind, pay attention to this:

The broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over "the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"—in short, to legitimize full government control. The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal "would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling" the Internet.

Several proposals would give the U.N. power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam. Russia and some Arab countries want to be able to inspect private communications such as email. Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls. That would result in new fees to local governments and less access to traffic from U.S. "originating" companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple. A similar idea has the support of European telecommunications companies, even though the Internet's global packet switching makes national tolls an anachronistic idea.

Now I would be the first to agree that there is the odd problem with the internet but these proposals would not solve them and would destroy the good it has brought to us all.

Outrage is as outrage does

Will this assure that China is removed from the United Nations Council for Human Rights? Don't be ridiculous.

One learns something new every day ...

... and it is rarely pleasant. For instance, I did not know that there was a UN agency devoted to world tourism. I suppose I ought to have thought of it but I try not to pollute my mind with rubbish like that (try and fail, I may add).

According to The Foundry

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), created in 1970 and based in Madrid, identifies itself as the “United Nations agency responsible for the promotion of responsible, sustainable and universally accessible tourism.”

Well, that's quite bad enough but worse is yet to come.

It announced last year that Zambia and Zimbabwe jointly “won the bid” to host the 20th session of the UNWTO General Assembly in 2013. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, has been appointed a “United Nations international tourism ambassador” in recognition of the promotion and development of tourism.

Robert Mugabe? The President of a country he and his friends and relations manage to impoverish? Just how much tourism is there in Zimbabwe now despite its astonishing natural attractions? Michael Ross writes in the National Post:

For cognitive dissonance, see under: The United Nations. It’s no longer just a platform for countries with less-than-negligible human rights records to bash Israel and other democratic nations, or the dispatcher of envoys like Kofi Annan to Syria (under whose watch some 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered) or the patronizing professional busy-body Olivier De Schutter, a Belgian “UN special rapporteur on the right to food,” to lecture Canada. The UN is now an expert on tourism to Africa and deciding who is best suited to promote it.

The UN just announced that its favourite African megalomaniac, Robert Mugabe, and his Zambian sidekick, Michael Sata, have been appointed United Nations international tourism ambassadors in recognition of the promotion and development of tourism. The UN through the United Nations World Tourism Organisation will officially confer the status to the two presidents at a function to be held in Victoria Falls this week and officiated by the UNWTO secretary general Mr Talib Rifai. The honour comes even though the European Union and U.S. have imposed travel bans on Mugabe and many of his senior government officials due to widespread human rights abuses.

In one way, we should be cheering decisions like this. After all, the more appalling, disgraceful decisions the UN makes, the more corruption and kow-towing to bloodthirsty kleptocrats there is, the more likely people are to perceive that the UN is long, long past its sell-by date. Nothing apart from total destruction will do. That is how it ought to work, but such is the mindlessness of our opinion makers and the general refusal to face up to facts with perfectly sane people bleating about the good ideas behind the UN that I do not think anything will make us wise up.

And proof that this is not a hoax.

A little item we all missed

My attention has been called to this little item that seems to have passed us by.

It seems that the staff of UNWRA, an organization that breaks UN rules as being existing entirely for the supposed benefit of just one small community, the Palestinian refugees (though whether keeping them in refugee camps for generations is a benefit remains questionable), have gone on strike in Jordan.

The management of UNRWA, which provides basic services to more than 5 million Palestinian refugees in five areas of operations-- Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip-- had offered a 5 percent salary hike, but the workers' committees had turned it down and insisted on action.

Could be worse. At least it is not the Jordanian army that is taking action against the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world carries on

Hiding from all the election news (good for London, neutral for the rest of the country, expectedly bad in France and confusing in Greece) I came across this article by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch in the Canadian National Post.


It would be hard to deny that there are serious problems with food shortages and, indeed, famine in many parts of the world, though, as ever this is caused by political decisions. When one bears that in mind it will not be so surprising that one of the places with growing difficulties is Syria, a highly productive country.

According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.

Quite so. Shouldn't the UN Human Rights Council' so-called hunger monitor be interested and perturbed?

Apparently not.

This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.

Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.

That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.

A key co-ordinator and promoter of De Schutter’s mission is Food Secure Canada, a lobby group whose website accuses the Harper government of “failing Canadians…and [failing to] fulfill the right to food for all.” The group calls instead for a “People’s Food Policy.”

I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.

“Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”

Does this mean the Special Rapporteur on the right to food is actually more interested in people having too much food than with them having too little or not at all?

Possibly this curious anomaly has something to do with the history of the specific mandate.

First, consider the origins of the UN’s “right to food” mandate. In voluminous background information provided by De Schutter and his local promoters, there’s no mention that their sponsor was Cuba, a country where some women resort to prostitution for food. De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.

These and other repressive regimes are seeking a political weapon to attack the West. That is why the first person they chose to fill the post, when it started in 2000, was Jean Ziegler. The former Swiss Socialist politician was a man they could trust: In 1989, he announced to the world the creation of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize.

The award spread propaganda for its namesake, and elevated his ideological allies. Recipients include Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In 2002, the prize went to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy — and to Jean Ziegler himself.

From 2000 to 2008, Ziegler’s UN reports and probes turned a blind eye to the world’s hungry. Instead he attacked America, the West, capitalism and Israel. The human rights council applauded him, and repeatedly renewed his mandate. Only because of term limits did they replace him in 2008 with De Schutter, who praises and emulates his predecessor.

Normal behaviour on the part of UN organizations and, in particular, on the part of the UN Human Rights Council.

I take it we no longer need a Prime Minister

Somehow I managed to miss this tremendous piece of news. David Cameron who, I believe, is still the Prime Minister in this country (a source of constant surprise to me) has been asked to chair a UN committee to oversee development goals. I was under the impression that a Prime Minister's first task is to be ... well, a Prime Minister of the country he has been elected to lead. It is not as if there were no problems to deal with here. What exactly does he think he is doing chairing ridiculous UN committees? Even Tony Blair, lover of multilateralism and transnationalism par excellence did not do anything so stupid.

The invitation, accepted by the prime minister, represents a political coup for Cameron, who has stuck to the government's commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.7% of UK GDP, despite the recession.

Cameron's agreement makes certain that he will resist any rightwing efforts to cut UK aid, but it may also mean a significant reshaping of the millennium development goals.

The goals decide the international targets of global aid channelled bilaterally and multilaterally through organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF.

The current eight goals range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/Aids and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015. Many will be missed.

I wonder if coup is quite the word to be used here.

Of course, the goals will not be met. How can they be? The whole idea that aid is the way out of poverty has been disproved over and over again and with developed countries need to tighten belts as well as concentrate on their own economic growth, something this excuse for a government is singularly incapable of doing, the hand-outs will slow down. That may not be such a bad thing if it will turn the developing countries' attention to developing their economies through reforming tax systems, creating free trade agreements and making their countries attractive for investment. After all, aid does little beyond keeping bloodthirsty kleptocrats in power and prevent economic development in recipient countries.

Meanwhile, the new World Bank President has been announced and he is, to nobody's particular surprise, President Obama's nominee, Jim Yong Kim, President of Dartmouth College. I have little sympathy for people who moan about the fact that the World Bank presidency always goes to an American (or, in this case, a Korean American). The US puts in the largest slice of money, followed by the European countries. As long as we have a World Bank (and there are very good arguments for its abolition or, at least, scaling down) it will be run by those who pay for it and so it should be.

We have been told endlessly about the way certain rapidly developing countries, of whom Nigeria, the home of the other candidate, is supposed to be one overtaking the West. Fine. Let them do so. Let them stop taking aid from us and pay a larger share of those tranzi organizations they are so in favour of. Then we can talk about the next World Bank President not being American.

Of course, not everyone in the developing world is enamoured of the World Bank, its condescending attempts to run the world economy (as if that were possible) and endless new ideas of how to solve poverty, which can be solved only economic growth and investment.

Franklin Cudjoe, the Founding Director and President of IMANI, the Ghanaian Center of Policy and Education, wrote this:

Part of Dr. Jim Yong Kim's acceptance speech as the new World Bank President read "My discussions with the Board and member countries point to a global consensus around the importance of inclusive growth. We are closer than ever to achieving the mission inscribed at the entrance of the World Bank – Our Dream is a World Free of Poverty" NO! We ordinary citizens of the developing world want you and the World Bank to map out an exit plan to get out of the way for poverty to be solved by entrepreneurs without governmental borders!

Why do I have the feeling that neither Dr Kim nor the Boy-King will listen to those sane words?

In the meantime, do we just assume that we no longer need a Prime Minister?

That's that then

Not that UN Resolutions achieve anything much but in this case it was not even passed. Russian and China have vetoed "a Western and Arab-sponsored U.N. resolution condemning Syria’s violent repression of anti-government demonstrators". And that, dear readers, is a real veto.

Can't disagree with this

Whatever one may think of the manner in which Colonel Gaddafi was disposed of, one cannot disagree with this call for the UN Human Rights Council member, Jean Ziegler's resignation for founding the Moammar Kaddafi Human Rights Prize. Nor is there anything terribly wrong about calling

on UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights commissioner Navi Pillay to acknowledge the UN was wrong to support Gaddafi by granting him key posts on its most influential bodies.

This blog has discussed the subject from time to time, notably here and here also here and here on EUReferendum. I must admit I do not expect those acknowledgements and apologies to materialize.

This has to be one of the funniest stories around

Of the many stories I have not written about though I ought to have done is the shenanigans around the Palestinian demands for full statehood, with or without a seat in the UN (though presumably with). There are a couple of links to keep people going in the meantime.

Here is an excellent piece by Caroline Glick (and, as a matter of fact, I don't often say that).

In a nutshell, the Palestinian Authority - or Fatah - or PLO initiative of asking the UN Security Council and the General Assembly to upgrade its status to that of a sovereign UN member state or a sovereign non-UN member state is an act of diplomatic aggression.

Eighteen years ago this week, on September 13, 1993, the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel on the White House lawn.

There, the terror group committed itself to a peace process in which all disputes between Israel and the PLO - including the issue of Palestinian statehood - would be settled in the framework of bilateral negotiations.

The PA was established on the basis of this accord. The territory, money, arms and international legitimacy it has been given was due entirely to the PLO pledge to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel through bilateral negotiations.

It is useful to be reminded of the history, though it would also be useful for people to recall that Fatah does not speak for all Palestinians. What will Hamas do and who will be in charge if there is a Palestinian state?

The most interesting point is the assumption and, indeed, the demand that no matter what happens, the Palestinian refugees will stay in those camps living off UN money. (That's our money, by the way.)

As the PLO ambassador in Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, made clear in an interview Wednesday with Lebanon's Daily Star, in the event that the UN recognizes some form of Palestinian statehood at the UN, the new "State of Palestine" will still expect the UN to support the so-called Palestinian "refugees."

This is true, he said, even for the "refugees" who live in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. That is, the same UN that the Palestinians seek recognition of statehood from will be expected to provide relief to Palestinian "refugees" living inside "Palestine."

As he put it, "Even Palestinian refugees living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens."

There is one obvious answer to all this but, apparently, nobody not the UN, not the United States, not Britain (especially not Britain), not any other European country dares to voice it.

You'd think this news would have made people's minds up.

The Palestine Liberation Organization's ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.

The word we are looking for is Judenrein, and it has been tried in recent history. For some reason there has been no outcry from all those who proclaim themselves to be anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. Too busy screaming about the unfairness and clear fascism of housing benefits being cut.

So now, I at last get to the funny story connected with this.

Turkish hackers attacked dozens of Israeli websites over the weekend, only to find out that the sites belonged to Palestinians.

The confusion was caused due to the fact that the Palestinian sites, which have a .ps web suffix, use Israeli web servers.

"The hackers left anti-Israel messages on 70 Palestinian sites," said Shai Blitzblau, the head of Maglan-Computer Warfare and Network Intelligence Labs. "Most of them discovered it when it was already too late. Only after they broke in and sabotaged the websites did they find out these were Palestinian sites."

May we all have enemies like that. (It is worth having a look at the disgusting picture that the hackers put up. You can see it if you follow the link above.)

ADDENDUM: Here is the story about Hamas. It seems that they will support the Fatah bid for statehood but they do not like it for two reasons. One is understandable: they were not consulted; the other is also understandable but ought to ring some alarm bells: recognition of Palestinian statehood also recognizes Israel and up with that they will not putl

In a way this is funny

In other ways it is infuriating as this garbage is being done if not in our name (since when has the UN acted in our name?) then at our expense. As far as most of us are concerned, whether Christian or not, today is Good Friday, one of the most solemn days of the Church. Appropriately enough, for those who know their Bible, this week is also Passover, an equally solemn and important part of the Jewish faith. Of course, there are many people for whom none of this is of the slightest significance (or so they think) and Good Friday is merely a holiday when one can indulge in sun-bathing or shopping as the mood takes you. (Yes, indeed, London is very warm and sunny.)

Well, you will be glad to know that you are all wrong. Today is International Mother Earth Day. I kid you not. This ludicrous and, undoubtedly, expensive enterprise was established by the UN in 2009 at the behest of various socialist dictators though, it would appear that there was no objection raised.

Socialist despot Evo Morales and his buddies at the United Nations sure do. You see, in April 2009, they passed a unanimous resolution to celebrate this important event every year. In the accompanying speech, Morales explained to his colleagues that "Mother Earth was now having her rights recognized" and expressed his hope that the present century will be known as the "century of the rights of Mother Earth." He explained to the UN that its member states "now had the opportunity to begin laying out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth."

Just what our lives were lacking. I am surprised the UN has not started enforcing International Workers' Day on May 1.

Worse is to come. Evo Morales who, obviously, has nothing better to do in his country whose economy is not doing terribly well, "and the Bolivian government will table a draft UN treaty recognizing and enunciating the rights of the Earth — ahem, excuse me, the rights of Mother Earth. The issue will also be considered in an upcoming UN debate entitled "Nature Has Rights," where environmentalists from various activist groups will lend their support to the treaty and tell us why it's time we all recognize that Mother Earth has rights".

Of course, the whole concept of rights as applied to nature or "Mother Earth" is philosophical and ethical rubbish. But think of the number of committees, well-paid jobs, holidays conferences, taxes and regulations all this will entail. Never mind the EU, how soon can we get rid of the noxious UN?

ADDENDUM: One of the blog's readers posted this comment and I thought it deserved to be put on the main page:

Well, I've no problem with Mother Earth having 'Rights' (though I'm a little concerned by the inherent sexism there...'Person Earth', shurely...?). However, as everyone knows, with 'Rights' come responsibility, so perhaps the UN can persuade Person Earth to stop those ruinous tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, limit earthquakes to non-inhabited areas... just need to find a negotiating partner.

A great idea.

Some relatively good news

On March 25 the United Nations Human Rights Council concluded its Sixteenth Session with all sorts of agreements, statements, adoption of texts, extension of mandates and, indeed, all the paraphernalia of transnational activity. But there was one item missing: no global blasphemy code.

This has been the perennial demand from Islamic countries, led by Pakistan but, apparently, Western opposition to it has been growing since 2006 when the Bush Administration announced its adherence to world-wide democratic principles (something the UN and its various organizations know nothing about).

Nina Shea goes through the history of this infamous measure and the reasons for its (probably temporary) demise.