Rice pushes for peace progress in Israel

Monday 05th May, 10:11 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 32 Total Comments Show All

sailwind at 10:53 PM JST - 5th May

Superlib......You might be interested.

Read the above. Israel provides medical care to some in Gaza. What do the militants do? They launch rockets at the hospital in Israel, of course! They use the checkpoint as a suicide bombing platform. They send people in with fake diseases to blow themselves up to kill people at the checkpoint and at the hospital.

They do even worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq0gA7BQzzw
zkna0 at 03:20 AM JST - 6th May

Yep, we'll have peace any day now. OH! We're SO CLOSE!

Until one (or both) side is gone, we'll have this.

Our best foreign policy is to cut aid and kick butt on both sides until they stop it. Punish Israel (how? I dont know!) for their insane tactics on travel and human rights abuses, torture policy, etc,,, and start sending in hit squads to take out terrorist leaders of Hamas, Jar, and SP (if SP still is around).
Helter_Skelter at 07:29 AM JST - 6th May

And who shoots at ambulances?

Here's a video about Pallywood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys
mosc1 at 05:16 PM JST - 6th May

sezwho2 you make fine points. But the waters of the UN mandate have no clarity. The UN has its roots from the League of Nations. That's an undisputable fact. President Wilson's 13 points following the first world war, both England and France ignored except for the establishment of the League of Nations. This also qualifies as a historical fact. Senator Long fought Wilson in Congress and prevailed: America refused to join the League of Nations. Wilson's arrogance lacked Constitutional authority. This President had already abandoned the political direction set forth and established by the Declaration of American Independence from Europe; he had not only establish a Central Bank, called the Federal Reserve, but had joined America unto a European alliance! Senator Long declared: enough is enough, and Wilson suffered a stroke and good riddance! FDR died during the 2nd World War, and Vice President Truman succeeded in bullying Congress to agree to America joining the UN by fomenting a Red scare. This fact no one can dispute. President Truman then abandaned the Constitution of the United States and ordered American troops to fight in Korea without a Congressional declaration of war. That's a fact.

What's not a fact but pure speculation, at least it so seems to me, your statement that the UN has assumed the duties of a world governing organization.

Britian required a Mandate from the League of Nations because the British and the French had a diplomatic dispute concerning how to divide their spoils of the defunct Ottoman Empire. The League awarded Syria to the French and Palestine unto the British. This division of spoils unto the victors serves as a solid proof that the foundation of an International Body, originally called the League of Nations served as a international forum for nations to conduct diplomacy. The apple does not fall far from the tree. The United Nations comes from the stock of the League of Nations. If it has assumed responsibilities of world governance the word "assumed" needs be replaced with "USURPED"!
SezWho2 at 01:13 AM JST - 7th May

mosc1,

I don't think it matters that there was a predecessor organization. Americans did not want to be part of that organization because they perceived that the League would sap American sovereignty. They fixed that with the UN and the Security Council. The UN is a weak governing institution, but it is still a governing institution.
mosc1 at 03:38 PM JST - 7th May

Mister Obama has spoken of agreeing to UN imposed taxes upon the citizens of the United States? When the UN can impose and collect international taxes, that's not a weak Government! That effectively changes the role of Washington to a State Government and the UN usurps the role of Federal Government! If the US Constitution the UN can scrap, who shall say that Japan or any other country shall not soon have an "obligation" to pay taxes to maintain an International Government imposed upon the people of the world without their mandate or consent.
mosc1 at 04:01 PM JST - 7th May

SezWho2 the UN has to have a mandate. Have you ever read their Charter. If you simply compare the UN charter with the League of Nations charter you can not ignore the similarities. The two are like twin brothers! The Security Council in the UN definitely calls the shots. But the General Assembly can not be simply ignored as you imply. The Cubans and the Arab States have employed their influence over the General Assmebly achieving tremendous diplomatic results. For example, it's a key foreign policy objective of all the Arab states to internationally isolate Israel. The Arab embargo of Israel had limited results. But the Arab blocks influence upon the General Assembly has produced "Zionism is Racism", and compared the Jewish State to South African aparthied! By any standard, the Arab states through their influence in the General Assembly have achieved tremendous diplomatic victories. These victories do not undo the military victories that the IDF has accomplished - not by a long shot! But to discount the rise of an obscure PLO in 1967 to the Abbas incompetance of today where none the less all the nations of the world are begging Israel to grant them a State ... that impressive! So who's the rubber stamp? The General Assembly or the Security Council?

The heart and soul of the Un centers around diplomacy among nations. Korea did not succeed. The Americans are economically bankrupt. Their great society resembles a huge balloon floating in a cactus field. The baby boomers approach retirement, the intitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare shall produce a National debt alone of some 75 trillion dollars. The debt ratio of the US government is already out of control. REMEMBER THE FALL OF THE USSR? The world she's a turning and the US it's heading for a humpty dumpty fall! When that happens, what's going to become of the Security Council? The dominos have started to fall and I for one do not like the way they are falling and their consequences.
SezWho2 at 10:27 PM JST - 7th May

mosc1,

Similarities do not imply a match--chimpanzees and humans, very similar, very different. In the UN, the difference is the Security Council. The General Assembly has little power other than being a forum for discussing disputes, but it is can be when and the Security Council does not back it up.

I agree with you that the heart and soul of the UN centers around diplomacy among nations. I just think that a permanent negotiating body is a governing body, even when it does not have a military arm to enforce its governance. I don't think it's right that the Security Council occasionally acts against the will of the General Assembly, but I think it's natural that it does so. The United States--and I wager France, Britain and the Soviet Union, and now China too--was not about ready to put itself in a position where it would have to submit to the will of a governing body and thus it and the others have vetoes.

I don't like the way the dominoes are falling--either for the US or for the world as a whole. But all this seems far afield from what is happening in Israel. Whether the United Nations is correct that the removal of these 50 barriers was insignificant, I don't know. The Palestinians claim that it was and that it was simply a numbers ploy to tout progress in the absence of significant progress. But just because the UN seems to be in accord with Palestine on this does not suddenly make it a governing body.
mosc1 at 06:34 AM JST - 8th May

SezWho2 once more your comments merit close consideration. Please explain to me the role and function of Ban Ki Moon and his relationship with the Security Council? If the Security Council "determines" policies of State, why does the UN need to be apart of the "quartet"? I suggest that you consider the possibility that Ban Ki Moon has his own agenda, his own strategic and tactical policies and objectives that operate independent from the Security Council. For Ban Ki Moon to Administer as head of the UN, he must have the backing of the General Assembly.

As far as the UN's support of Palestinian position ... Sir this case functions only as a specific in a much larger General catagory! If the UN can meddle - unasked or invited - in the domestic concerns of Nations, well there's a lot more nations on the planet than limiting the affair to a country the size of Rhode Island. Israel serves as a test case. Its a weak, tiny nation ... if the UN can usurp authority to determine the policies of State taken by that government, then the turn for other countries shall follow shortly thereafter. Its a very chilling thought!
SezWho2 at 09:38 AM JST - 8th May

mosc1,

I think its fine for you to speculate that Ban has his own agenda. To forward the discussion, however, I wonder if you could speculate on what that agenda is. Until then, I think your speculation is idle.

I don't think I said anything to the effect that the Security Council "'determines' the policies of State", although I must confess that I don't really know what you mean by that. Do you mean "policies between states"? Do you mean "policies of a particular state"?

As to why the UN should be a member of the Quartet, I wonder if you are suggesting that the Quartet should be a trio. If so, I would have to question what the European Union is doing there. Or if the European Union is also removed, I would wonder why the US and Russia saw fit to be the intercessors.

As I recall, our discussion started when you asked since when did the UN become a governing body in the world? My answer was that it always has been and I gave some examples. In case your original question was not what you intended, perhaps it would be good to reflect on the meaning of governing. Webster's online gives the following definitions:

1 a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy

2 aarchaic : manipulate b: to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means

3 a: to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of b: to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over {income must govern expenditure} c: to hold in check : restrain

4: to require (a word) to be in a certain case

5: to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for {customs that govern human decisions}

I think that the UN is clearly a governing body under several of those definitions and that it was always intended to be such. And just as we either like or dislike the way the leaders of our own nations govern, we also like or dislike the actions of the UN.
mosc1 at 12:06 AM JST - 9th May

SezWho2 very though provoking - thank you.

Since 1967 the UN has passed over 130 resolutions touching the Arab/Israeli dispute. 88 of those resolutions have condemned Israel.
1. to exercise continuous sovereign authority ... clearly does not apply to the UN because its not a country. 3. to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of etc. If countries use the UN as a forum whereby represenatives of foreign governments can carry out diplomatic operations, even if the collected assembly votes upon a particular couse of action, the ministers who vote serve and follow the instructions established by their respective home governments. So by how I understand the UN Charter, it does not qualify as a governing body. The other minor definitions I do not see an obvious application.

The EU springs from the post world war 2 Common Market of 10 european states. Its last attempt to achieve a EU constitution failed. None the less the euro currency all the EU states have agreed to accept. The UN does not coin its own currency. Your above mentioned definition of a governing body failed to mention coinage of currency, thus revealing an open flaw in relying upon such general definitions. Ban qualifies as an international bureaucrat, obviously quite at home in Brussels! Classic great power politics seeks to maintain the balance of power - so that the great powers can maintain their domination of the status quo. This premise explains the American Russian and EU interests in butting into the domestic concerns of weak poorly governed middle eastern states. This premise does NOT however explain why a bureaucratic administrator like Ban Ki Moon should take a personal interest in adjoining the UN to the other 2 great powers and the EU wanna be great power. Can you tell me the last war France won without help? Germany ripped the world apart with 2 World Wars, do you really want to entrust them with world domination? Either Ban's a smoke and mirrors deception, which the great power employ to screen their manipulations or maybe the puppet has decided it wants to pull the strings. Either way I am very suspicious and am entirely disappointed with the lack of coverage by the International Corporate media.
SezWho2 at 07:07 PM JST - 9th May

mosc1,

88 of over 130 resolutions condemned Israel. So what? Is your issue that the UN is not a governing body or is it that in your opinion it attempts to be a governing body in order to criticize Israel?

I think the UN is a governing body under definitions 1b, 3a, 3b and 3c. Additionally, it endeavors to formulate policies that govern under definition 5. I know lots of people don't like this and ever since the 1950's I have had the pleasure of reading billboards that say "Get the US out of the UN".

Yes, classic great powers have attempted to maintain the status quo--until they see an opportunity to change it, in any event. But again, there are over 190 countries in the UN and they are not all pleased with that arrangement. The UN was set up to give them a voice in world affairs while maintaining a system in which the great powers would still control--and control more easily at that.

The coining of currency is not essential to governance. Texas, Arkansas and Illinois do not coin their own currency but they all have their own systems of governance. There are many types of governance other than the governance that sovereign nations exert over themselves.

World government is a good idea. The problem is in what form it should take.
mosc1 at 06:07 AM JST - 11th May

SezWho? Howdy, interesting response. I am now better understanding your perspective. To which i respectfully disagree.

I emphasized the grossly disporportionate # of UN resolutions regarding Israel, to emphasize the diplomatic success of the Arab "governments" in this international diplomatic forum ie UN. Diplomacy does not qualify as "government", even if it 3c: "restains"; 3b: exerts a determining or even guiding influence or 3a: strongly influences the actions and conduct of etc. Even condemnations from the SC/security council/ do not qualify as "governanc". Unless "noise" has enforcement capabilities in fact, threats, they only release a lot of hot air. Unless noise involve more that empty threats of economic or military actions, condemnations accomplish squat, when the condemned "government" does not fear some type of foreign police enforcement. Governments require teeth. Student governments, fall under the heading of governments, but the Administration of the School does as it pleases. Student governments compare to monopoly money, the latter's called money! Definition 1b: qualifies as a definition of anarchy. The State governments that you mentioned can impose and collect taxes, they can enforce law passed by legally recognized legislative bodies. International law has always been and remains the law of the seas. Oceans do not have governments. International law attempts to regulate the "seas". Historically International law the great powers detemine due to their ability to project military power. The UN's ability to project military power to date has not seen or known very many successes. Traditionally when bullets fly, the UN runs and hides.

WORLD GOVERNMENT IS A GOOD IDEA ... PERHAPS AS TOILET PAPER.
SezWho2 at 10:19 PM JST - 11th May

Then we disagree with each other.

I think it is your idea that the UN "should" be a body for diplomacy. I think it is rather clearly a body of governance, albeit a weak one. You seem to be defining the UN as a body of diplomacy and then claiming that, ipso facto, diplomacy cannot be government. Both the definition and the claim are incorrect.

What you call a disproportionate success of Arab governments could just as easily be described as a disproportionate failure of Israel and its allies. I think, however, that whether you look at it as success or failure, the key point is that the General Assembly has passed a judgment that Israeli supporters reject and which the controlling body--the Security Council is not willing to back up. Diplomacy is not achieved by majority votes. What the General Assembly is doing is governing and the Security council is exercising its superior authority in disregarding the governance.

You may pooh-pooh world government if you wish, but just as city states gave way to nation states, there must be some form of world government if the world is to be successful. The UN in its current form is not the ideal for it, but it is a step along the way.
mosc1 at 11:11 PM JST - 11th May

SezWho2 You may pooh-pooh world government if you wish, but just as city states gave way to nation states, there must be some form of world government if the world is to be successful. The UN in its current form is not the ideal for it, but it is a step along the way.

Who says bigger government results in better government? The best government requires "accountability". Stalin had a huge government that had one accountability other than to Stalin, that butcher murdered 20,000,000 Russians between the 2 world wars! That socialist made alliance with the other butcher socialist that resulted in 80,000,000 people between 1941 to 1945 to be shot! At the time, to put this in perspective the entire population of the United States, approximately 150,000,000 people lived in America!

Brussels seats the EU bureaucrats. Have you looked into how poorly managed the EU bureaucracy operates and functions. This notion of a world government, where strangers with strange cultures and ways, that such people could better represent the best interests of a particular people makes absolutely no sense and you have no proof otherwise. Furthermore, to imagine that world government "employees" want pursue bribes, corruption and power, this simply represents a fairy land reality. The grass on the other side of the hill, simply because you can't see it, this does not "prove" that it's greener! If the nation states have yet to perfect government on a nation to nation basis, why do you suppose that suddenly governments and powerful politician shall change their way if they control a world society.