Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
U.N. Assembly Calls for Halt Of Israel Wall
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 22, 2003; Page A08
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 21 -- The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution Tuesday demanding that Israel halt construction of a barrier intended to cut it off from the West Bank and dismantle the portion already built.
The barrier, which Israel argues is needed as protection from suicide bombers, has come under stiff criticism because it dips into the West Bank and cuts through Palestinian villages.
General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, unlike those adopted by the Security Council. But the votes of the 191-member assembly are considered a gauge of world opinion.
After hours of haggling over the text of the resolution, the assembly voted 144 in favor and four opposed, including the United States. There were 12 abstentions.
In return for support from the European Union, the Palestinians and other Arab and Islamic nations agreed to drop a second resolution that would have asked the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands, for an advisory opinion on the barrier's legality.
The resolution's backers also agreed to add a condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings, "extra-judicial killings" by the Israelis, and the Oct. 16 bomb attack on a U.S. diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip that killed three American security officers.
The resolution says that the barrier violates the Armistice Line of 1949 and demands that Israel halt construction and dismantle the part it has completed.
Posted by P6 at October 22, 2003 08:26 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2068it is an empty gesture. assembly resolutions carry no weight in int'l law...
thus the reason human rights abuses still occur even though the General Assembly said they were outlawed. Assembly resolutions are symbolic if anything. The Security Council is where it's at.
Actually, with the earlier " Zionism is Racism " resolution of the 1970's, the General Assembly has basically called for the dismantling of Israel itself. Their credibility is a bit low.
Much as South Africa was disassembled, yes.
What's the difference between Zionism and racism?
The difference between Zionism and Racism is that Zionism asserts a need for a nation-state for the Jews. Zionism ( or particular Zionists) can be infected by Racism or not - much like any other form of nationalism.
If anything, Zionism was a Jewish reaction against 19th century European racialist thinking that rejected earlier Enlightenment assimilation policies and wanted to re-segregate Jews with civil disabilities and restrictions. Large percentages of Germans, Russians, Frenchmen, Poles, Hungarians etc. were deeply anti-semitic and considered Jews to be aliens. Judging from the news of late, not much has changed in some parts of the world
So generally, when people - Pat Buchanan comes to mind- say they are " Anti-Zionist " they imply Israel ought to be destroyed and they sort of tip-toe away from the logical human consequences of that result, given the characteristics of the states in the Mideast. It's a more antagonistic position than saying the Palestinians ought to have a state of their own ( which is one part of a permanent peace deal)
The reason I asked is that Zionism doesn't seem to me to be much different than various Black seperatist movements that pop up here and there, and which are invariably called racist.
As for Zionism and Israel specifically, I think it in a way unfortunate that Israel was created rather than the European powers dealing with their anti-Semitism and the shame of their passive reaction to the beginnings of the Jewish holocaust. Anti-Semitism in Europe looks to this outsider to be also as deep and anti-Black prejudice in the USofA. Europe never had a reason to face that down. Add that to their becoming the Afrikaaners of the Middle East(and truthfully, some of their leaders prefer it that way) and I don't know if the establishment of Israel nets out to a positive for Jews as a whole.
Hmm..my first post was eaten by the internet gremlins...try,try again.
There are definitely two strains of Ashkenazim Zionism. One is European Social-Democratic and integrationist represented by David Ben-Gurion. The second is also European but more reactionary and anti-assimilationist and hails from Eastern Europe where anti-semitism and pogroms were historically most brutal. Menachim Begin led this faction. The Ultra-orthodox Hasidim are actually anti-Zionist and consider the state of Israel to be blasphemous ( they await the Messiah)
The Sephardim lived in the Mideast for 2000+ years and are Middle-Easterners culturally. Many of them ( or their parents)were expelled from Arab states in 1948 or were forced to emigrate within a few years ( Nasser's expropriations for example). While this group is at home with Arabs they are often also the most harshly anti-Arab Israelis, being involuntary Zionists as it were.
Plus or minus ? Hard to tell yet. Only two states have been relatively secure for Jews, Israel and the United States so how they would fare without Israel is an open question. The history of the last century is not comforting though.