You are here
Middle East
UN's Ban Ki-Moon Excuses Palestinian Terrorism As "Natural" Reaction
It was less than 2 years ago that we read that Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias, going so far as to say, "Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination."
It should not be surprising that Ban shows the same bias when he claims It Is 'Human Nature' to React to Occupation:
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon commented Tuesday on the recent wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, saying it was part of "human nature" to react to an occupation.
Addressing the UN Security Council's periodic Middle East debate, Ban condemned rocket fire from militant groups in Gaza into Israel and called for an end to incitement, but said that "As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation."Ban Ki-moon. Credit: World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0 ],
via Wikimedia CommonsThis is no so different than the claim that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedeom fight" -- a silly statement that tends to overlook the fact that the only place where you find the killers of unarmed civilians extolled as freedom fighters is among the Palestinian Arabs.
As Netanyahu points out, Ban's excuses stoke Palestinian terrorism:
“There is no justification for terrorism. The Palestinian terrorists don’t want to build a state; they want to destroy a state, and they state that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don’t murder for peace and they don’t murder for human rights.”Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid notes the double standard between treatment of Palestinian Arabs and others with hard lives:
There are millions of people in the world whose lives are harder than those of the Palestinians. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world for whom the UN didn’t create a special body and to whom the UN didn’t send billions of dollars (and then stood to one side while a corrupt government stole it).
“For some reason those people don’t think there is anything, anything at all, which gives them license to take a knife and stab a mother of six. To take a knife and stab a woman who is five months pregnant. To take a knife and stab a wonderful 23-year-old woman who had never harmed anyone.Terrorism against innocent civilians can not be justified. No-one should provide excuses for it, especially not the UN Secretary General. Terrorism against innocent civilians is the result of nothing except the murderous insanity of the perpetrators.”If the best that Ban can do is caution both sides equally and refuse to acknowledge the incitement of hatred and violence by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, then both Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations have once again proven that their incompetence is exceeded only by their anti-Israel bias.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Ban Ki-moon and Palestinian Terrorism and United Nations.
It should not be surprising that Ban shows the same bias when he claims It Is 'Human Nature' to React to Occupation:
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon commented Tuesday on the recent wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, saying it was part of "human nature" to react to an occupation.
Addressing the UN Security Council's periodic Middle East debate, Ban condemned rocket fire from militant groups in Gaza into Israel and called for an end to incitement, but said that "As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation."Ban Ki-moon. Credit: World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0 ],
via Wikimedia CommonsThis is no so different than the claim that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedeom fight" -- a silly statement that tends to overlook the fact that the only place where you find the killers of unarmed civilians extolled as freedom fighters is among the Palestinian Arabs.
As Netanyahu points out, Ban's excuses stoke Palestinian terrorism:
“There is no justification for terrorism. The Palestinian terrorists don’t want to build a state; they want to destroy a state, and they state that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don’t murder for peace and they don’t murder for human rights.”Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid notes the double standard between treatment of Palestinian Arabs and others with hard lives:
There are millions of people in the world whose lives are harder than those of the Palestinians. In Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world for whom the UN didn’t create a special body and to whom the UN didn’t send billions of dollars (and then stood to one side while a corrupt government stole it).
“For some reason those people don’t think there is anything, anything at all, which gives them license to take a knife and stab a mother of six. To take a knife and stab a woman who is five months pregnant. To take a knife and stab a wonderful 23-year-old woman who had never harmed anyone.Terrorism against innocent civilians can not be justified. No-one should provide excuses for it, especially not the UN Secretary General. Terrorism against innocent civilians is the result of nothing except the murderous insanity of the perpetrators.”If the best that Ban can do is caution both sides equally and refuse to acknowledge the incitement of hatred and violence by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, then both Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations have once again proven that their incompetence is exceeded only by their anti-Israel bias.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Ban Ki-moon and Palestinian Terrorism and United Nations.
Categories: Middle East
When Will Facebook's Zuckerberg Apply His Pro-Muslim Statement To Jews?
On December 9, 2015, Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg posted on the need for Muslims to feel welcome on Facebook:
I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.
After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.
As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities. Even if an attack isn't against you today, in time attacks on freedom for anyone will hurt everyone.
If you're a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.
Having a child has given us so much hope, but the hate of some can make it easy to succumb to cynicism. We must not lose hope. As long as we stand together and see the good in each other, we can build a better world for all people. It is hard to argue with Zuckerberg's sentiments -- but his double standard is an issue.
It is all well and good for him to declare that Muslims "are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you."
The question is: why don't Facebook in general and Zuckerberg in particular feel the same way about protecting the rights of Jews and creating "a peaceful and safe environment" for them?
Just how peaceful and safe an environment can Facebook be when there is a community dedicated to propagating the blood libel of "Jewish Ritual Murder"?
Why does Facebook propagate the blood libel of "Jewish Ritual Murder"? Credit: snapshot
This is more than just an issue of free speech. Shurat Ha-Din recently revealed that Facebook's double standard when it comes to Muslims also applies to the Israeli-Arab conflict:
In covering the experiment, Arutz Sheva reported that Facebook discriminates against Israelis:
The two Facebook pages, "Stop Palestinians" and "Stop Israelis", were opened by members of Shurat Hadin on December 28, 2015, the group said in a statement Monday. The next day, on December 29, posts with similar content began to appear on both pages simultaneously.
...[After Shurat Ha-Din reported both pages] The results were not long in coming and Facebook's management worked quickly indeed. That same day, Facebook shut down the page which incites against the Palestinians, and even thanked the complainants for the report. Members of Shurat Hadin who ran the page received a message from Facebook which said the page had been taken offline because it published abusive, threatening and violent content which “violates Facebook’s community standards".
At the same time, however, the anti-Israel page was not shut down by Facebook, despite the fact that all the content on this page was identical to the anti-Palestinian page. In this case, Facebook's management sent the opposite message, indicating that the page did not violate the social network’s terms of service.While Facebook eventually took down the anti-Israel page as well, there are indications of Facebook's attempts to avoid facing the issue of balance head-on by resorting to deception:
Here’s what’s going on. A number of years ago people reported a page on Facebook called “Jewish Ritual Murder”. It was also know as “The Truth About Jews”. It consistently ran the classical old blood libel that Jews, ordered by their Torah, kill non-Jews (especially children) and use their blood for various invented rituals.
Well this Facebook community did appear to go away. Certainly if you’re in Australia or in Israel, you can’t see their page. But if you’re in most of the Arab world you can. So how is this deception by Facebook helping anyone, when the people most likely to be incited to go out and stab a Jew can still see the lies, while those most likely to report it can’t see it? I don’t know.
Certainly there is no perfect solution -- see Israel seeks international support to force social media giants to be more responsible for a new attempt at a solution.
But as long as Facebook hosts a community that propagates blood libels against Jews, Zuckerberg's promises of a peaceful and safe environment for Muslims will continue to come across as hypocrisy.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg and Antisemitism.
I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.
After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.
As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities. Even if an attack isn't against you today, in time attacks on freedom for anyone will hurt everyone.
If you're a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.
Having a child has given us so much hope, but the hate of some can make it easy to succumb to cynicism. We must not lose hope. As long as we stand together and see the good in each other, we can build a better world for all people. It is hard to argue with Zuckerberg's sentiments -- but his double standard is an issue.
It is all well and good for him to declare that Muslims "are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you."
The question is: why don't Facebook in general and Zuckerberg in particular feel the same way about protecting the rights of Jews and creating "a peaceful and safe environment" for them?
Just how peaceful and safe an environment can Facebook be when there is a community dedicated to propagating the blood libel of "Jewish Ritual Murder"?
Why does Facebook propagate the blood libel of "Jewish Ritual Murder"? Credit: snapshot
This is more than just an issue of free speech. Shurat Ha-Din recently revealed that Facebook's double standard when it comes to Muslims also applies to the Israeli-Arab conflict:
In covering the experiment, Arutz Sheva reported that Facebook discriminates against Israelis:
The two Facebook pages, "Stop Palestinians" and "Stop Israelis", were opened by members of Shurat Hadin on December 28, 2015, the group said in a statement Monday. The next day, on December 29, posts with similar content began to appear on both pages simultaneously.
...[After Shurat Ha-Din reported both pages] The results were not long in coming and Facebook's management worked quickly indeed. That same day, Facebook shut down the page which incites against the Palestinians, and even thanked the complainants for the report. Members of Shurat Hadin who ran the page received a message from Facebook which said the page had been taken offline because it published abusive, threatening and violent content which “violates Facebook’s community standards".
At the same time, however, the anti-Israel page was not shut down by Facebook, despite the fact that all the content on this page was identical to the anti-Palestinian page. In this case, Facebook's management sent the opposite message, indicating that the page did not violate the social network’s terms of service.While Facebook eventually took down the anti-Israel page as well, there are indications of Facebook's attempts to avoid facing the issue of balance head-on by resorting to deception:
Here’s what’s going on. A number of years ago people reported a page on Facebook called “Jewish Ritual Murder”. It was also know as “The Truth About Jews”. It consistently ran the classical old blood libel that Jews, ordered by their Torah, kill non-Jews (especially children) and use their blood for various invented rituals.
Well this Facebook community did appear to go away. Certainly if you’re in Australia or in Israel, you can’t see their page. But if you’re in most of the Arab world you can. So how is this deception by Facebook helping anyone, when the people most likely to be incited to go out and stab a Jew can still see the lies, while those most likely to report it can’t see it? I don’t know.
Certainly there is no perfect solution -- see Israel seeks international support to force social media giants to be more responsible for a new attempt at a solution.
But as long as Facebook hosts a community that propagates blood libels against Jews, Zuckerberg's promises of a peaceful and safe environment for Muslims will continue to come across as hypocrisy.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg and Antisemitism.
Categories: Middle East
Abbas Approves of The Occupation -- When It's Arab Morocco Occupying Western Sahara
One of the issues in the wake of the labeling of Israeli products from Judea and Samaria ("The West Bank"), is the double standard of the European Union refusal to label products from occupied territories such as Cyprus (occupied by Turkey) and the Western Sahara (occupied by Morocco).
Now we read that Palestine Supports Morocco’s Sovereignty Over Western Sahara:
Palestine reiterated its support for Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara on Thursday at a diplomatic meeting between both countries, held in Rabat.
...USFP leader Driss Lachgar discussed the Moroccan Sahara with Abbas Zaki [Mahmoud Abbas], member of the Fatah Central Committee.
According to the daily, both leaders agreed that “the issue of the Moroccan Sahara and that of Palestine will now be at the center of their diplomatic cooperation.”Abbas meeting with King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Credit: Morocco World News
The United Nations does not recognize the Moroccan attempt to annex the Western Sahara and a report to the UN Security Council in 2006 noted that "no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty" (paragraph 37) -- a status that has not changed.
None of this stops Moroccan Minister El Maliki, who assures us that “There is no need to make any comparison between the Palestinian cause and the Moroccan Sahara issue.” -- though he doesn't quite have an explanation as to why no comparison should be made.
Neither the US, nor the EU nor any other democratic state supports Morocco's illegal occupation of the Western Sahara, nor its practice of settling Moroccan settlers in the occupied territory. But it is the hypocrisy of requiring separate labeling of "West Bank" products but not of Moroccan products from the occupied Western Sahara territory that allows this Palestinian hypocrisy to pass without blinking.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Morocco and Western Sahara and Occupation.
Now we read that Palestine Supports Morocco’s Sovereignty Over Western Sahara:
Palestine reiterated its support for Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara on Thursday at a diplomatic meeting between both countries, held in Rabat.
...USFP leader Driss Lachgar discussed the Moroccan Sahara with Abbas Zaki [Mahmoud Abbas], member of the Fatah Central Committee.
According to the daily, both leaders agreed that “the issue of the Moroccan Sahara and that of Palestine will now be at the center of their diplomatic cooperation.”Abbas meeting with King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Credit: Morocco World News
The United Nations does not recognize the Moroccan attempt to annex the Western Sahara and a report to the UN Security Council in 2006 noted that "no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty" (paragraph 37) -- a status that has not changed.
None of this stops Moroccan Minister El Maliki, who assures us that “There is no need to make any comparison between the Palestinian cause and the Moroccan Sahara issue.” -- though he doesn't quite have an explanation as to why no comparison should be made.
Neither the US, nor the EU nor any other democratic state supports Morocco's illegal occupation of the Western Sahara, nor its practice of settling Moroccan settlers in the occupied territory. But it is the hypocrisy of requiring separate labeling of "West Bank" products but not of Moroccan products from the occupied Western Sahara territory that allows this Palestinian hypocrisy to pass without blinking.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Morocco and Western Sahara and Occupation.
Categories: Middle East
Why Is the Terrorist Murderer Omar Nayef Zayed Getting World Sympathy?
Stephen M. Flatow writes about the Palestinian Authority’s dirty little secret:
A Palestinian terrorist who escaped from an Israeli prison 25 years ago is now being given shelter in the PA’s consulate in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria.
The terrorist is Omar Nayef Zayed, who was convicted in 1986 of murdering an Israeli yeshiva student. He started a hunger strike in 1990, which resulted in the Israeli authorities admitting him to a hospital in Bethlehem. He escaped from the hospital, slipped out of the country, and made his way to Bulgaria.
Palestinian terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed is being given shelter in the
Palestinian Authority consulate in Sofia, Bulgaria's capital. Credit: Facebook.
This of course is par for the course. Flatow points out that according to the Oslo II agreement [Annex IV, Article 2, Par.7(f)(1)] that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the PA signed in 1995, the PA is obligated to comply with every Israeli request for extradition.
Meanwhile, the expected excuses -- and outright deceptions -- are being utilized on Zayed's behalf.
Zayed's brother makes Omar Zayed's murder out to be a political act:
Zayed is "a political fighter who defended the Palestinian cause" and he "poses no danger" to Israel today, Hamza added.This is a theme that Samidoun, which calls itself the "Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network", goes to town on. Samidoun neglects to mention that Zayed is a murderer:
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network emphasizes that this is a political attack on former Palestinian prisoners. It should not be seen as an individual case only, but an attempt by the Israeli state to persecute former Palestinian prisoners and invade Palestinian communities throughout Europe. Like all Palestinian prisoners, Omar’s case is a political case and not a “criminal case.” Extraditions for political offenses are not legitimate and should be denied.Whatever excuses apologists for the terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed make, whatever emotional appeals these terrorist sympathizers make, the question still remains: Why it is that around the world and throughout history it is only the Palestinian Arabs who praise and celebrate murderers of unarmed civilians as freedom fighters.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Omar Nayef Zayed and Palestinian Terrorism.
A Palestinian terrorist who escaped from an Israeli prison 25 years ago is now being given shelter in the PA’s consulate in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria.
The terrorist is Omar Nayef Zayed, who was convicted in 1986 of murdering an Israeli yeshiva student. He started a hunger strike in 1990, which resulted in the Israeli authorities admitting him to a hospital in Bethlehem. He escaped from the hospital, slipped out of the country, and made his way to Bulgaria.
Palestinian terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed is being given shelter in the
Palestinian Authority consulate in Sofia, Bulgaria's capital. Credit: Facebook.
This of course is par for the course. Flatow points out that according to the Oslo II agreement [Annex IV, Article 2, Par.7(f)(1)] that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the PA signed in 1995, the PA is obligated to comply with every Israeli request for extradition.
Meanwhile, the expected excuses -- and outright deceptions -- are being utilized on Zayed's behalf.
Zayed's brother makes Omar Zayed's murder out to be a political act:
Zayed is "a political fighter who defended the Palestinian cause" and he "poses no danger" to Israel today, Hamza added.This is a theme that Samidoun, which calls itself the "Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network", goes to town on. Samidoun neglects to mention that Zayed is a murderer:
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network emphasizes that this is a political attack on former Palestinian prisoners. It should not be seen as an individual case only, but an attempt by the Israeli state to persecute former Palestinian prisoners and invade Palestinian communities throughout Europe. Like all Palestinian prisoners, Omar’s case is a political case and not a “criminal case.” Extraditions for political offenses are not legitimate and should be denied.Whatever excuses apologists for the terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed make, whatever emotional appeals these terrorist sympathizers make, the question still remains: Why it is that around the world and throughout history it is only the Palestinian Arabs who praise and celebrate murderers of unarmed civilians as freedom fighters.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Omar Nayef Zayed and Palestinian Terrorism.
Categories: Middle East
Council conclusions on Libya
Categories: Middle East
Does Obama Really Want To Be The Next UN Secretary General -- And Is He Eligible?
Breitbart is one of those reporting that after his term as president is over, Obama has plans to become the next Secretary General of the UN. It seems though that the idea of Obama pursuing that goal is not nearly as newsworthy as the idea that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to stop him.
So the emphasis in the Breitbart story is Netanyahu Working to Block Obama Bid for U.N. Secretary-General:
Israel National News describes a Kuwaiti newspaper’s report about President Barack Obama’s post-presidential plans as “somewhat far-fetched,” but apparently plausible enough to bounce through publications around the world.
According to the Al Jarida report, President Obama wants to be appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the White House, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to thwart his ambitions.
Al Jarida has Netanyahu exclaiming, “Is it not enough that we have had to live through eight years of Obama’s rule, in which he ignored Israel? Now he wants to be in a position to cause us difficulty in the international arenas?”Putting aside the accuracy of the Al Jarida report, is Obama even eligible to become Secretary General of the UN?
Apparently, no citizen of one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) can become Secretary General.
The UN site does not seem to address this question.
Looking around the internet -- and this includes Wikipedia, it turns out that the main source for who is qualified for the position of Secretary General is not the UN website, but the PBS website:
Q. Who elects the Secretary-General?
A. The Security Council nominates a Secretary-General to the General Assembly which then votes to appoint the Council's choice. The Security Council is barred from nominating an individual that is from one of Security Council's five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, U.S.). (emphasis added)That is not 100% correct, since the very first Secretary General -- even before Trygve Lie -- was Gladwyn Jebb:
Hubert Miles Gladwyn Jebb, 1st Baron Gladwyn GCMG GCVO CB PC known as Gladwyn Jebb (25 April 1900 – 24 October 1996), was a prominent British civil servant, diplomat and politician as well as the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations for a little over three months. (emphasis added)So are members of the P5 barred or not?
Another non-UN website may actually be closer to the truth. According to a blog dedicated to the question Who Will Be The Next UN Secretary General:
In addition, informal rules often influence the selection process. The best known is that nationals of permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom or the United States - cannot be considered for the post, as such would invest an unwise amount of leverage over international decisions in one government, notwithstanding the statutory independence of the office. Less commonly known, and perhaps more questionable, is the informal requirement that candidates for UNSG must be fluent in English and French, which, while the dominant languages of international relations, are only two of the UN's six official languages. (emphasis added)The question then becomes whether an informal rule in practice would be stand in the way of Obama.
Of course, there is also the question of whether any countries would actually want Obama as Secretary General.
Finally, of course, does Obama really want the position?
I don't know.
But Obama does seem comfortable with the idea.
Are 2 terms as UN Secretary General in Obama's future? Credit: fox2now.com
Hat tip: LR, OC
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Obama and United Nations and Secretary General.
So the emphasis in the Breitbart story is Netanyahu Working to Block Obama Bid for U.N. Secretary-General:
Israel National News describes a Kuwaiti newspaper’s report about President Barack Obama’s post-presidential plans as “somewhat far-fetched,” but apparently plausible enough to bounce through publications around the world.
According to the Al Jarida report, President Obama wants to be appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the White House, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to thwart his ambitions.
Al Jarida has Netanyahu exclaiming, “Is it not enough that we have had to live through eight years of Obama’s rule, in which he ignored Israel? Now he wants to be in a position to cause us difficulty in the international arenas?”Putting aside the accuracy of the Al Jarida report, is Obama even eligible to become Secretary General of the UN?
Apparently, no citizen of one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) can become Secretary General.
The UN site does not seem to address this question.
Looking around the internet -- and this includes Wikipedia, it turns out that the main source for who is qualified for the position of Secretary General is not the UN website, but the PBS website:
Q. Who elects the Secretary-General?
A. The Security Council nominates a Secretary-General to the General Assembly which then votes to appoint the Council's choice. The Security Council is barred from nominating an individual that is from one of Security Council's five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, U.S.). (emphasis added)That is not 100% correct, since the very first Secretary General -- even before Trygve Lie -- was Gladwyn Jebb:
Hubert Miles Gladwyn Jebb, 1st Baron Gladwyn GCMG GCVO CB PC known as Gladwyn Jebb (25 April 1900 – 24 October 1996), was a prominent British civil servant, diplomat and politician as well as the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations for a little over three months. (emphasis added)So are members of the P5 barred or not?
Another non-UN website may actually be closer to the truth. According to a blog dedicated to the question Who Will Be The Next UN Secretary General:
In addition, informal rules often influence the selection process. The best known is that nationals of permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom or the United States - cannot be considered for the post, as such would invest an unwise amount of leverage over international decisions in one government, notwithstanding the statutory independence of the office. Less commonly known, and perhaps more questionable, is the informal requirement that candidates for UNSG must be fluent in English and French, which, while the dominant languages of international relations, are only two of the UN's six official languages. (emphasis added)The question then becomes whether an informal rule in practice would be stand in the way of Obama.
Of course, there is also the question of whether any countries would actually want Obama as Secretary General.
Finally, of course, does Obama really want the position?
I don't know.
But Obama does seem comfortable with the idea.
Are 2 terms as UN Secretary General in Obama's future? Credit: fox2now.com
Hat tip: LR, OC
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Obama and United Nations and Secretary General.
Categories: Middle East
Declaration by the High Representative Federica Mogherini on behalf of the EU on the signature of the Libya Political Agreement
Categories: Middle East
Syrian refugee crisis: EU Trust Fund launches single biggest EU response package ever for €350 million, helping up to 1.5 million refugees and their host communities in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq
Categories: Middle East
€200mn humanitarian aid package for Syria crisis and Iraq delivered by Commission
Categories: Middle East
Council conclusions on Yemen
Categories: Middle East
Does NBC Have An Ayman Mohyeldin Problem?
Fox News addresses the issue of media bias in its reporting of the Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis.
Watch:
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Palestinian Terrorism.
Watch:
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!
Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Palestinian Terrorism.
Categories: Middle East
Pages
© 2012-2018 Europa Varietas Foundation © 2015-2018 Europa Varietas Association
www.europavarietas.org | info(@)europavarietas(dot)org | Switzerland
We are looking for sponsors for the English translation of these books, please contact turkeandras(at)gmail(dot)com