Intent To Commit
When evil intent is blatantly advertised, boastfully proclaimed, and onlookers have proof positive that a genocide, the destruction of a nation, is not only being contemplated, but planned for future execution, there should be no doubt of its coming to pass. All the signs are there, publicly expressed, and with pride. So up front, in fact, that it seems difficult to give it credibility.
If one nation expresses its contempt for another, however, adding that it would be a benefit to the world to eradicate it from existence, nothing could be clearer, with respect to intent.
The United Nations, developed from its pre-WWII predecessor, The League of Nations, adopted 60 years ago, a universal pledge to ensure that a horrific event such as the Holocaust, the hallmark of fascist ideology and Hitlerian hatred combined, would never again be permitted to occur by an alert and steadfast world body.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclamation gave comfort to the world that the grievous damage done to universal humanity by the state-organized mass murder of six million Jews would never again occur. Its declaration and promulgation assuaged the guilt of the world that had stood by with disinterested lassitude while Jews were starved, tortured, shot, buried alive, gassed and consumed in crematoria.
It was a noble ideal, a universally-agreed-to convention aspiring to assert that the world would act in determined concert should anything remotely resembling ethnic cleansing, mass slaughter, demonstrated genocide, ever rear its evil head again, through the auspices of some hate-filled ideology.
Stating: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people..." the United Nations affirmed that human rights would be protected by the universal rule of law.
And which body representing the humane aspirations of humankind would be better suited to assuming the role of universal protector, than the United Nations which pledged through the General Assembly that it would promote respect for rights and freedoms, national and international, affirming that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Despite which, standing in the General Assembly, addressing it with full confidence, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the full support of the theocratic head of Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pledged his country to the destruction of the State of Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad stood erect and proudly proclaimed the intention of his country. In so doing inciting hatred of Israel. As a precursor to violent action, the inflammatory and hateful belittling of a people took place; a reprise of Nazi German's dehumanization of Jews aiding in their long-term plan to achieve mass extermination.
Denial of the occurrence of the Holocaust is another tool in the public relations assault on the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. For if the Holocaust was a farce, one falsely forced upon the world, to extract guilt concessions from the United Nations, then the founding of the State of Israel loses its legitimacy in the view of Iran and its supporters. Both Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Khameni further made description of Israel and its people as a "cancerous tumour" on the world body.
Despite the outrage of this assault on a people and a United Nations member-state, no condemnation of Iran and its principals and principles were forthcoming. There were many who viewed this event with horror, and many others who felt it completely justified, and were ready to give it their support. In the very place where nations' representatives sit to ensure that justice and fairness prevail, that nations' rights are inviolate as are those of their citizens. Listening to a hateful polemic from a state whose severe strictures against its own peoples' freedoms are an insult to the pledge of the Declaration of Human Rights.
Instead of condemning the outrageously mad content of Ahmadinejad's speech and the unmistakable trajectory of his country's intentions toward a neighbouring state, the event went unremarked but for the condemnatory response of countries of the West. If this event alone, let alone those occurring in Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, North Korea, Iran, Burma and other human-rights-abusing states can be politely overlooked, of what real and true purpose is the institution of the United Nations?
This is a fair question, looking for a fair response.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 27. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Amen.
If one nation expresses its contempt for another, however, adding that it would be a benefit to the world to eradicate it from existence, nothing could be clearer, with respect to intent.
The United Nations, developed from its pre-WWII predecessor, The League of Nations, adopted 60 years ago, a universal pledge to ensure that a horrific event such as the Holocaust, the hallmark of fascist ideology and Hitlerian hatred combined, would never again be permitted to occur by an alert and steadfast world body.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclamation gave comfort to the world that the grievous damage done to universal humanity by the state-organized mass murder of six million Jews would never again occur. Its declaration and promulgation assuaged the guilt of the world that had stood by with disinterested lassitude while Jews were starved, tortured, shot, buried alive, gassed and consumed in crematoria.
It was a noble ideal, a universally-agreed-to convention aspiring to assert that the world would act in determined concert should anything remotely resembling ethnic cleansing, mass slaughter, demonstrated genocide, ever rear its evil head again, through the auspices of some hate-filled ideology.
Stating: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people..." the United Nations affirmed that human rights would be protected by the universal rule of law.
And which body representing the humane aspirations of humankind would be better suited to assuming the role of universal protector, than the United Nations which pledged through the General Assembly that it would promote respect for rights and freedoms, national and international, affirming that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Despite which, standing in the General Assembly, addressing it with full confidence, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the full support of the theocratic head of Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pledged his country to the destruction of the State of Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad stood erect and proudly proclaimed the intention of his country. In so doing inciting hatred of Israel. As a precursor to violent action, the inflammatory and hateful belittling of a people took place; a reprise of Nazi German's dehumanization of Jews aiding in their long-term plan to achieve mass extermination.
Denial of the occurrence of the Holocaust is another tool in the public relations assault on the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. For if the Holocaust was a farce, one falsely forced upon the world, to extract guilt concessions from the United Nations, then the founding of the State of Israel loses its legitimacy in the view of Iran and its supporters. Both Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Khameni further made description of Israel and its people as a "cancerous tumour" on the world body.
Despite the outrage of this assault on a people and a United Nations member-state, no condemnation of Iran and its principals and principles were forthcoming. There were many who viewed this event with horror, and many others who felt it completely justified, and were ready to give it their support. In the very place where nations' representatives sit to ensure that justice and fairness prevail, that nations' rights are inviolate as are those of their citizens. Listening to a hateful polemic from a state whose severe strictures against its own peoples' freedoms are an insult to the pledge of the Declaration of Human Rights.
Instead of condemning the outrageously mad content of Ahmadinejad's speech and the unmistakable trajectory of his country's intentions toward a neighbouring state, the event went unremarked but for the condemnatory response of countries of the West. If this event alone, let alone those occurring in Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, North Korea, Iran, Burma and other human-rights-abusing states can be politely overlooked, of what real and true purpose is the institution of the United Nations?
This is a fair question, looking for a fair response.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 27. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Amen.
Labels: Anti-Semitism, Israel, United Nations
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home