I agree w/ you on the U.N’s inherent biased against Israel. Looking at recent year’s resolutions condemning human rights violations around the world, Israel has 5x more (percentage wise) resolutions against it.

In the recent years, Israel has had more resolutions condemning their human rights situation than all other countries combined. (I’ll grab my sources and post links ASAP)

On the other hand, the U.N. seemingly has good intentions and does attempt to help refugees and those populations in need. That said, I could not be more in agreement w/ you in regards to the Palestinian situation and the perpetual poor situation that they are in, with no help from the UN in any form other than food, water, shelter (sometimes).

All in all, I think the U.N. is a fine idea, it just needs to be reworked from top to bottom because at the moment, in regards to Israel at least, it is a failure.

The bias of the UN General Assembly is unavoidable and even entirely “natural,” given its structure. Since each of dozens of Muslim countries has a vote, as long as Muslims are biased against Israel, there is a pre-made coalition against Israel.
This structural bias is reflected in the results. As some here have pointed out, dozens of resultions have been passed against Israel. (Never mind that most of them are entirely repetitive, constantly condemning Israel in near-identical language for supposed wrongs and calling on Isreal to unilaterally surrender.)

Another result of UN bias is seen in the so-called UN conferences on racism, the latest of which have been at Durban, South Africa. At these gatherings, instead of discussing racism, examples of which sadly (and violently — see Darfur) abound the world-over, these meetings devolve into “is Zionism racism” confabs. Nevermind that the Arab-Israeli conflict (a petty one, from a global view) is one between two closely-related Semitic peoples, so that, quite by definition, racism is out the question — the resounding answer at Durban is “Yes, Zionism is racism!” These conferences have become so transparently anti-Semitic and so obviously not-about-racism that the US, Canada, and many European countries simply refused to participate.

And then there is the UN Human Rights Commission, which you mention. Now, this is a global travesty, not just an anti-Israeli one. To have countries like terrorist-sponsoring Lybia, China (brutal oppressor and ethnic cleanser of Tibet), and, until recently, genocidal Sudan passing human-rights judgments on the US and other western countries that not only invented “human rights” but are the only ones that protect them is absurd. (The peak of the absudity was when the US was voted off and and replaced with Sudan.) And, of course, Israel is the bloody tirants’ favorite target. Naturally — the Muslims hate it, and China at best doesn’t care.

The UN bureaucracy is not immune from the the UN’s bias. They are appointed by UN, and the UN determines their budgets (and, so, salaries). Plus, take a look at an agency like UNWRA. Ostensibly, it exists to solve the Palestinian refugee problem. In reality, it (with Arab countries’ connivance) keeps Palestians in camps and rependent on the UN dole — for decades on end. Could the fact that none of its staffers would have a job if the Palestinian refugee problem were to be solved tomorrow have anything to do with that agency’s stances?

So, let’s not be vague about this — the UN _is_ biased against Israel.

In regards to your “siege on gaza” comments. What you are saying is 1/2 true, and 1/2 a propaganda term used by anti-Israel fanatics (probably not the right word but I’m at a lack for a better one). Siege involved cutting off supplies through military blockade – Yes Israel does this. Yet the other half implies it is done w/ intent to conquer the land, which Israel could easily do in a week or two, if they wanted to. The blockade (via Israel’s borders and the sea) are in place for 2 reasons.
1) Because there is a drastic increase in the number of weapons coming into Gaza, and therefor the number of rockets launched (getting more sophisticated month to month), and when there is free flow of weapons, the cross-border attacks on Israeli civilians is easier/more numerous.

1.5) You could say: “Open the borders, let the food in, weapons are bound to come in but if the people of Gaza are happy and there is no blockade then there will be no reason to shoot rockets.” Valid argument, except for the fact that attempts at this have failed in the past. Israel is also not willing to wait for the generation of those who grew up not under blockade to take power, in the hopes that they will stop the tens of thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians, by the time that this would occur.

2. The blockade is not only in place to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of terrorists, but as an unfortunate only way of punishment against Hamas, the government of Gaza, for launching these rockets into Israel and for holding Gilad Shalit hostage. I could not agree more that collective punishment is wrong, even keeping in mind that Hamas was an elected government. That said, there is no other way to target terrorists that are on video launching rockets from schools, storing their ammunition in Mosques, and keeping their headquarters under a Hospital, to use civilians as a shield. That is unacceptable, and the only way to counter such activities is unfortunately the blockade.

That said, I could speak to great lengths about items that Israel either supplies to Gaza, or lets into Gaza. Sometimes it is stolen and stockpiled by Hamas, and sometimes the Ambulances that Israel gives to Gaza are used to shuttle terrorists or smuggle bombs into Israel. Usually not, but again, that is unacceptable behavior on the part of a government (the fact that I’m calling them a government and not terrorist organization is in the hopes that legitimacy given to them will cause them to stop terrorist activities, and negotiate for peace).

To begin with, the reason I am so distressed about this issue is that I consider my self between liberal, and very liberal, and to see my Democratic party, be it a small section, pass an amendment like this, is incredibly concerning.

In my book, your most recent comment about similar divestment in Hamas gets you a lot of respect. I rarely hear that from those who promote BDS against Israel.

On a side note, where did you hear about Mr. Rothman’s promise about Senator Franken? I’m sure that will be an interesting meeting, I’d love to sit in and listen.

Also, I was a bit over zealous w/ calling the factions of the U.N. which you mentioned biased. I believe that the U.N. in itself somewhat of a biased entity when it comes to Israel, given the human rights records of some of the countries that stand on the committee.

What I often see anti-Israel propagandists giving out as much sad info (pictures, videos, articles, etc) about how terrible everything is in Gaza. That is acceptable and important to do. But the next step, once they garnered sympathy, is to say “This is Israel’s fault, they are the aggressor.” That is unacceptable and while they have a military, and superior technology, they are not fighting any type of “enemy” that we have learned or faced before. In summary, there is a thin line between showing the crisis in Gaza, and blindly blaming Israel. From the links you posted, I think I was too quick to jump on you for that. That said, I know your record when it comes to this issue and was hoping to preempt blame on Israel with no explanation as to why it is happening.

If the State of Minnesota owns any Hamas bonds, we should sell those, too. If the US Government has allowed Hamas to buy weapons manufactured in the US, that should stop, or the crimes they are accused of in the Goldstone Report should trigger enforcement of the Leahy amendment.

We need a foreign policy based on principle, and cannot extend these ideas of American exceptionalism to just one or two favored client states.