The UN's Dirty Little Secret

one of several people AND "organizations" mentioned for "major support" that included Brooklyn Delegation of the New York City Council, New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, New York State Council on the Arts.

Real intrigue at its finest it looks like.

Yeah right...

Diffivult to even make a mole hill out of this, let alone the mountain you are trying to!

I bought a Wall Street Journal tonight. The leaders and officers include Kann, Zannino, Skinner, Crovitz, Ottaway, Elliot, Steiger, Adler, Bussey, Calame, Hertzberg, Lipman, Gigot, Henninger, and Bartley. I really don't see any ethnic pattern here. Do you? Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Yes, James Ottaway, Jr. is on the list (#5 by the way in Dow Jones, not in WSJ), and he is mentioned in many places on the web, and he is listed as a supporter of the Jewish festival. What does all this mean? Is he Jewish? I don't have a clue; he might just be the officer in Dow Jones who is supposed to be involved in community affairs. Is he talented and bright? It would seem that he is. Am I jealous? Of course! Wouldn't we all like to be talented, successful, and well paid?

Is there some mysterious or sinister meaning in all this? I don't see any. Do Jewish people tend to get special blessings? Yes they do, but that's God's choice and He has made choices for me also. My responsibility is to be content with what God has given to me; not to be envious of what He has given to someone else. The Jewish people have suffered over the centuries because of their special relationship with God, and I'm not so sure I want to change places with them. I also don't want to get between them and God. I think God calls me to treat Jewish people with respect as image bearers, together with me, of God. Ultimately, we must all look to our own relationship with God, and not what someone else's relationship is.

.

Charlie, if you want to defend the Palestine side in that conflict, that is your privilege. If you feel they're the victims, you can holler and scream.

And while there is always a valid concern about a particular group having unproportional influence, your opinion of Jewish malfeasance is worth about as much Arafat's.

You're as pro-Palestine as anyone here is pro-Israel. I'm not accusing you of anti-Semitism, tho IMO you often tread the line. But that's my opinion, even if I'm only moderately supportive of Israel positions and actions in recent years.

roger

Roger,

I am not even close to be an anti-Semite! People who are fanatical about the Jewish religion may think so, but I think and hope that others are not. I am not blaming the Jews for anything. I have never posted anything against the Jews as Jews! I may not agree with Israel, but that is not because it happens to be a Jewish state! I say the same about Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries. Does that mean I am an anti-Catholic? I have only said that the power is the enemy of the people. The power may be Jewish, Irish, Swedish, Taliban, French or whatever. I don't care! As I have stated in previous posts, I live in a neighborhood that is mainly populated by Orthodox Jews. And that is no problem to me (btw, how can someone say that I am a fascist when I am living in a "hood" that is mainly Orthodox Jewish??? It's like blaming someone for being a clan member who lives in Harlem!). I hear and see the Jewish people pray every Saturday and even every day on the train here. I don't care about that! What I care about is the POWER, independently of WHO has it! My point from the beginning was that Evie relied on an article which was written in a newspaper that has strong ties to the Jewish community/population and therefore I didn't rely on it since the editorial was part of the conflict and so forth not as reliable as the UN Declartion of the Human Rights which was the first link I provided and includes ALL religions!

As I said, IMO, you skated near the edge. But will not argue with your assertion you're not.

However, do you deny being very anti-Israel? and very pro-Palestine?

You also repeatedly warn about the political and financial power and influence of Jewish owners of the media etc. It's a consistent enough pattern to make people wonder about your stance. Just my opinion of
course, but maybe wise for you to consider the appearance.

BTW, where you live (espcially now) does not determine your prejudices. So living in a Jewish neighborhood and seeing them pray every day doesn't prove of disprove anything.

And why would you even bring up -

"I hear and see the Jewish people pray every Saturday and even every day on the train here. "

Honestly, it sounds resentful. I'm just pointing this out, not accusing you. And the appearance depends on who reads it I suspose. Again, perhaps it would be worth considering how things might appear to others, espcially in relation to other debates and arguements.

roger

OK, you suspect bias in favor of Jews in the Wall Street Journal. I don't think you've established a reasonable basis for that suspicion, but it may be a real consideration in your mind. My thoughts? One guy in Dow Jones management who MAY support Jewish causes, may lead one to believe that the WSJ pulls its punches on Jewish matters. However, Bartlet as editor emeritos may equally argue that the WSJ pulls its punches on English matters (Bartlet sounds English to me), and so on for the French (Gigot) and the other names in senior management. Where does one stop before they lose their credibility?

At any rate, what do you need to do with a suspicious news source? Show how they are biased in their coverage of a story! Show how the facts do NOT support their conclusions! If you do that, most people will accept what you say. Until you do, you will be seen as an 'off the wall' conspiracy buff.

Good luck!

same one with the same words that you used before when writing as D. Washington.

Your "reasoning" (and I use the term VERY loosely) was just as faulty and out of touch with reality then too.

"Instead of ensuring that victimhood brooks no discrimination, on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word "children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority."

It's OK to condemn attacks on Palestinian children but it's OK to attack Israeli children?

according to the latest "peace accord" proposals in Geneva, yes...

LOL, and to that I say -- keep reading the straight scoop right here Moshe. If you look for the right name you'll find EXACTLY the same thing!

DE

Now we just need the resolve to bring the hammer down

On the up side of listening, there is the whole "nuf rope to hang yourself with" / "temper-tantrum out here in the spotlight" thing. If they've drawn conclusions in obvious denial of facts, nobody will be able to miss that.

or

"just ride 'n rope 'n brand 'em" - yeeha

The UN is above all an airing-out forum. Gags me when yall get pissed about having to listen. We've never had to do anything we didn't want to do because of the UN.

On the money-where-my-mouth-is front: I agree with your disgust about the lack of recognition anti-semitism seems to be getting. It's an undeniable fact and no matter what other facts there are, there is no justification for it. On the other hand, it's existence doesn't excuse Israel from it's many and continuing sins.