The United Nations General Assembly voted yesterday overwhelmingly in favour of endorsing the Goldstone Report. In total, 114 states voted to adopt the report and 18 objected. It is interesting to look at the list of countries who actually voted against it. We can split them into the following groups:
A) Core members of the USraelian Empire:
Israel, the United States, Canada
B) Core members of NATO and the Echelon alliance:
Australia, Germany, Italy, Netherlands (France and the UK are missing!)
C) Core members of the NATO colonies in the “New Europe”:
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Macedonia, the Ukraine
D) The usual “South Pacific powerhouses”:
Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
E) Panama (uh?!)
All in all, this is pretty embarrassing for the USraelians: they could not even get all NATO or Echelon countries to oppose this resolution. After all, the 44 countries which abstain did not have the courage to face their own public opinion’s outrage at such a stance.
Considering the desperate efforts of the US Congress and the Obama Administration to oppose this resolution by all means, this outcome is yet another proof of the fact that the Israelian Empire is far weaker today than it used to be.
Now that is some brilliant justification:
Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said: “On the whole, we are pleased with the outcome. We are satisfied with the fact that 18 countries, which are a moral majority, supported Israel’s stance and 44 abstained and did not vote with the automatic majority.
“It’s not a trivial thing that 18 countries, including those from the first line of the Western democratic world, would vote against the resolution.
“The automatic majority of countries like Saudi Arabia and Somalia at the UN is unfortunately a given situation. These are not countries which will teach us about morals. They will not teach us the values of warfare. Once again it has been proven that the UN is not an arena we can fight in.”
This statement shows clearly how the Israeli government respects the entire world (except those few countries that support them unconditionally, the “first line of the Western democratic world”).
The term “white countries” could have shortened your post considerably
Masoud
@Masoud: “white countries”? I know of no such country. Sure, Danemark, Austria, Croatia, Belarus, or Uruguay for that matter have a majority of so-called “White” people, but that hardly makes them “white” as such. And none of these countries opposed the resolution anyway…
I am not sure what you mean by your comment.
I mean all of the countries opposing this resolution(the south pacific power houses aside, that is) self-identify as being largely the heirs of a certain racial category. When their intellectuals are being PC they will talk about the ‘West’ or ‘Western Civilization’ but using this language only serves to obscure the historical context, which i think is important. It is notable that no nation that self identifies as being something other than ‘white’ opposed the resolution. We ignore this aspect of international relations at our own peril.
Again, this is not about demonising people from a certain part of the world or those who look a certain way. I’m not even saying we should see white/non-white as a ‘valid’ division in any particular way. But we do need to acknowledge that some do see themselves in this light, the effect this beleif has in their actions.
Masoud
“It is notable that no nation that self identifies as being something other than ‘white’ opposed the resolution.”
What about Russia? On the other hand, I really doubt nowadays most of people in the US identify their country as “white”. The Western powers don’t identify themselves with the “white man’s burden” myth anymore, they prefer the “Jewish Christian Western civilization” ideology. But the purpose is the same, of course (divide the world between “us the good” and “them the bad”).
@Masoud: I disagree with the premise and conclusion of your argument. I believe that the countries which voted against the resolution did not to do because of any aspect of their identity or self-image, but because their politicians are at the service of a *foreign*, alien, entity: the self-declared “Jewish state” of Israel and the multi-ethnic United States.
These guys have no values, no identity other than serving their masters.
@Vineyard
But that is a general statement about basically all politicians. We can safely assume that any given politician has not principles to speak of, and would sell his own mother for the right price.
The thing is politicians have to work within the framework that are put up by their own people. Egyptian leaders, as servile as they are to both the US and Israel, couldn’t oppose this resolution, neither could Sri Lanka or Columbia, or Pakistan or Georgia.
Those countries who could are those countries whose recent past involved colinization of the rest of the world in the name of the ‘White Man’s Burden’. The rhetoric of the modern era has changed slighlty, focusing on the ‘civilizational’ aspect of ‘western’ societies, but we shouldn’t be blind to the lineage of this cause. One doesn’t have to go further than reading the statements of the ‘heroic’ leaders who marched ‘western civiliazation’ through it’s most catastrophic wars of the past century, roosevlet, churchill de Gaull etc.. to realise this. That was at least a more honest bunch.
Masoud
@Carlo
You are right. Today’s Western Civilization serves the same purpose as yesterday’s White Race, but the relationship goes deeper than this, the former is a direct decendant of the later.