MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 17th 2022 - 11:45 UTC

 

 

Argentine Jewish community criticize UN chair hopeful Malcorra on a Unesco vote

Friday, June 17th 2016 - 07:48 UTC
Full article 4 comments

Argentina's Jewish community sent a strong letter to foreign minister Susana Malcorra rejecting and condemning the administration of president Mauricio Macri for having supported a controversial Unesco resolution under the heading of “Occupied Palestine”. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Conqueror

    Argieland really knows how to screw up. Macri could have used his inaugural speech to revoke argieland's illegitimate claim to the Falklands. If that was too much for him in the early days, he could have just said nothing. But he's confirmed the ridiculous “claim” and has even gone further by telling his population to treat Islanders as argies.

    And now he makes another error. The State of Israel is the proper successor to the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel. UNESCO and argieland has made the mistake of using language that pays no attention to rights under international law, that it was Israel that was attacked and, if any territory is being “occupied”, it is Israeli territory being occupied by islamic, jihadi, arab terrorists.

    I wonder about the last paragraph. Temporary, non-permanent members of the Security Council don't have any vote.

    Jun 17th, 2016 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @1 Conqueror

    It's not that non-permanent members of the UNSC don't have a vote, what they don't have is the ability to Veto.

    And should it look like the malevolent Malcorra...who by virtue of the fact that she has already misrepresented what the UN has said is totally unsuitable for the role as Secretary General...then the important countries who do have the Veto can stop it. And there is nothing they can do about it.

    As for the article above. Whilst I believe that Israel has the right to exist, the way they treat the Palestinians isn't good at all, and they aren't allowed (under international law) to build houses or communities in the occupied territories. By doing so they only make a rod for their own back and lose the moral high ground.

    Jun 17th, 2016 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roisin Dubh

    The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General's selection is therefore subject to the veto of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
    The Argentine candidate has automatically disqualified herself because she obviously does not believe in self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the UN. A prequisite for the post is upholding the Charter.
    Additionally I believe that Russia will insist on a candidate from the Eastern block (there are several) and if they follow the rotational system, which is not obligatory, then it is certainly the turn of the Eastern block.
    Another strong contender is the female candidate from New Zealand, former PM and presently head of one of the UN sister agencies. I think Ms Malcorra has some stiff competition apart from the possible Veto from the UK and Russia.

    Jun 17th, 2016 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @2. Thanks for the correction. It was “late” for me when I wrote.

    But then you go on to use the same mistaken language. International law says that, at the end of an armed conflict, any territory in the possession of the parties remains in their possession. In my view, one of the reasons why, in 1982, the Task Force was careful to take possession of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. There could be no argument that those territories were British.

    Translating that to the situation in and around Israel. It's actually immaterial that it was Israel that was attacked. There have been more than armed conflict. At the end of each one, Israel possessed certain territories. Legally, they would thenceforth be Israeli territory.

    Go back to 1947/8. The UN defined what would be Israel and what would be arab. If arabs wanted to live in Israeli territory, all they had to do was acknowledge Israeli sovereignty and live normal, peaceful lives. Israel accepted the UN plan, arabs didn't. Arabs from all around attacked. At the end Israel possessed more territory. The arabs have refused to accept that lawful situation. In 1948, arabs had a perfectly reasonable solution in front of them. Accept governance by Israel or move to what was then Transjordan. Arabs have continued to attack from Gaza and from the West Bank. Arabs have also added the insult of asserting that they intend to make Jerusalem “their” capital. Taking over Israel's “holy” city. Arabs should count themselves fortunate that Israel isn't just expelling them all. I doubt whether the IDF, given a free hand, couldn't force all arabs across the Jordan to the East Bank. And I would support that. A single border would be more defensible. There would be no arab fifth column inside Israel. Amongst other things, don't forget that Israel occupied Gaza and then gave it back to the arab occupants. A clear signal that Israel was prepared to live and let live. And the arabs have shown gratitude by firing rockets.

    Jun 18th, 2016 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!