"UN Watch has been run for the last 14 years by a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. Of the six board members of UN Watch named in Wiki, one is a past president of AJC and another is its executive director. Another member was for 27 years deputy chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association."

It is not difficult to discern the sub text of your post.

The sub-text of my post is as follows. You put up links to stuff about UN Watch's criticisms of the UN's attitude to Israel. You said nothing about the current status of UN Watch, which is that it is run by AJC, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, and that its board is dominated by members with long track records of belonging to either that or to other groups of similar demeanour. Your links post, which was strongly pro-Israel and anti-UN, failed to apprise us of that. Now I have no difficulty with UN Watch's findings, as I've already said more than once. As with findings reported by any other advocate of a particular position, I reserve the right to be a little sceptical and to do a bit of delving, as I've shown. What I do have difficulty with is you advocating a strong pro-Israel position whilst sidelining the inconvenient fact that your evidence comes from the pro-Israel lobby. I've asked you to address the substantive issue of the nature of the resolutions instead of just bandying numbers around. Tell us what you think is wrong with the SUBSTANCE of the resolutions you so dislike, then we can have something to actually talk about.

Now, instead of making snide little insinuations about my "subtext", perhaps you'd be brave enough to spell out what you think it is (give me one guess...). Do make sure you give evidence in support.