14 thoughts on “On The UN’s Malevolence”

  1. I agree! I know we have so many departments and things that need cut from the budget, but for a symbolic gesture, the UN should be the FIRST thing cut. Plus, no diplomatic immunity for all the millions in uncollected parking tickets from UN diplomats and their minions.

    The UN is beyond corrupt, not merely useless but dangerous and hateful. How many billions were stolen by UN members in various shady deals?

    In an ideal world, it would be useful place, but it’s more like a meeting place for mobsters. The few decent functions carried out by the UN could be called something else, and let everyone pay for them, not so overwhelmingly the US

  2. Never Again!

    The anti-Israel-resolution activity diverted the U.N. Security Council from passing resolutions against such authoritarian regimes as Iran and Libya for shooting their citizens and suppressing pro-democracy efforts.

    Well ok, maybe this time…

  3. To the extent that Abbas could influence what Lebanon was doing (and I don’t know that this is a large extent at all), Abbas would have wanted to look tough on Israel because of the Al Jazeera leaks (look them up if you’re not familiar with them). Meanwhile, Lebanon’s new government has its own games to play with symbolism, appeasing the West on one hand and appeasing Hezbollah’s hard core followers on the other. I doubt this had anything to do with the unexpected pro-democracy protests, and I don’t think this had much to do with Obama either.

  4. and I don’t think this had much to do with Obama either

    I think Obama is making it crystal clear to the UN and the world at large that the US will not seriously protest their continued bashing of Israel for imagined issues while turning a blind eye to the significant human rights violations that occur throughout the Arab world.

    It’s long past time to relocate the UN to Geneva or Brussels. And I agree with Rand that the US should walk away from the UN for good.

  5. It isn’t an imagined issue in the eyes of the administration. Read what our ambassador to the UN had to say while vetoing the resolution, and read what the UN (as an organization) has been saying about human rights violations in Arab states here: http://www.un.org/news/ (You’ll see a lot of frivolous stuff too, and no doubt stuff you don’t agree with, but it still might make for an interesting moment of your time.

  7. Arabs have a well honed method for deflecting attention from their own anti-democratic and repressive political processes: issue a U.N. resolution to condemn Israel and its democracy.

    And certainly one cannot promote Susan Rice as an objective voice on the issue.

  8. And yet, look at what the Arab ambassadors to the UN are saying about the current protests in Libya and elsewhere.

    Just curious: who exactly does have “an objective voice” on the issue of the West Bank settlements?

  11. In all seriousness, with no sarcasm, rancor or partisanship, I don’t think you can find an unprejudiced view of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Do you have any candidates for an unprejudiced view?

    The closest I’ve seen is Tom Segev’s approach. He’s an Israeli leftist who took the position in his history book “1949” that he wouldn’t listen to the Palestinians (they’re biased), and he wouldn’t listen to his fellow leftists (they’re biased), but instead focused on self-critical comments and records by the Israeli founding fathers. The idea is that each side should focus on self-criticism by its most nationalistic patriotic members. There were things that Ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, Moshe Dyan, etc were deeply ashamed of, and were quite open about it. It was worth looking into the story there. It would be very interesting to see a Palestinian version of “1949”, which focused on self-criticism by Palestinian leaders, and then compare notes between that book and Segev’s “1949”. But even that approach won’t really eliminate prejudice and bias.

  12. Bottom line, I don’t think any Arab nation or any collection of Arab nations could take out Israel, if for no other reason than self preservation. The Arabs make a lot of noise but their passion for taking the fight to Israel is pretty inconsistent. Firing unguided rockets indiscriminately across borders into Israeli territory literally screams “we are total pussies” and Israel has shown tremendous restraint throughout.

    I think this administration is totally wrong to give any encouragement to the Arabs and their noise making, because it may solidify that Arab passion into attacking Israel with actual soldiers and equipment, and the Israelis will totally cream them yet again.

  13. Who exactly does have “an objective voice”

    It’s me Bob. I’m objective. If any country wants to wipe another off the face of the earth, attacks but ends up losing land. The winner not only gets to keep the land they won but drive all the losers out of it.

    No hand wringing. Doesn’t matter which two countries you’re talking about.

  14. About the UN: the security council is meeting, at the request of the Libyans. (Ambassadors from Libya to both the UN and various Western countries are on the side of the rebels.) They are calling for the UN to close the airspace over Tripoli — this must be the first time Rand and the Libyan delegation to the UN agreed on something.

    The UN will probably do nothing, due to China and Russia, which both fear that supporting dissent in Libya will lead to support for dissent in their own countries. (Sad that Russia has slid backward so far since 1991.) But lets wait and see what comes out of the emergency session.

    Ken, your forumla really hurts innocent individuals. For example, Serbia was in the wrong on Kosovo, but Serbian families still living in their homes in Kosovo deserve all the same rights that Kosovars do, in an independent democratic free Kosovo. They don’t deserve to be driven from their homes. It also isn’t the best formula for peace. Many Israelis feel similarly – there is A LOT of handwringing in Israel.

Comments are closed.