Immediately following the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism and racism in 1975, Israeli UN Ambassador Chaim Herzog declared "for us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper." That is, of course, how the most recent condemnation by the General Assembly, among so many by the UN over the years, should also be viewed. Thirty-one years later, the travesty goes on. But there is of course, more to it.
Initially, the attempt by the UN Security Council last month to condemn Israel for its recent actions in Gaza was blocked only by the US. There were also four abstentions. The Security Council in its resolution compared the legitimate Israeli military operations to the terrorists firing of rockets into Israel. The failed resolution followed a barrage of anti-Israel hostility among members of the EU and in the international media. The BBC, in its international TV broadcast, went so far as to seriously consider suggestions by Arab propagandists that Israel deliberately fired the lethal shell that landed among civilians. UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett responded with ire to Israel's actions in Gaza, "It's hard to see what this action was meant to achieve and how it can be justified."
Israel evacuated Gaza in the summer of 2005 and its armed forces have had to return only out of necessity. That is an obvious fact, except for those who won't see the reality.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert foolishly apologized for the mistaken shell that killed civilians, when he should have proclaimed that the blood is on the hands of those who fire on Israeli cities and hide among Gaza's civilian population. He should have detailed the threats posed by terror cells in Gaza. He should have made adequate reference to the hypocrisy of those who have no regard for life by attacking and then hiding among civilians.
Not satisfied with the results of the initial Security Council vote, the UN General Assembly convened on November 17 to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. By a vote of 156 to 7 with 7 abstentions, Israel was called upon to evacuate the terror base that is Gaza, while no mention was made of the arsenals smuggled into Gaza with Egypt's help, nor of the over one thousand missiles shot into Israel last year alone, causing havoc in the city of Sderot. Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman rightly called Gaza a "launching pad for terrorist attacks." Gillerman can talk himself blue on a nation's legitimate rights of self-defense, but who in the UN really listens? It's like trying to repudiate the age old blood libel or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is still popular within many Arab parts of the world).
There are a few relevant lessons from the UN.
The violation of agreements by Arabs is deemed acceptable by the international community. The silence in the face of Egypt's constant facilitating of weapons smuggling to the PA over the years, and the PA's continued terrorist activity following Israel's Gaza withdrawal, attests that few will stand by Israel when it must act in its defense, despite whatever international assurances that it might receive. Not only has Israel's pullout from Gaza encouraged terrorists to rearm and fire missiles into Israel, but the UN, by its aligning with the perpetrators, has once again displayed its tolerance for such abhorrent conduct. Such behavior will inevitably only encourage violations of any future agreements.
The UN not only has no moral compass, but it remains unwilling to confront challenges by radical Islam to Israel and the West. Iranian leader Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel, another member of the UN, have not ruffled enough feathers there to precipitate meaningful action to censor Iran and curb its nuclear ambitions. Neither have Ahmadinejad's denials of the Holocaust evoked the kind of reaction one should expect. Given that the UN at large views Israel - which is in the forefront of the fight against international terror, and not the sponsors of terror such as Syria - as a pariah, the notion that the UN should take a firm stand on Iran and demand an end to its nuclear program is, at best, doubtful.
Some early Zionist leaders envisioned that the creation of Israel would put the Jewish nation on a par with other nations in the eyes of the world. However, Israel's standing in the UN has proven quite to the contrary. The Jews remain a "nation that dwells alone." The creation of Israel has not changed that immutable law of history. Neither will any further concessions by the Jewish state change that situation.
A thought about the past.
One might speculate as to why Neville Chamberlain made the blunders he did as he negotiated away the Sudetenland to Hitler. For years, culminating in September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler conversed and negotiated. One might wonder if Chamberlain had read of Hitler's ambitions in Mein Kampf. Did he know of the dictator Hitler's odious views or was he aware of the already existing concentration camps, or of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws? Certainly, judging by Chamberlain's willingness to cede the Sudetenland, he was no doubt duped by Hitler's insistence that the Sudetenland was his last territorial claim. But how could he display any toleration or willingness to so much as even talk to Hitler? How could Chamberlain not be focused solely upon stopping Hitler? Perhaps the answer has something to do with the person Chamberlain, himself.
On July 30, 1939, as Nazi thugs were unleashing their fury against the Jews, Chamberlain, who was also instrumental in implementing the British White Paper policy conceding to Arab demands to severely limit Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel, penned a letter to his sister. He noted the horrific violence and stated, "No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people, I don't care about them myself - but that is not sufficient to explain the pogrom." This statement reflects more than naivete and anti-Semitism.
When Hitler had so often espoused hatred and ranted about the Jews throughout the 1930s, Chamberlain was not sufficiently repulsed by the Nazi leader; for years, he dealt with Hitler referring to him at times as "Herr Hitler," at times calling him 'reasonable.' Chamberlain's own antipathies towards Jews and his own moral weakness clouded his judgment as he sought accommodation with the tyrant himself. The Jews, other minorities, the dissenters - he may have justified to himself that it was only segments of German society that were being persecuted. He lacked the moral compass needed by a true leader and delved into fantasy politics, and offered appeasement in the delusion that Hitler was not all that evil and could be stopped by appeasement.
Similarly, today there are those in the UN who do not sufficiently see the threats of radical Islam. They downplay those threats and the many global conflicts that result from radical Islam's influence. They express their contempt for Israel and once again blame the Jews. In place of moral clarity there is the United Nations.
Initially, the attempt by the UN Security Council last month to condemn Israel for its recent actions in Gaza was blocked only by the US. There were also four abstentions. The Security Council in its resolution compared the legitimate Israeli military operations to the terrorists firing of rockets into Israel. The failed resolution followed a barrage of anti-Israel hostility among members of the EU and in the international media. The BBC, in its international TV broadcast, went so far as to seriously consider suggestions by Arab propagandists that Israel deliberately fired the lethal shell that landed among civilians. UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett responded with ire to Israel's actions in Gaza, "It's hard to see what this action was meant to achieve and how it can be justified."
Israel evacuated Gaza in the summer of 2005 and its armed forces have had to return only out of necessity. That is an obvious fact, except for those who won't see the reality.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert foolishly apologized for the mistaken shell that killed civilians, when he should have proclaimed that the blood is on the hands of those who fire on Israeli cities and hide among Gaza's civilian population. He should have detailed the threats posed by terror cells in Gaza. He should have made adequate reference to the hypocrisy of those who have no regard for life by attacking and then hiding among civilians.
Not satisfied with the results of the initial Security Council vote, the UN General Assembly convened on November 17 to condemn Israel's actions in Gaza. By a vote of 156 to 7 with 7 abstentions, Israel was called upon to evacuate the terror base that is Gaza, while no mention was made of the arsenals smuggled into Gaza with Egypt's help, nor of the over one thousand missiles shot into Israel last year alone, causing havoc in the city of Sderot. Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman rightly called Gaza a "launching pad for terrorist attacks." Gillerman can talk himself blue on a nation's legitimate rights of self-defense, but who in the UN really listens? It's like trying to repudiate the age old blood libel or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is still popular within many Arab parts of the world).
There are a few relevant lessons from the UN.
The violation of agreements by Arabs is deemed acceptable by the international community. The silence in the face of Egypt's constant facilitating of weapons smuggling to the PA over the years, and the PA's continued terrorist activity following Israel's Gaza withdrawal, attests that few will stand by Israel when it must act in its defense, despite whatever international assurances that it might receive. Not only has Israel's pullout from Gaza encouraged terrorists to rearm and fire missiles into Israel, but the UN, by its aligning with the perpetrators, has once again displayed its tolerance for such abhorrent conduct. Such behavior will inevitably only encourage violations of any future agreements.
The UN not only has no moral compass, but it remains unwilling to confront challenges by radical Islam to Israel and the West. Iranian leader Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel, another member of the UN, have not ruffled enough feathers there to precipitate meaningful action to censor Iran and curb its nuclear ambitions. Neither have Ahmadinejad's denials of the Holocaust evoked the kind of reaction one should expect. Given that the UN at large views Israel - which is in the forefront of the fight against international terror, and not the sponsors of terror such as Syria - as a pariah, the notion that the UN should take a firm stand on Iran and demand an end to its nuclear program is, at best, doubtful.
Some early Zionist leaders envisioned that the creation of Israel would put the Jewish nation on a par with other nations in the eyes of the world. However, Israel's standing in the UN has proven quite to the contrary. The Jews remain a "nation that dwells alone." The creation of Israel has not changed that immutable law of history. Neither will any further concessions by the Jewish state change that situation.
A thought about the past.
One might speculate as to why Neville Chamberlain made the blunders he did as he negotiated away the Sudetenland to Hitler. For years, culminating in September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler conversed and negotiated. One might wonder if Chamberlain had read of Hitler's ambitions in Mein Kampf. Did he know of the dictator Hitler's odious views or was he aware of the already existing concentration camps, or of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws? Certainly, judging by Chamberlain's willingness to cede the Sudetenland, he was no doubt duped by Hitler's insistence that the Sudetenland was his last territorial claim. But how could he display any toleration or willingness to so much as even talk to Hitler? How could Chamberlain not be focused solely upon stopping Hitler? Perhaps the answer has something to do with the person Chamberlain, himself.
On July 30, 1939, as Nazi thugs were unleashing their fury against the Jews, Chamberlain, who was also instrumental in implementing the British White Paper policy conceding to Arab demands to severely limit Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel, penned a letter to his sister. He noted the horrific violence and stated, "No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people, I don't care about them myself - but that is not sufficient to explain the pogrom." This statement reflects more than naivete and anti-Semitism.
When Hitler had so often espoused hatred and ranted about the Jews throughout the 1930s, Chamberlain was not sufficiently repulsed by the Nazi leader; for years, he dealt with Hitler referring to him at times as "Herr Hitler," at times calling him 'reasonable.' Chamberlain's own antipathies towards Jews and his own moral weakness clouded his judgment as he sought accommodation with the tyrant himself. The Jews, other minorities, the dissenters - he may have justified to himself that it was only segments of German society that were being persecuted. He lacked the moral compass needed by a true leader and delved into fantasy politics, and offered appeasement in the delusion that Hitler was not all that evil and could be stopped by appeasement.
Similarly, today there are those in the UN who do not sufficiently see the threats of radical Islam. They downplay those threats and the many global conflicts that result from radical Islam's influence. They express their contempt for Israel and once again blame the Jews. In place of moral clarity there is the United Nations.