At first I thought that the United Nations was merely one-sided. I am not going to use the term anti-Semitic because the term has been used “ad nauseam” and conveniently by Jews to describe every kind of difference they have with non-Jews, even when religious beliefs are not the basis for these differences. Please do not get me wrong, there are many cases throughout the world where anti-Semitism or hatred of Jews and the Jewish religion is at the core and drives a conflict.
Recently, I came across an interview where a Belgian doctor refused to provide medical help to a 90 year old American Jewish Tourist based solely on her own religious practices. For all intents and purposes, the lady could have been an anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli. However, the doctor refused to investigate her political beliefs, and made his decision not to provide medical care purely on the basis of her religious practices, and for no other reason whatsoever. This is clearly a case of anti-Semitism, and nothing else as shown in the following video.
In the case of the UN, over the years I have noticed the organization’s behaviour as being anti-Israeli. I won’t describe it as being anti-Semitic, as the organization’s actions have been detrimental to Israel’s majority Jewish population, as well as to the country’s many Muslims and Christians. Perish the thought if one said or felt that the UN was anti-Christian, or God forbid, anti-Muslim. To stop any and all debate, pure and simple, let’s just call it being: anti-Israeli or anti-Israel.
What started with my biased or one-sided view of the UN, was translated to a view of the organization being ineffectual. I remember the countless times that delegates have walked out of UN Security Council debates when Israeli delegates rose to speak. UN Peace Keeping forces did not stop the Serbian genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1970’s. I doubt if the UN has the moral capacity or capability of mediating the “Pepsi Challenge”.
In July 1976, Palestinian and German terrorists hijacked an Air France plane to Uganda, and threatened to kill the civilian hostages, after Israel raided the Ugandan airport and saved most of the hostages, United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim “condemned Israel” for the violation of Ugandan sovereignty“. In his book, former UN Ambassador Dore Gold discusses that the UN has fueled global crisis through moral relativism. I call it moral bankruptcy, when the organization does nothing to stop conflicts, and allows countries that support and export state terrorism to remain as full-fledged members within their organization. It’s moral bankruptcy when the UN General Assembly pays its respects with a minute of silence in the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il.
I will even argue that this moral bankruptcy is dangerous from the point of view of the UN’s ability and any inclination that it may have to mediate conflicts and protect the innocent. No where can we see this better, than in the violence between Hamas controlled Gaza, and Israel.
In the years before this escalation, has the UN at least made their usual ineffectual and impotent act of censuring Hamas for their indiscriminate firing of rockets at Israeli settlements? The answer to this question is a resounding – NO!
Now with the recent escalation of the conflict with Israel attempting to destroy the tunnels used by Hamas to attack Israeli citizens and its capability to launch rockets against Israel, we see the repeated UN role as a tool of the murder and destruction being caused by Hamas against the citizens of Gaza and Israel. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency was found to have housed rockets in one of its schools. The UN was also quick to condemn Israel for the death of a Gaza child when in fact she was killed by a Hamas rocket.
Now, the most idiotic and dangerous comment has just come from the UN’s top human rights official Navi Pillay who condemned Israel for its military actions to stop Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. It accused Israel of “defying International Law… in a way that may constitute war crimes.” She went on to say that Israel was not protecting civilians, and that it should share its Iron Dome ballistic missile defense shield with the “governing authority” of Gaza, which is Hamas.
I would laugh at the stupidity of this suggestion if it wasn’t so irresponsible and dangerous. I hope that Navi Pillay considers wearing a helmet to protect whatever brain cells that she may have. If we listen to her, Russia should also share its nuclear technology with the Ukraine, and North Korea should definitely share its nuclear technology with South Korea.