« POSNER, EASTERBROOK, THE BOOKER CASE, DEFERENCE TO PRECEDENT, AND THE SENTENCING | Main | THE NEW YORK WHOOPI FUNDRAISER FOR KERRY »
July 10, 2004
VANESSA REDGRAVE (U.N) CHARGES ISRAEL WITH INTENTIONAL CHILD MURDER
The United Nations reported earlier this year,Now, in a more recent U.N. visit, the The NR Corner reportsMs. Redgrave is making her first-ever visit to Palestine, after nearly 30 years of campaigning for peace and justice in the Middle East, as a guest of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and as a Goodwill Ambassador of UNICEF , the United Nations’ children’s agency.
The venue for this bizarre and spine-tingling charge was the colorful American Colony Hotel, where Palestinian politicians and propagandists prefer to meet foreign correspondents. ''Any Palestinian mother or schoolchild knows that a schoolchild who is dressed in the uniform can be and is frequently shot in the head -- not in the chest, not in the legs, in the head.''That an actress believes anti-semitic canards is unremarkable, but that the United Nations sponsors her is another mark against that organization. It's not a surprising mark, of course-- a little more black on an already black wall.
I've noted before that if you believe that the United States ought to defer to the United Nations in foreign affairs, you pretty clearly accept that Israel ought to be destroyed. You may not favor that directly yourself-- you probably don't, if you're typical-- but you are saying that you will give up your own desires in favor of what the U.N. wants, and who would deny that the United Nations takes a dim view of Israel? An even more painful situation would arise if the U.N. took a position favoring seizing all Jewish property in Israel and allowing Arab militias to rape and kill freely. Someone who believes in multilateralism would have to accept that, and object to any attempts by individual countries such as the United States to stop the killing. Indeed, wouldn't you have to take the position that it would be immoral to stop killing that the U.N. has said is acceptable?
You may think I have gone over the top with the example of Arab militias killing Jews. But think for a minute. What is happening in Sudan's Darfur province right now? Arab militias are killing blacks, with the implicit approval of the Sudanese government. What is the United Nations doing? It is congratulating the Sudanese government on its human rights record by putting Sudan on the Human Rights Commission.
So, with regard to Darfur, the U.N. rewards the mass killing of black Moslems, a group that the U.N. doesn't particularly dislike. What, then, would the U.N. do to an Arab militia that kills white Jews? It seems the U.N. would have a hard time thinking of high enough praise for such an action.
Posted by erasmuse at July 10, 2004 11:18 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rasmusen.org/mt-new/mt-tb.cgi/12