Powered by WebAds

Thursday, June 07, 2007

The UN continues to make itself irrelevant

I don't know if any of you held out any hope that the change in UN Secretary General from the corrupt Kofi Annan to the supposedly less anti-Israel Ban Ki-Moon was going to change anything. But if you did, you need to place your hopes elsewhere. This is Ki-Moon's statement on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War:
On this day, the Secretary-General remembers the men, women and children who have been killed or had their lives shattered by the tragedies of conflict in the Middle East, particularly the Palestinians, who continue to live under an occupation that has lasted 40 years. The United Nations remains committed to bringing assistance to those who suffer, and to working tirelessly for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region in accordance with international law and the resolutions of the Security Council.

As the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war reminds us, statehood for Palestinians, security for Israelis and peace in the region cannot be achieved by force. An end to the occupation and a political solution to the conflict is the only way forward -- for Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and the wider region. This will only be achieved through negotiations to bring about an end to the occupation, on the basis of the principle of land for peace, as envisaged in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League still thinks it's worth writing Ki-Moon a letter:
"In singling out Palestinian suffering, your statement gives the impression that you place the onus for the Arab-Israeli conflict solely on Israel," the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman wrote to Mr. Ban. The statement also devaluates the "suffering inflicted on the people of Israel as a result of years of unrelenting terror attacks," Mr. Foxman added.
Foxman is being much too kind. Let's look at Ki-Moon's statement. First, as Foxman notes, Ki-Moon singles out only 'Palestinian' suffering, placing the onus for the conflict on Israel. But look at the second paragraph. It gives the impression that the war was about statehood for 'Palestinians' and 'security for Israelis.' It wasn't. The 1967 War was about the Arab countries' effort to annihilate the Jewish state. There were no 'Palestinians' and if there had been and the issue had been a 'Palestinian' state, their war would have been with Jordan and Egypt. Israel did not try to achieve 'security for Israelis' or 'peace in the region' by force; it defended itself from attack. Ki-Moon managed to miss all of that.


Post a Comment

<< Home