| 113th Year, 37th Issue | Thursday, April 25, 2002 | Sparta, North Carolina |
You may vaguely recall the vote of our "friends" in the U.N. (United Nations) to deny the United States a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission (UNHRC).
Although the U.S. was the driving force behind the establishment of the commission and had served as the primary advocate of the commission's purpose, others saw fit to elect one of the world's worst human rights violators instead.
Initially treated by the press as a rebuke to the U.S., it has been, instead, a blessing. In a continuation of the U.N.'s campaign to render itself unstintingly hypocritical and increasingly irrelevant, the UNHRC endorsed a document that advocates violence as a way to achieve Palestinian statehood. Drawn up by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and backed by China, Cuba and Vietnam, 40 countries of the 53-member commission, including six members of the European Union (EU), endorsed the proposal which supports "all available means" to establish a Palestinian state.
The resolution also provides a blanket condemnation of Israel with neither a mention of suicide bombings directed at Israeli civilians nor a condemnation of terrorism.
To their credit, Canada, Britain and Germany voted against the resolution, as did Guatemala and the Czech Republic. EU members Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden approved the resolution, and Italy abstained. Comments from the representatives of the EU revealed a finely tuned sense of benevolent sensitivity (usually referred to as BS), to wit; France — could not accept the use of violence even though France had approved the measure; Austria — did not subscribe to several paragraphs, including the one that referred to resistance through violence, even though Austria had approved the measure; Sweden — supported the resolution "without joy," but that "the sponsors did not want to accept further improvements to the resolution"; Portugal — support "did not imply total support for some of the formulations of the text"; Belgium — the resolution "could be seen as a call for peace."
It is not much of a stretch to perceive both duplicity and complicity on the part of the U.N. and EU regarding worldwide terrorism.
U.N. commissions and agencies seem determined to foster a potentially catastrophic situation through their tacit support of Arafat's use of Palestinian children as disposable ordinance and their increasingly extreme condemnation of Israel's self defense. In concert with most members of the EU, the obvious goal is the implementation of an anti-Israel agenda to the complete exclusion of any sense of morality. And, by association with Israel, the U.S. has become the target of similar inaccurate and one-sided accusations of "human rights atrocities." The tone has changed over the past five-or-so years; where once the hysterical, overwrought accusations were leveled by self-serving non-governmental "advocates" of human rights like Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW), we now have the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees (abuse in Guantanamo), U.N. Aid agencies (mass starvation in Afghanistan), the European press (torture of prisoners, massive civilian deaths, massacre in Jenin), and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the International Committee of the Red Cross actively supporting terror through gun-running, material support for Palestinian bomb- making, and the generation of false anti-Israeli propaganda.
In some measure, the non-response of the U.N. to Islamic terror and Palestinian brutality and its intense bias against Israel can be explained by the twin issues of the Arab states' voice at the U.N. and the EU's fear of their own Muslim populations. In a response reminiscent of the days preceding World War II, the EU has clearly chosen appeasement of their Muslim populations, through active condemnation of Israel's self-defense, rather than opposition to terror – better that Israelis die in random acts of terror than the tranquility of Europe be disturbed.
In that view, the extermination of Israel by ‘Islamofascists' and their Arab state supporters is a small price to pay for continental tranquility. One suspects that the Czech Republic and Germany have clearer insight into that train of presumption.
As the "useful idiots" gather in Washington to protest everything this week, their emphasis will, without doubt, be directed at "Palestinian suffering" and the "illegitimacy" of "Bush's" war on terror, with references to the U.N. positions against, and European criticisms of, both Israel and the U.S. They would do well to consider carefully the comments of Ayn Rand regarding moral clarity: Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent; To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it. And, I would add, be careful what you wish for.
Back to the Mushroom Chronicles Archive
Email: allnews@ls.net