Usual from the U.N.
Anyone not living on Mars knows by now about the statement last week by the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying that "Israel must be wiped off the map." A statement which he reaffirmed on Friday.
What I find to be indefensible, if not at all surprising, is the tepid reaction to these atrocious remarks on the part of the United Nations.
What I find to be indefensible, if not at all surprising, is the tepid reaction to these atrocious remarks on the part of the United Nations.
The U.N. Security Council on Friday condemned a call by Iran's president to "wipe Israel off the map" and said all U.N. members should refrain from threatening or using force against another country.How in the world can they justify removing the word "strongly" from the condemnation when Ahmadinejad's statement was so inflammatory and threatening? Typical of them, but crappy nonetheless.
But the condemnation, endorsed by all 15 council members, was delivered in the form of a press statement -- rather than at a formal council meeting, which would give it more weight. Algeria, the only Arab council member, objected to the open meeting.
...China had brokered a compromise with Algeria and the word "strongly" was deleted before the word "condemned," diplomats said.
posted by orthomom at 9:19 PM
5 Comments:
Ortho, John Bolton said it best The Un would be great if it was 10 stories shorter
There are, as I see it, four available responses:
1) Pretend that this doesn't matter. (We'll call this the "We Are Monkeys Approach." In the original Aramaic, that would be expressed as "Kofi Annan." No, really.)
2) Try to change Ahmadinejad's mind. (Either through persuasion, or the judicious application of an immersion blender.)
3) Replace the leadership of Iran with people more disposed to not committing genocide. "Operation Irani Freedom" has a nice ring, but for the fact that it's grammatically weak.
4) Recognize this as a component of the regnant interpretation of Shi'ite/Wahhabi Islam, that cares not a fig (Mohammed himself preferred dates, occasionally with his daughter-in-law. Yummy!) about public opinion, and respond accordingly.
This question moves from theoretical to practical in about a year.
- Moishe Potemkin
(I really like this blog, by the way.)
The reason for this can best be seen through the old joke:
If a diplomat says "yes" he means "maybe".
If a diplomat says "maybe" he means "no".
If a diplomat says "no" he is not a diplomat.
The fact is, no diplomat wants to "strongly" condemn another country, especially when his own country doesn't have completely clean hands.
What is more significant than the language is that France and Canada were outspoken in their condemnation of Iran's statements. This will mean greater diplomatic support for Israel in the future for the little good that will do.
Unfortunately, there is little else that will happen because nobody has the military capability to do anything about Iran. (Bush invaded the wrong country and as a result the US no longer has the military capability to do anything else in the world.)
Sadly I am not surprised by any of this.
The UN is scandal ridden,infested with corruption and as they say the fish's head is the first part that rot's.
Why did they give Koffi Annan a Nobel Prize?because they gave one to Arafat and they cound'nt find Bin Laden
Post a Comment
<< Home