Soccer Dad

The Election Canard

One of the common canards of Israel's critics is that an American President will do nothing to pressure Israel in the runup to an election. In fact, four years ago, after the Palestinians commenced their violence in late September, the Security Council issued a typically biased resolution, 1322. By failing to veto this resolution (and abstaining) the United States allowed the resolution to pass. This apparently didn't hurt President Clinton's presumed successor, Al Gore with Jewish voters. It was still inexcusable. At least Ambassador Holbrooke did a reasonably good job of explaining the abstention:

It is critical that these commitments be carried out in a concrete way on the ground and sustained over time. We noted recently that Israel took a significant step to defuse tensions in Nablus by withdrawing from Joseph's Tomb. Unfortunately, that step was not reciprocated.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of the explanation was simple evenhandedness. (And saying that the Palesitnians didn't reciprocate at Joseph's tomb is understatement to the point of hyperbole: they destroyed it and remade it into a mosque.)
But Holbrooke's statement is nothing compared to that of Ambassador Danforth's last week:

Now consider what this resolution does not say. It does not mention even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years. It does not mention two hundred rockets launched this year alone. It does not mention the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies. It does not mention the undisputed fact that Qassam rockets have no military purpose-that they are crude, imprecise devices of terror designed to kill civilians. It does not mention that Hamas took “credit” for killing these Israeli children and maiming many other Israeli civilians-calling these deaths and woundings a “victory.” It does not mention that the terrorists hide among Palestinian civilians, provoking their deaths, and then use those deaths as fodder for their hatred, lawlessness, and efforts to derail the peace process. It does not mention the complete failure of the Palestinian authority to meet its commitments to establish security among its people. It does not mention any of these facts, nor does it acknowledge the legitimate need for Israel to defend itself. The resolution is totally lacking in balance.

There is an old saying that silence indicates consent. The silence here today is deafening. I said yesterday, and I reiterate today, that when the rest of the world gangs up on Israel with insidious silence about terrorism, it does not advance the cause of peace. It encourages both sides to dig in; it makes Israel feel isolated and backed into a corner, and it discourages dialogue.

Despite some unfortunate excursions into evenhandedness, Danforth re-affirms his theme by noting that there is a difference between intential and accidental killings. (Hat Tip to cousing JJ Hart for pointing out the Danforth speech!)
(A usefull resource for tracking the UN's war against Israel is here.)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at October 13, 2004 02:20 AM | TrackBack