January 31, 2005

UNchanging?

Meryl Yourish has noticed it.
Mere Rhetoric has noticed it.
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has noticed it.
Even Arutz-7 has noticed it.
The UN has condemned Hezbollah for violating the UN sanctioned border with Isarel. For the first time an Israeli NGO has been recognized by the UN. And for the first time ever Israel has been allowed to convene a special session of the General Assembly. These are all firsts in the UN's history. And especially surprising given its scandalous behavior towards Israel in recent years.
I've even highlighted one of its most recent outrages here. And let's not forget how the UN protected Hezbollah after Hezbollah kidnaped and murdered three soldiers in October 2000. Still the UN is allowing Israel a voice it has never allowed before and finally after too many years, finally seems to be taking Israel's border with Lebanon seriously.
Perhaps these are a few accidental signs of decency rather than the start of a trend. The UN does not deserve the benefit of our doubts.
Yet there's been another area where the UN has changed recently. Evelyn Gordon wrote about it in "The Frequent Abstainers Club." Gordon argues that the Bush administration has made it clear that it won't support unbalanced resolutions on the Middle East. And has stood firm. Now other members of the Security Council have started abstaining from the most egregious anti-Israel resoltions meaning that the condemnations fail on account of the abstentions and not the American veto. Former UN Ambassador John Danforth said this quite forcefully back in October:

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.
Has the American stand forced the UN to change? Or is something else going on? I just don't know.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 31, 2005 03:26 AM | TrackBack