To Hell With the United Nations Prof. Paul Eidelberg (from my book An American Political Scientists in Israel). “To Hell with the United Nations” was the title of one of my weekly reports on Israel National Radio (September 7, 2009). The report aroused a rather sustained and, to my surprise, a positive Internet reaction, not only from Israelis and Americans, but also from people in Ireland, the Netherlands, and other countries. An elaboration of the report is interwoven in this chapter. Notwithstanding any good that some UN agencies may serve in some poverty- and disease-stricken countries—and the record is mixed – it is of paramount importance to reveal the evil characteristics of the United Nations. On November 7, 1975, Kurt Waldheim, who had successfully concealed his former Nazi affiliation, was secretary-general of the UN.i On that momentous day the UN conferred on the Palestine Liberation Organization, a consortium of terrorists, observer status in the General Assembly and in other international conferences held under UN auspices. Three days later, on November 10, 1975, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing a “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” On that same day, which was the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), which states that “Zionism is Racism.” The resolution also severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this “racist” and “imperialist” ideology. Thus commenced a worldwide campaign to delegitimize and even deJudaize Israel. In fact, the PLO had adopted the Arab line that the Jews do not constitute a nation but a religion and therefore are not entitled to statehood. The resolution was adopted despite strong opposition by Israel’s supporters, most notably the United States delegation under the leadership of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Moynihan believed that the resolution would revive anti-Semitism: “A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-Semitism ... has been given the appearance of international sanction.”ii Professor Alex Grobman notes that one immediate result of Resolution 3379 “was that it helped enlist the support of the Third World against Israel, reminded the West of its silence during the Holocaust, and awakened ‘guilt complexes [concerning the Palestinians] in Western Circles.’”iii John Bolton, then Assistant U.S Secretary of State for International Operations, goes further: “In the UN, words take on a life of their own. To declare as ‘racist’ the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments accepted under international law.”iv Jeanne J. Kilpatrick, who succeeded Moynihan at the UN, fearfully observed that a racist state has “no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself.”v (Professor Kilpatrick’s remark should be borne in mind, for it clarifies the nefarious report of the UN Human Rights Council (also known as the Goldstone Report) of September 2009, discussed below.) It was not until 1991 that the UN formally rescinded Resolution 3379, thanks very much to Mr. Bolton’s tireless efforts. Bolton, a no-nonsense diplomat, urged every member of the UN to undo the General Assembly’s notorious resolution, quoting from memory Senator Moynihan’s avowal: “The United States declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.” But the damage had already been done, and could not be undone so long as the PLO exploited its status in the UN to undermine Israel. The pernicious consequences of Resolution 3379 are evident to this day even among American academics and former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, who refer to Israel as an “apartheid state.” But I am getting ahead of this history. Although the prospect of getting Israel to quit the UN appears far-fetched, I pocketed the idea when I immigrated to Israel in 1976. I subsequently had the good fortune of meeting an extraordinary Polish-born writer, Eliyahu Amiqam. Eliyahu was a parliamentary reporter who wrote for one of Israel’s leading Hebrew-language newspapers, Yediot Ahranot. He also wrote occasional English articles, and would sometimes ask me to check their style. Amiqam, a linguist of remarkable erudition, could easily have become a Member of the Knesset, but preferred his independence. He was a friend and walking companion of Yitzhak Shamir, soon to become Israel’s prime minister. Like Shamir in former times, Amiqam had been a member of Lechi—“Fighters for the Freedom of Israel.” In their struggle to kick the British out of Palestine and establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, these freedom fighters needed money to purchase arms and supplies. So Amiqam and some of his colleagues sought to rob the Britain’s Barclay Bank. Amiqam was caught, incarcerated with Arabs, only to add Arabic to his linguistic virtuosity. When I broached the idea of Israel quitting the UN, Amiqam responded with enthusiasm and said he would discuss the matter with Shamir. Unfortunately, nothing came of the proposal if only because Israel was then preoccupied with the civil war Lebanon, especially with the PLO, which had established a state within a state in Lebanon and was constantly shelling Israel. When Israel moved forces into Lebanon in June 1982 to suppress PLO attacks, Amiqam and I hoped that once the PLO was eliminated, the Christian Phalangists, with Israel’s assistance, would establish a pro-western Christian republic in Lebanon. This might have come to pass were it not for the assassination of the American-educated political scientist Bashir Gemayel, a senior member of the Phalange party, who had been elected Lebanon’s president in August 1982. More about the PLO in Lebanon later, but now I must record what eminent American and Israeli political analysts have said about the United Nations, for they provide solid reasons why Israel should quit that organization. Fred Fleitz, former senior adviser to ambassador Bolton, exposes UN waste and corruption and the resulting human costs.vi His book, Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions, and U.S. Interests, provides a comprehensive and highly critical assessment of the UN. He shows how the failed UN mission in Bosnia led to unmitigated atrocities; how the UN debacle in Somalia emboldened terrorists the world over; how the UN operation in Cambodia enabled a ruthless dictator, Hun Sen, to consolidate and retain power in that country; how the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti collapsed, with the billions of dollars squandered on it, principally benefiting Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Nor is this all. Michael Ledeen comments on the genocide in Rwanda: “There were United Nations ‘peacekeeping forces’ in Rwanda, but they did next to nothing, not even to save their own comrades.” Ledeen quotes Philip Gurevitch: “If Rwanda’s experience could be said to carry any lessons for the world, it was that endangered peoples who depend on the international community [i.e., the UN] for physical protection stand defenseless.”vii Professor David Bukay of Haifa University denounced the UN as “an organization that has never advanced peace and never prevented war; this is an organization that works for its own sake alone, and strives against the values for which it was set up. This is an organization that surrendered to the dictates of the Arab and Islamic states, against the social-economic interests of the Third World countries.”viii To all this, add the UN-sponsored Durban Conference, a vicious instrument of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing. Caroline Glick excoriates the UN for its hostile record toward Israel. To paraphrase some of her remarks: (1) The UN has passed resolution after resolution, in the Security Council, in the General Assembly, and in its Human Rights Council that deny Israel its legal right, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, to defend itself against aggression. (2) The UN Conference on Racism effectively reinstated the General Assembly’s definition of Zionism as racism and thus denied that Israel has the legal right to exist under international law. The UN Human Rights Council even passed a resolution endorsing Palestinian terrorism against Israel. (3) Decade after decade the UN has followed a consistent and coherent policy regarding only one issue: to advance anti-Semitism by systematically and illegally discriminating against the Jewish state all the time and everywhere. In so doing, the UN has lost even the semblance of legitimacy as a world government. It cannot be regarded as a body responsible for enforcing international law, because in its systematic discrimination against Israel, it stands in breach of international law as embodied in its own charter’s determination that all member states are to be treated equally.”ix In 1975, when the UN General Assembly awarded permanent representative status to the PLO, it established, as mentioned, a “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (hereafter called the “PLO Committee”). The committee became a propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, and preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian “rights.” Prompted by the PLO Committee, the General Assembly has passed annual resolutions that repeatedly condemn Israel. The following resolutions—merely a few of countless others—tell the story:x ● Resolution 58/18—Palestinain Rights: This resolution asks for full cooperation with the PLO Committee, which is needed in order to mobilize the international community and non-governmental organizations against Israel. ● Resolution 58/21—Palestinian Statehood: This resolution [purveys the myth] that a “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict” and necessary for peace in the entire Middle East, and further, that Israel alone must take several measures to achieve peace with the Palestinians. It implies that Israel is fully to blame for the start of the conflict because of the “illegality of Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem.” ● Resolution 58/22—Jerusalem: This resolution reiterates the United Nations’ contention that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called ‘Basic Law’ on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith,” and that any laws Israel imposes on Jerusalem are “illegal” and invalid. The resolution uses strong language when it “deplores the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem,” and asks them to withdraw immediately. ● Resolution 58/23—the Golan Heights: Although part of the Golan may have once been in Syria, another part, known in Amos 4:1-2 as “Bashan,” is part of Samaria. (“Bashan” is also mentioned in Psalms 2:12, Isaiah 2:13, and Zechariah 11:2.) On 14 December 1981, the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law. Its first paragraph states: “The law, jurisdiction, and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights.” UN Resolution 58/23 states that Israel must withdraw from the Golan, citing the “principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.” The resolution ignores the fact that Israel won (or in part regained) the Golan in the defensive Six-Day War of June 1967. Of course the resolution ignores this and ascribes the Golan wholly to Syria, an aggressor in that war. ● Resolution 58/92—Displaced Persons: Persons Displaced as a Result of the June 1967 and Subsequent Hostilities. This resolution endorses the Palestinian position on the so-called “Right of Return,” where all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would have the right to settle in the place of their former homes in Israel before 1967. The issue of Palestinian refugees is a key issue in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The General Assembly, however, has already decided the outcome. It knows full well that allowing four million hostile Arabs into Israel would terminate the Jewish state. ● Resolution 58/96—Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. This is the only UN organization created to investigate human rights in a specific country. The Committee only monitors alleged Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians, but does not investigate Palestinian human rights abuses, including terrorism, against Israelis. ● Resolution 58/155—Palestinian Children. This resolution is “concerned about the continued grave deterioration of the situation of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and the “psychological consequences of the Israeli military actions” on children. The resolution expresses the need for Palestinian children to live normal lives free of “occupation and fear,” but makes no mention of Israeli children who live under the physical and psychological threat of Palestinian terrorism. All nations are urged to give aid to ease the “dire humanitarian crisis being faced by Palestinian children and their families,” but are not asked to condemn terrorism against Israeli children and their families. (Of course, there is no reference to Palestinian indoctrination of Arab children to emulate and become homicide bombers.) Grobman points out that “Since June 1967, approximately 30 percent of all the resolutions issued by the UN Commission on Human Rights have been about Israel. It is the only country that became the subject of an entire agenda of the Commission for this period.” He adds: “There has never been a single resolution against human rights violations in Saudi Arabia or Syria.”xi John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation writes: “The U.N. General Assembly created the Human Rights Council (HRC) on March 15, 2006, to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, which had spent much of its final years concentrating on Israel and the U.S. rather than the world’s real human rights violators. The [George W.] Bush administration voted against establishing this body and declined to join it, believing, correctly, that it would not be an improvement over its predecessor. President Barack Obama changed course, and the U.S. won election to the HRC in May” (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2009). In September 2009, the HRC issued a 575-page report of its investigation of Israel’s retaliation against the Hamas terror regime in Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009. The report was named after former South African judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the investigation. The Goldstone Report concluded that Israel’s military campaign against Hamas was actually aimed against Gaza’s residents as a whole. Thus it was an illegitimate exercise of “collective punishment,” an extraordinarily amorphous legal concept. Mr. Bolton concluded that by attempting to criminalize Israel’s strategy of crippling Hamas, “the Report in effect declared the entire antiterrorism campaign to be a war crime.” (ibid.) The eminent British journalist Sir Harold Evans called the Report a “moral atrocity.” (Visit sirharoldevans/theworld.html.) The Report virtually denies Israel’s right to defend her people. What especially makes thee Report a moral atrocity is that so many nations collaborated with, or were indifferent to, the slaughter of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. Hence, it is only to bolster my view that Israel should quit the UN that I deign to consider the Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report. At the time of that report, the HRC represented 46 nations. The balance of power in the HRC (as in the UN) was held by Arab-Islamic and other dictatorships. Suffice to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Sudan, China, and Russia. These regimes, by their very nature, constantly violate human rights, which makes a mockery of the Human Rights Council. The Council’s report is one of the clearest manifestations of the UN’s despicable character. Here I will quote at length a critique of the HRC report written by Warren Goldstein, who has a Ph.D. in Human Rights Law and is the Chief Rabbi of South Africa (see Jerusalem Post, October 15, 2009): Much has been written and said about the inaccuracies, shortcomings and the moral inversion of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Mission presided over by Judge Richard Goldstone and his three fellow members. Most critics have understandably addressed the political and military issues involved. It is important, however, also to deconstruct the Goldstone Mission’s Report from a legal point of view.…. The United Nations, through its various organs, but particularly through its Human Rights Commission, uses the superficial veneer of law and legal methodology to give credence and credibility to its anti-Israel agenda. The Goldstone Mission is a case in point. Careful analysis reveals that the legalities utilized are merely a cover for a political strategy of deligitimizing Israel…. Apart from holding Israel liable in international law to pay war reparations, Judge Goldstone refers the findings to the highest authorities of international law, including the United Nation’s General Assembly and the Security Council, and he recommends the commencement of criminal investigations in the national courts of the state signatories to the Geneva Convention of 1949. Of course, the Report also inflicts very great and real harm to Israel’s reputation in the court of world opinion. This has serious political, economic and military implications for Israel’s future, and for its very survival. Any civilized legal system requires that justice be done on two levels: procedural and substantive. The Goldstone Mission is replete with procedural and substantive injustices. From a procedural point of view, there are four main areas of injustice. Firstly, the Human Rights Council’s Resolution … establishing the Mission expressly states that it “[s]trongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation [in Gaza] which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people,” and in so doing pre-judges the guilt of Israel. The Resolution … calls upon the Mission to investigate Israel’s conduct and not that of Hamas…. The second procedural injustice is that the members of the Mission publicly expressed beforehand their opinions on this conflict. The most explicit in this regard, Professor Christine Chinkin, was one of the signatories to a letter published in the Sunday Times of London which stated that “Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defense, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary.” The letter is published under the heading “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense – it’s a war crime.” The other three members, Judge Richard Goldstone, Hina Jilani and Desmond Travers, all signed a letter initiated by Amnesty International stating: “Events in Gaza have shocked us to the core.” Thus, all four members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work. Thirdly, the Goldstone Mission violated another basic principle of justice, audi alteram partem—let the other side be heard. At least due to the procedural injustices already referred to, the State of Israel correctly refused to cooperate with the Mission. Once it had done so the Mission ought, if it were objective and fair, to have accepted Israel’s right to remain silent and then ought to have desisted from making findings whether factual or legal. But it did not do so, and as any lawyer knows unanswered allegations often prove unreliable and in almost all conflict situations there are serious disputes of fact, and often of law as well. The Mission’s findings were based on accepting the allegations of only one party to the conflict. The Mission did not try to cross-examine or challenge the witnesses in any real way…. Unproven allegations of Hamas officials were accepted as established facts. Even the most basic questions were not asked; when, for example, allegations were made of Israel’s bombing civilian installations, witnesses were not asked whether there were Hamas fighters or weaponry in the vicinity, or whether any attacks had been launched from the area. There is a fourth procedural injustice which undermines the integrity and credibility of Judge Goldstone and the three other members of the Mission: There simply was not enough time to do the job properly. Any lawyer with even limited experience knows that there was just not sufficient time for he Mission to have properly considered and prepared its report. One murder trial often takes many months of evidence and argument to enable a judge to make a decision with integrity. To assess even one day of battle in Gaza with the factual complexities involved would have required a substantial period of intensive examination. According to the Mission’s Report, the Mission convened for a total of 12 days. … [T]hey conducted three field trips; there were only four days of public hearings; and yet in a relatively short space of time the members of the Mission agreed to about 500 pages of detailed material and findings with not one dissenting opinion throughout. They made no less than 69 findings, mostly of fact, but some of law and within those 69 there were often numerous sub-findings. All of this was quite simply physically impossible if the job had been done with integrity and care. The fourth procedural injustice also demonstrates the total sham of this process. THE SUBSTANTIVE injustices of the Goldstone Mission’s Report are too numerous to mention in this article, but one illustrates how far the Mission was prepared to go, and that relates to the very important legal element of intent. Goldstone and his Mission impute the worst of intentions to the actions of the State of Israel, finding that Israel’s conduct was motivated by a desire to repress and oppress, and to inflict suffering upon the Palestinian people, and not primarily for the purpose of self-defense. It does this without any evidence and then, without any supporting evidence, asserts that many of Israel’s military operations such as that of Lebanon were motivated by the same goal. The Mission fails to mention a modern leading military expert, Colonel Richard Kemp (the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan), who said, “From my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I do not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civil casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.” By contrast, on the Palestinian side, there is very clear evidence as to Hamas’s intentions—the Hamas Charter openly calls for the destruction of Israel, irrespective of borders. It also calls for the murder of all Jews worldwide. Hamas’s clear intention was to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible and to use its own civilian population as human shields. But not a word of Hamas’s expressly stated intentions appear in the report. One aspect of the evidence, presented to but not accepted by the Goldstone Mission, was that of Hamas leader Fathi Hammad, who said: “This is why we have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if we are saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death while you desire life.” These procedural and substantive injustices demonstrate the complete lack of integrity and fairness of the process. It looks like law, but it is not. It is just politics. The Goldstone Mission is a disgrace to the most basic notions of justice, equality and the rule of law. And it is dangerous. Injustice will only lead to more death and destruction.xii The Goldstone Report was also subjected to scathing criticism by the renowned Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz. Neverthless, the Human Rights Council endorsed the Report by a vote of 25 to 5.xiii The present writer therefore deem it self-demeaning as well as futile for Israel to remain in the United Nations—more so since the HRC Report conveys the grotesque impression that Hamas is a liberation movement, which implies that Israel is the villain in this conflict! Professor Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School points out that the Report does not present Israel and Hamas as moral equivalents. Instead, it presents Israel as a terrorist entity and Hamas as a legitimate government!xiv This is precisely the perverse state of affairs Jeanne Kirkpatrick worried and warned about in 1975. She discerned that when UN Resolution 3379 equated Zionism with racism, Israel was thereby condemned as a racist state, a state that has “no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself.” By passing that Resolution, the UN, says Alex Grobman, “maliciously” and “deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization”; the UN thus made Israel “fair game for armed ‘liberation’”xv No sooner had Israel withdrawn from Gaza than the United States pledged $900 million for Gaza’s reconstruction, a sum three times the amount Hamas reportedly received from its patron, Iran! Moreover, seventy countries and international organizations pledged an additional $4.48 billion, on the condition that the money would go to the Palestinian Authority, to Fatah rather than Hamas. But as George Gilder points out, “Hamas controls the territory, so it will extort a large proportion of the funds, regardless of contrary intentions.”xvi In fact, Senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath made an obsequious visit to Gaza, a clear sign of Hamas’s preeminence in Palestinian society. Clearly, terrorism pays, and thanks very much to the champions of humanism in the United States and Europe! It thus appeared that Hamas was on the way to replacing Fatah as the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Recognizing, moreover, that its the power and prestige as well as the size of its membership depends on its success in killing Jews—especially in new ways— Hamas, in January 2010, beganto send barrels of explosives drifting to the Israeli coastline. Hamas’ ascendancy in the Palestinian Authority makes the travesty of negotiating with the PA all the more obvious and demeanting. It’s quite possible that Israel’s government will at last recognize this fact before the next conflagration, one that may change the map of the Middle East. Conclusion to Part I The moral atrocity committed by the HRC can be traced to the UN’s pro-PLO contention that the definition of terrorism cannot be applied to groups engaged in “armed struggle for liberation and self-determination.” This seemingly neutral contention gives Arabs a license to kill Jews. Since Islam maintains there are “no innocents” among “infidels,” the UN appears to be applying Islam’s genocidal doctrine to the Jewish state. It follows that the United Nations is mired not in moral relativism, as indicated earlier, but in moral reversal. This makes nonsense of the legitimacy of most members of UN, indeed, of the UN itself. In fact, the HRC’s moral inversion renders the Universal Declaration of Human Rights absurd! Suffice to mention three of its articles: Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 30: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” Finally, the Human Rights Council illustrates that the United Nations, whatever else it may be, is very much a criminal organization, an organization consisting, for the most part, of wicked and repressive regimes. Israel should therefore quit the UN and call for the establishment of a United Nations of civilized states. I have in view the states listed by Freedom House as democracies—states dedicated to civility and liberty, to peace and prosperity, to human rights and human dignity. Surely such a United Nations would help poor nations achieve these ends. By promoting such a UN, Israel will be true to its historic mission: it will not only promote moral clarity and serve as a beacon of light to mankind; it will also help alleviate human suffering by placing its extraordinary scientific, technological, medical, and agronomical knowledge at the service of humanity without being obstructed by the envious Jew-hatred concentrated in the United Nations and manifested so often in the UN’s its anti-Israel resolutions. Whether it knows it or not, the world may now need Israel more than the world needs the United States. George Gilder (who is not Jewish) put it this way in The Israel Test: The Israel test is a moral challenge. The world has learned to see moral challenges as issues of charity and compassion toward victims, especially the poor, whose poverty is seen as proof of their victimization. Israel is not poor. And it is a victim only of resentment toward superior achievement and capability. In countries where Jews are free to invent and create, they pile up conspicuous wealth and arouse envy and resentment. In this age of information, when the achievements of mind have widely outpaced the power of masses and material force, Jews have forged much of the scientific wealth of the era. Their pioneering contributions to quantum theory [the basis of one-third of our economy] enabled the digital age. Their breakthroughs in nuclear science and computer science propelled the West to victory in World War II and the cold war. Their burgeoning inventions have enhanced the health and their microchip designs are fueling the growth of nations everywhere. Their genius has leavened the culture and economy of the world Israel today concentrates the genius of the Jews. Obscured by the usual media coverage of the “war-torn” Middle East, Israel’s rarely celebrated feats of commercial, scientific, and technological creativity climax the Jews’ twentieth-century saga of triumph over tragedy. Today, tiny Israel, with its population of 7.23 million, five and one-half million Jewish, stands only behind the United States, in technological contributions. In per-capita innovation, Israel dwarfs all nations. The forces of civilization in the world continue to feed upon the quintessential wealth of mind epitomized by Israel.xvii Add this: whatever decency we find in this world, it is largely owing to the biblical teachings of the Jewish people, of whom John Adam, the second President of the United States, wrote: The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other Nation. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.xviii We do not need the United Nations. We do need Israel. Epilogue Hardly had I finished the first draft of this chapter than I received a copy of a statement issued by Governor Mike Huckabee on FOX NEWS on September 28, 2009. The statement was entitled “Time to Say Goodbye to the United Nations.” Governor Huckabee and said in part: It was all I could do to keep from … shooting out the screen of my TV this week to see the tag-team of terrorist dictators come to the podium of the United Nations to spout their lunacy. Muammar Qaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez all were given stage time as if they were legitimate leaders of civil governments. They are murdering thugs and despicable despots. Their raging rants were bad enough, but it was made worse by the fact that U.S. taxpayers like you and me are paying for a big chunk of it. The United States pays 22 percent of the total operating budget of the United Nations and 27 percent of the peacekeeping mission. In all, we contribute over $5 billion a year directly to this bloated bureaucracy that doesn’t have the courage to call out members who violate human rights at will, pollute and exploit the planet, engage in terror, or who trample the rights of its women and subjugate them to the status of yard animals. The concept of a community of nations gathering in a forum to discuss mutual concerns and seeking to bring peaceful solutions to troubled areas was a noble one. The ideas to help foster relief and aid to nations in crisis is likewise worthy. But the United Nations has become … a culture of corruption and cowardice that takes American money by the fistful and then uses its fists to beat us over the head with criticism. The Governor concluded by saying: “Enough!”
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:04:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015