Bolton is the Best
Bolton is the Best
By JAMES TARANTO. Best of the Web
Turtle Bay Truth-Teller
Interesting things are happening at the United Nations, where U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is showing a propensity--disturbing, no doubt, to some--to tell the truth. Last week the Voice of America reported on Bolton's response to the Security Council's refusal to pass a resolution condemning suicide bombing in which Palestinian Arabs murdered five Israelis at a mall in Netanya:
Diplomats attending the meeting say several Council members raised concerns about language in the U.S.-drafted document. Ambassador Bolton, however, blamed Algeria for quashing the measure by objecting to a passage urging Syria to close offices of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which claims responsibility for the attack. "Other governments had questions about particular language. We were perfectly prepared to engage in discussions about constructive suggestions, but Algeria categorically refused to name Syria and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," he said.
The U.S. envoy later read the text of the statement to reporters, and lashed out at the Council for what he called "failing to speak the truth."
He said "you have to speak up in response to these terrorist attacks. It's a great shame that the Security Council couldn't speak to this terrorist attack in Netanya, but if the Council won't speak, the United States will."
At a dinner last night (no link; we were there), Bolton told the Zionist Organization of America to expect more such unilateral veracity. He singled out for criticism a recent U.N. conference at which Israel was literally wiped off the map (well, wiped off a literal map anyway). U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky has a photo of the map of "Palestine" that was used in last month's annual U.N. Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People.
Bayefsky has a photo of Kofi Annan on the dais with the map in the background. The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a press release Friday in which it "condemns the participation" of the secretary-general in a conference that denies the existence of a U.N. member state.
We would like to know where the 43 senators--42 Democrats plus the lachrymose George Voinovich--who blocked a vote on Bolton's cofirmation, forcing President Bush into a recess appointment--stand on all this. One could wave away such outrages, and indeed we're inclined to do so, on the ground that the U.N. is a hopelessly corrupt and worthless institution whose expressions count for nothing. But that is an awkward position for Bolton's detractors to take, since they claim to believe in the U.N.
They don't really believe in the U.N., of course. As we noted in April, in 1991 many of them voted to defy the U.N.'s request for troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They are "pro-U.N.," it seems clear, only when the U.N. is anti-U.S. But again, if the U.N. has "moral authority" when it takes Saddam Hussein's side over ours, how about when it seeks the obliteration of Israel?
Posted by Ted Belman at December 12, 2005 06:09 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11651
1.
daniel horowitz
said:
Ted; an absolutely fabulous column. For all those liberal Jews out there who still care somewhat for the welfare of Israel you should be wise to remember that every single Democrat opposed Bolton's nomination to the extent that they filibustered him. It was widely known at the time that this was Bolton's most notorious trademark and the Democrats viciously torpedoed his nomination. This profoundly illistrates the difference between Republicans and Democrats in regard to Israel. Oh! and by the way. What happened to Leiberman, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, and the Foxman puts.
Posted by: daniel horowitz on December 12, 2005 07:02 PM
2.
Ken Heller
said:
Before everyone gets all misty over John Bolton and his truth-telling tactics, one must remember what Mark Twain once said, "A lie will go half-way around the world by the time the truth finishes putting on its shoes". Whereas Mr. Bolton is no doubt a fine man who means well, he represents the United States whose President believes in a 2 state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore does indeed support the rewarding of terrorism. Is he in the UN simply to deflect additional criticisms from Bush? Remember he sits almost all alone in the largest body of third world, terrorist supporting or harboring, anti-Zionist, Jew-baiting countries ever assembled on earth. There is only so much he can do.
Posted by: Ken Heller on December 12, 2005 07:45 PM
3.
ShyGuy
said:
Moynihan resurected!
Posted by: ShyGuy on December 13, 2005 01:10 AM
4.
david tripp
said:
I remember watching the Bolton hearings on Cspan and was disgusted to hear the insults thrown in the form of questions by democrats. We all know or by now should know the UN is anti-Israel and anti-American. Therefore by democrats not suporting Bolton because of his strong and at times harsh stance against the UN . They are in effect supporting the ongoing corruption and anti-semetic behavior that we have seen for decades from the UN.
Granted President Bush does want a two state solution,(Which I disagree with) and Bolton has to tow that line . However whatever light and media atention he can shine on the massive corruption, underhandedness,sex scandles, oil for food program, etc. Cant be a bad thing.
Anything that harms the effectiveness and prestiege on the UN can only be a help to Israel, and Bolton is at the moment the best we have.
Posted by: david tripp on December 13, 2005 04:55 AM
Post a comment
|
Bolton is the Best
By JAMES TARANTO. Best of the Web
Turtle Bay Truth-Teller
Interesting things are happening at the United Nations, where U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is showing a propensity--disturbing, no doubt, to some--to tell the truth. Last week the Voice of America reported on Bolton's response to the Security Council's refusal to pass a resolution condemning suicide bombing in which Palestinian Arabs murdered five Israelis at a mall in Netanya:
At a dinner last night (no link; we were there), Bolton told the Zionist Organization of America to expect more such unilateral veracity. He singled out for criticism a recent U.N. conference at which Israel was literally wiped off the map (well, wiped off a literal map anyway). U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky has a photo of the map of "Palestine" that was used in last month's annual U.N. Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People.
Bayefsky has a photo of Kofi Annan on the dais with the map in the background. The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a press release Friday in which it "condemns the participation" of the secretary-general in a conference that denies the existence of a U.N. member state.
We would like to know where the 43 senators--42 Democrats plus the lachrymose George Voinovich--who blocked a vote on Bolton's cofirmation, forcing President Bush into a recess appointment--stand on all this. One could wave away such outrages, and indeed we're inclined to do so, on the ground that the U.N. is a hopelessly corrupt and worthless institution whose expressions count for nothing. But that is an awkward position for Bolton's detractors to take, since they claim to believe in the U.N.
They don't really believe in the U.N., of course. As we noted in April, in 1991 many of them voted to defy the U.N.'s request for troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They are "pro-U.N.," it seems clear, only when the U.N. is anti-U.S. But again, if the U.N. has "moral authority" when it takes Saddam Hussein's side over ours, how about when it seeks the obliteration of Israel?
Posted by Ted Belman at December 12, 2005 06:09 PM