UN: Security Fence Illegal

Predictably, the UN has said that Israel’s security barrier is a violation of "international law". Of course, suicide bombing is perfectly fine according to the UN, which spends most of its time criticizing Israel while the Palestinians murder indescriminately.

The UN is a viciously anti-Semitic organization that has constantly slandered Israel, is nothing close to a fair arbiter of the Israel/Palestinian situation, and is actively hindering efforts to create a true and sustainable peace in the region. Israel should remove itself from the UN and the US should follow suit. There’s no reason and no justification for remaining in such a body, especially when it has become a support system for terrorists and dictators worldwide.

The notion that the Israelis don’t care for the rights of the Palestinians hardly follows when the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered changes to the path of the fence to avoid infringing on the rights of the Palestinians – even though that action might harm Israeli security.

How many Arab countries would do the same? How many Arab countries even have a free an independent judiciary? How many Arab countries have free and fair elections?

This decision is a travesty, and should be ignored.

13 thoughts on “UN: Security Fence Illegal

  1. The one country most condemned by the UN in its entire existence is Israel…more condemned than the old Soviet Union, more condemned than Communist China, more condemned than Castro’s Cuba, more condemned than Saddam’s Iraq…well, you get the idea. (And when I say condemned, I don’t mean in the Security Council…obviously, the US veto has prevented that time and time again…)

    The Jewish population should love Bush, because no other president has supported Israel so much (Sharon has even said so), and because Bush challenges the anti-Israeli UN…

  2. This is the mind of the liberals: Israel is at fault for everything in the Middle East…

    Look at the antiwar rallies, and see the anti-Semitic signs and slogans going around…amazing how the mainstream media never shows that…

  3. Let’s also remember that Michael Moore, who is now the voice of the Democratic party, also has condemned Israel as one of the epicenters of evil in the world:
    “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.”

  4. “Israel should remove itself from the UN and the US should follow suit.”

    I’m sure that if Bush wins another term, he’ll make sure that happens…

  5. The UN has always been more of a myth and an illusion…another article of faith among the left. In fact, so many look upon the UN as this effort at creating utopia.

    One danger of the UN is that is lulls so many people into falsely believing that as long as the UN is involved things will be alright. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

  6. The UN is based upon the false principle of moral equivalence. Totalitarian regimes are assigned the same weight as democracies. Thus, if there were 5 murderous dictatorships and 1 democracy in the world, those 5 dictatorships would hold authority in the UN.

    Well, it’s that way now…dictatorships, out of sheer numbers, control the UN. Add to this mix the fact that there is so little accountability for those in the UN, and you have a recipe not just for failure, but for actually advancing the motives of tyrants and dictators.

  7. “I’m sure that if Bush wins another term, he’ll make sure that happens…”

    The disadvantage of test as opposed to speech. I can’t tell if the commenter is being sarcastic or delusional.

  8. The sign of victory is not changing the minds of your opponents, but by defeating them.

    That doesn’t make any sense – or rather, it’s redundant. Victory is by definition the state where one’s enemies have been defeated, so essentially what you’ve said is “The sign of victory is when you are victorious.”

    If anything can be said for the UN, it’s that the various humanitarian outrages of these assorted tyrant dictators tend to come to light a little sooner, just by virtue of nations engaged in economic relationships. Even if the UN won’t actually take any action about it.

    But then, who would join the UN if they just up and invaded countries? There’s a few humanitarian crises in the US, you know. Do you really want the UN to start taking action if that action might just as well be in the US?

  9. Sarcastic, as always, Spoons. If you take any comments I make on this website seriously, you’ve obviously missed the point… 🙂

  10. There are problems with the wall going into some areas where there is no security risk or settler population. This is imperical fact. Israel is certainly not above legitimate criticism. However as has been pointed out, Israel’s Supreme Court has taken issue to deal with this. The aim behind the wall was more than legitimate, it was necessary. There have been problems with the way the wall has been built in some areas, and I believe those will be redressed. The UN’s critique has little to do with objective evaluation of Israeli security policy. It is a political sop to the despotic Arab nations in the UN. It has clearly sacrificed its last shreds of moral consistency by making this ruling. If walls were the issue, where is the concern for the wall Saudi Arabia is building to keep out Yemeni’s? The silence of hypocrisy is always defeaning.

  11. There is no changing a terrorist


    They weren’t born that way, Chris. Sociopaths and serial killers might be born that way, but terrorists are made.

    What you can make you can unmake. Nothing makes terrorists but words. Terrorists do what they do because someone convinced them to do that, not because they were born that way.

    That doesn’t sound like someone you have to kill, to me. If you can reason someone into a position, you can reason them out of it. Yeah, you have to protect yourself, and sometimes that requires killing. But that shouldn’t be the first method we use to approach what is essentially a social problem.

  12. Why is it when anyone does anything destructive in the world, it is always the fault of western nations which “made” them that way?

    AT, why is it that when you can’t rebut an argument, you just make up one that nobody made?

    Seriously, stick to the arguments that are actually presented to you. You might wind up looking a little less like an ass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.