Bolton Sends Letter about UN Approval of Map Wiping Out Israel
Ambassador Bolton sent a fairly biting letter to the United Nations, complaining about the recent map that they hung up showing all of Israel replaced by a Palestinian state:
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton sent a letter to Sec.-Gen. Kofi Annan complaining that a map that omitted Israel was hung at an annual UN meeting. In the letter, written on January 3, and revealed on The New York Sun on Friday, Bolton wrote: "It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel."
We're very glad that there's someone in the United Nations willing to point out that it's rude - at a minimum - to display maps which, in the current political context, all but explicitly endorse the forcible destruction of a member-state. But we're confident that many of the other member-states - if not most - would be quite happy to see that forcible destruction. Bolton is being overly polite, then, in suggesting that the map risks someone "misconstruing" the UN's true stance regarding the abolition of the state of Israel:
The convention, which was attended by Annan, was conducted on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, held on November 29 - the anniversary of the 1947 date when the UN ended the British mandate over Israel, a move which effectively led to the establishment of the Jewish State six months later.
The UN Chief Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric thanked Bolton on behalf of Annan for bringing the issue to his attention. He noted that the decision to put up the map was reached by a committee, and not by Annan personally. "This gives a very unfortunate impression that the United Nations favors replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state, which is not the case," Dujarric said.
So the excuse that the UN's Chief Spokesperson gave is entirely this: "please don't blame the UN Secretary General alone - the decision to celebrate the destruction of Israel was made by several UN member-states who were in charge of an event of such importance that it was endorsed by Sec. General in the form of his presence, speeches, and laudations... so it's not that the UN favors replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state, but merely that the member-states that happen to have a lot of authority and can command the assent of the Secretary General favor replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state."
What a disgusting joke. When Annan saw that he was about to endorse a conference in explicit violation of the UN charter (the one that goes on and on about the sanctity and security of member states), he should have walked out. Not to be overly dramatic about it, but that's his job - to represent the ostensible values of the United Nations. Instead, he quite happily participated.
Yet this is the organization that sees fit to pass resolutions and stack international courts and then take it as proof that Israel is an outlaw state when it refuses to obey its dictates - as if legislation and jurisprudence are inherently legitimate by virtue of the process itself, not by virtue of the neutrality, objectivity, and basic good will that are supposed to legitimate them.
US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton sent a letter to Sec.-Gen. Kofi Annan complaining that a map that omitted Israel was hung at an annual UN meeting. In the letter, written on January 3, and revealed on The New York Sun on Friday, Bolton wrote: "It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel."
We're very glad that there's someone in the United Nations willing to point out that it's rude - at a minimum - to display maps which, in the current political context, all but explicitly endorse the forcible destruction of a member-state. But we're confident that many of the other member-states - if not most - would be quite happy to see that forcible destruction. Bolton is being overly polite, then, in suggesting that the map risks someone "misconstruing" the UN's true stance regarding the abolition of the state of Israel:
The convention, which was attended by Annan, was conducted on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, held on November 29 - the anniversary of the 1947 date when the UN ended the British mandate over Israel, a move which effectively led to the establishment of the Jewish State six months later.
The UN Chief Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric thanked Bolton on behalf of Annan for bringing the issue to his attention. He noted that the decision to put up the map was reached by a committee, and not by Annan personally. "This gives a very unfortunate impression that the United Nations favors replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state, which is not the case," Dujarric said.
So the excuse that the UN's Chief Spokesperson gave is entirely this: "please don't blame the UN Secretary General alone - the decision to celebrate the destruction of Israel was made by several UN member-states who were in charge of an event of such importance that it was endorsed by Sec. General in the form of his presence, speeches, and laudations... so it's not that the UN favors replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state, but merely that the member-states that happen to have a lot of authority and can command the assent of the Secretary General favor replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state."
What a disgusting joke. When Annan saw that he was about to endorse a conference in explicit violation of the UN charter (the one that goes on and on about the sanctity and security of member states), he should have walked out. Not to be overly dramatic about it, but that's his job - to represent the ostensible values of the United Nations. Instead, he quite happily participated.
Yet this is the organization that sees fit to pass resolutions and stack international courts and then take it as proof that Israel is an outlaw state when it refuses to obey its dictates - as if legislation and jurisprudence are inherently legitimate by virtue of the process itself, not by virtue of the neutrality, objectivity, and basic good will that are supposed to legitimate them.
