Another U.N. crock: Targeting Israel, coddling terrorists
Once again displaying its virulent, morally bankrupt anti-Israel bias, the United Nations General Assembly — at the behest of no less a paragon of rectitude than Syria's embattled Assad regime — has ordered the Jewish state to pay $1.1 million in “damages” for defending itself in 1996 from Hezbollah terrorists near the village of Qana in southern Lebanon.
The U.N. “peacekeeping budget” passed in late June calls on Israel to pay up for mistakenly damaging a U.N. compound and killing U.N. peacekeepers with airstrikes aimed at Hezbollah terrorists who'd been firing rockets and mortars into Israel from behind the U.N. base and were hiding on its grounds, The Washington Free Beacon Reports. The General Assembly vote was 126-3, with just the United States, Canada and Israel voting against the measure.
What Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in 1997 about a U.N. report on the incident still holds true: The U.N. ignores Hezbollah's use of civilians as human shields and U.N. sites as launch pads for attacks on Israel.
In response to this latest U.N. crock, Ron Prosor, Israel's U.N. ambassador, told The Beacon: “I wonder when the U.N. will level fines against Lebanon and Syria for the extensive destruction and devastation they have caused on our borders.”
U.S. taxpayers must wonder why they're still footing most of the bills run up by the tyrant-loving, terrorist-coddling U.N. — and why America still hasn't led a mass exodus of like-minded, freedom-loving nations from Turtle Bay.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season