November 18, 2004

Kick the U.N. off of our soil. Now.

The UN formed a committee to determine the cause of anti-Semitism. Conclusion? It's the fault of the Jews. Excerpt:


Recommentations:

. . . The leaders of Jewish communities should also act to distinguish defence of the State of Israel from the fight against anti-Semitism. . . .

Contextualising the memory of the Holocaust with that of other genocides and serious events in contemporary history in order to make sure that at the end of the day everyone can feel the Holocaust as their own tragedy, both Jews and non-Jews.

In other words, according to the U.N. experts' draft report, discrimination against individual Jews is bad, while "anti-Zionism"--the denial to the Jewish people of an equal right to self-determination--is not. Since it is the perception of unconditional Jewish support for Israel that leads people to attack a Jewish cemetery, and anti-Semitism was absent from the Muslim world prior to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the mufti of Jerusalem and his friend Hitler notwithstanding), the way to defeat anti-Semitism is for Jews to cut loose defense of the state of Israel. And by the way, anti-Semitism will diminish if only we stop emphasizing the unique horror of the Holocaust.

I cannot begin to express my contempt for this bloated, parasitic organization. Suffice it to say that I will throw a party when the UN becomes a historical footnote.

Update: In a related matter, Pat Buchanan has trouble coming to grips with reality. Taranto has the scoop:

Pat Buchanan weighs in with a defense of Yasser Arafat against Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby:

If, as Jacoby writes, Arafat "inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich," why did Ehud Barak offer him 95 percent of the West Bank and a capital in Jerusalem? Why did "Bibi" Netanyahu give him Hebron?

Why did Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin share a Nobel Prize with him? Why did Bill Clinton invite him to the White House more times than any other leader? Were they all enablers of terrorism?

No.

Actually, the answer is yes--but Buchanan fails to acknowledge it even after the fact.


Posted by: Physics Geek at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Wow. Buchanan is completely unhinged.

Posted by: Harvey at November 18, 2004 06:02 PM (tJfh1)

2 He's been that way since boarding the Buchananball express for the presidency back in 1992. More's the pity.

Posted by: physics geek at November 18, 2004 06:41 PM (Xvrs7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0128, elapsed 0.0812 seconds.
91 queries taking 0.074 seconds, 234 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.