Dec. 5 article on Israel at the UN

Submitted by Natalie Roberts (United States), Dec 30, 2005 at 09:30

Because I am very behind in reading Email I have the advantage of hindsight in commenting on your article. You are 100% correct in your analysis of Israel at the UN - the ink is hardly dry on their agreements when the UN is asking "What have you done for me lately?"

Israel is never going to win at the UN because it is considered at best a distant relative who must continue to appease in order to be temporarily accepted. I hope Sharon has learned from this experience not to give away the West Bank. Already the rockets are flying into Israel from Gaza and Hezbollah is attacking in the north from Lebanon. Now Israel has to fight back with unmanned flights, and sonic boom attacks, and the poor Palestinian children are suffering traumas from the loud sounds. Of course, no one is aiming rockets at them which could kill or maim them; on the news last night there was no balance, as usual, showing Israeli children needing therapy because of fears of direct hits on them and their families.

The UN is nothing but trouble for the US and Israel, and needs an overhaul. What has it done to avoid wars, and to feed the people of Darfur, let alone stop the massacres there and in Bosnia, for example. Now there is retraction on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the US is appeasing Russia, not allowing the issue to go to the Security Council, which is another joke.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment and all best wishes to you for a Healthy, Productive and Satisfying New Year. My husband and I heard you speak a couple of years ago at the Ziman's Starlight Dinner for Temple Beth Am's pre=Israel Bonds effort, and we were so impressed with you.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".