Bolton Criticizes the UN – Why He Must Stay
John Bolton rightfully criticized the United Nations for its anti-Israel bias. From Powerline:
Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.
Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.
“Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies,” he said.
“This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognized right to exist.”
“This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region,” Bolton continued.
“In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States,” he said.
Read more at Powerline, or read his statement in its entirety PDF alarm.
Bolton is almost the opposite of the average ambassador to the UN: he is not very diplomatic and he is not afraid of confrontation. I agree with Bolton that the UN has been taken over by States with a strong anti-Israel bias and, as a result, the UN in general has adopted such an anti-Israel bias.
John Bolton must stay. The West and Israel cannot afford to lose him.
To those who say that he should be more diplomatic I say, diplomacy in its traditional meaning does not always work. Sometimes it is more useful to abandon diplomatic words and to say it like it is.
One of those times is when an organization like the UN is turning into an assembly of Israel’s (and the West’s) enemies, only dedicated to making life more and more difficult for it.
45 Responses to “Bolton Criticizes the UN – Why He Must Stay”
In the past 50 years when has the United States not voted against or abstained from U.N. resolutions related to Israel?
John Bolton is just more of the same. The United States has ignored and supported the atrocities of the Israelis and consistently ignored international law.
The U.S. even went as far as to vote against a U.N. resolution calling on Israel to adhere to international law!
I can’t claim to know much about the UN, but a vote of 156 to 7 doesn’t seem to be the result of a minor bias against Israel. Rather it seems to represent a pretty strong international sentiment against what Israel did — a sentiment that represents nearly all the rest of the world.
When I was growing up during the Cold War “Duck &Cover” era, the USSR was routinely berated for using its veto power to frustrate the will of the other members of the UN Security Council. The USSR’s excessive use of its veto power increased the US, and the West’s moral standing during that tense period.
However I understand that in recent years it has been the United States that is the major user of vetoes in the Security Council. The large majority of these US vetoes have been to block Security Council resolutions about Israel.
It is time that we asked ourselves what our 100 percent backing of Israel is telling the rest of the world about our neutrality regarding the Middle East situation? Is our unquestioning support for Israeli actions causing even more anger to be focused on the US? Have we lost our neutral standing to act as an “Honest Broker� in the resolution of the Israel-PLO problem?
I don’t know who is on the right or wrong side in this latest cited incident. However, I do feel that we have to take a more pragmatic position regarding this never-ending dispute between the Arabs and the Israelis. We need to recognize that our interests and those of Israel are not 100 percent congruent. At times we need to be able to disagree with, and even condemn, Israeli action — just as we do with the PLO and other Arab states.
“John Bolton must stay. The West and Israel cannot afford to lose him.”
Last I checked Nolton does not work for “the West”, or Israel. He works for the United States of America, “the West” and Israel can get their own representation at the UN instead of using the US as it’s proxy whores.
Bolton rather…preview nextime sheesh.
Let’s be honest about what the real problem is here. Michael and others want the United Nations to always act in concert with American/Israeli interests.
The United Nations is supposed to be an organization that builds consensus among nations through diplomacy, not an organization that follows an American/Israeli agenda.
How did The Neatherlands represenative vote Michael? Instead of telling those of us actually from this country how we should operate on an issue that is entirely ours to make, why don’t you tend to your own country’s stance.
To those who say that he should be more diplomatic I say, diplomacy in its traditional meaning does not always work. Sometimes it is more useful to abandon diplomatical words and to say it like it is.
Sure, Michael. Sometimes surgery doesn’t work either. But you’d expect your surgeon to know how to handle a scalpel. Bolton can’t do diplomacy. He’s openly hostile to the U.N. and its mission and antagonizes everyone else in the room. This would be fine if he had a different job – there are plenty of other avenues for that type of attitude. The President, Vice President, Senators and Congressmen can be as hostile as they like. But not U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Diplomacy is his job. We need someone who’s capable of doing it.
Israel owes its existence to the U.N. There is still a price to be paid for the way it was formed. The U.S. has given Israel over 84 trillion dollars. This country has a lot of problems. Will it survive? Its nuclear arsenal is more likely to be used than any other. Why should it have the bomb and not Iran? How can the smartest people on earth act so stupidly? They kicked out the native people and think they are just going to go away? They are the new South Africa and conservatives love them. Putting their trust in conservatives is a big mistake, though. The KKK was a conservative organization. It will be a long time before all this is straightened out.
As for Bolton, he’s a fool much like his president. Thankfully he’ll be gone soon.
Thanks, Michael, for the most cogent argument for why Bolton must go. It’s not that he’s not “diplomatic.” It’s that he’s fundamentally wrong about the United Nations and Israel. It isn’t just rabid haters of the Jews that criticize Israel. If it were Iran, Syria and a few other thuggish regimes arrayed against “Israel and the West” then you’d have a point. In such a case, the UN should not be used as a propaganda tool for extremists in the minority. But when the UK, Netherlands, Canada and virtually every other Western nation finds Israel at fault for a host of issues relating to its treatment of Palestinians (and in this case, Lebanese) maybe Bolton is the one in the wrong.
As a Jew, I know full well the dangers of anti-Semitism. I have a whole line of family tree members with names of people killed – some at 3 years old – simply because they were Jews. As such, I find Ahmadinejad and the more militant Islamists deeply threatening. But that doesn’t excuse Israel’s treatment of Palestinians who, themselves, suffered a grievous human rights violation when they lost their homes in 1948. The parallel isn’t South Africa. The parallel is 17th, 18th and 19th century America, when Native Americans lost their lands – and their lives – to fraud, brutality and racism. Unlike the Indians, though, the Palestinians haven’t “gone away,” only to be resuscitated as “noble savages” and harmless mascots.
Build a wall, if it must, and make it impenetrable to terrorists. But pull out of Gaza and the West Bank for good. Though some will derail it, the long term prospects for peace between the two nations will be infinitely greater if Israel makes “good fences” and, hence, “good neighbors.”
Let me play devils advocate and take MvdG’s side. No I can’t on this one, where is the RR Laura pro-Israel ‘end of the World’ crowd. If I sided with Michael on this one it would be the EOTW. I will have to go through the last couple of days INets History, some wingnuts want Bolton in 2008 for POTUS. This last setence is not farce or parody.
Believe it or not, if someone disagrees with your view on Bolton, they are not automatically ‘wingnutters’. Quite sad actually that some seem to draw the debate into that direction.
Dissent not allowed huh?
Mikey:
You’re exactly right except you’re wrong! Think of the opportunity. When the Democratic commies forced MacArthur out all decent people knew he was a hero and wanted him for president.
Unfortunatly the Republican’;s Eisonhower and Nixon were also commies as documented by the John Birch Society and the United States entered 50 years of tyranny.
But this time we can succeed! Bolton for president!
- Your best friend.
Isn’t Dittohead lovely? I like it how he / she always agrees with my view. Thank you ditto for ditto’ing my article. Your comments always add so much value.
Mickey:
I was refering to Far Right (Wingnut) bloggs calling for Bolton as a POTUS or VP candidate in 2008.
From James Wollcott:
Here is two ‘Wingnut’ bloggers with an irational obsescion(sp) with Bolton. Do you think Jonny Boy is POTUS material?
And Pamela from Atlas Shrugs is related to me because… what?
Completely irrelevant Rudey (wtf).
I couldn’t read past this part of the article….
Then perhaps Bolton should emmigrate to Israel and he can become their Ambassador to the UN. I for one want an ambassador that furthers US interests and Bolton’s “confrontational” style is counterproductive to that goal.
Bolton must leave
Like everyone else in this administration he is an embarassment.
Bolton is not an ambassador, he is a strike force for demonstrating US arrogance. As Chertoff has lately stated, the world has decided it has had enough of US arrogance, it is locking us down to the rules of international law. Do you really think that bull-in-china-shop behavior will get us better consideration?
Far too many Americans think we own the world. The world is tired of this view. WWII is 60 years ago. We are no longer the savior of the west. We are a big bully, that is all. And every day, we find ourselves knocked down another notch. And d*cks like Bolton embolden everyone on the planet to keep knocking.
Bolton is just the mouth of the administration, he has no indispensable skills that I can see, just an undiplomatic approach to a diplomats job. We can do much much better.
Oh here are too names that would be better:
Jim Leach and Zalmay Khalilzad
Jim Leach would be a great voice. Zal Khalilzad has done yeoman’s work in Iraq, but I don’t think he’s the man for the UN.
MvdG In this comment postbelow I actually said that Bolton wasn’t all that bad. I am looking for Bush to pick a more ‘Moderate’ UN ambassador to work with all groups in the ME. Bolton’s record and actions won’t work for a regional solution to Iraq and Israel/Palestine. If the Bush foreign policy did work in ME then Bolton would be great.
I said the same thing in this post:
Bolton anti-Christ?
Like Sanctorum, I don’t think Boltin is qualified for dog cacther, but that is just my personal opinion. I agree with Elrod’s pick in Jim Leach, someone who isn’t tainted like Bolton.
Besides all comments appear to be against Bolton. Even your UN ambassador voted against the US/Israel position.
As an Australian I think that the US is one of the few sane voices left in the UN today. The rest of the world is morally bankrupt. I hope Bolton stays. We need more people like him.
Michael I expect(?) you to be outraged at teh bias of Powerline in their editting of the original arcticle. It seems Powerline neglected to include the final portion of the article of India.
Calcutta News Full Bolton story
When a caption of a Lebanese photo was changed, you became outraged. Why isn’t Powerlines creative editting just as outrageous?
Two different issues here: one, is Bolton the right man for the job, and two, is the UN biased against Israel.
On the first, I really don’t know. I can understand the criticism of him but he hasn’t done a bad job overall during his interim position.
On the issue of anti-Israel bias, I don’t see any room for doubt. However, I can still also understand a more nuanced view like Elrod’s. Just because the UN generally condemns Israel but not its enemies doesn’t mean that Israel never does anything wrong (and I’m not applying that directly to recent events- just making a general statement). I think that it is unfortunate that things are so polarized because the US is then forced to either completely back Israel 100% without question, or if it takes a more honest approach and say, determines that 90% of the time Israel is acting within the bounds of international agreements and its actions are purely self defense, but the other 10% of the time perhaps some fault is there and should be addressed. I think it would be better if the US would take that position (and my numbers were just arbitrary of course), but doing so would only fuel the anti-Israel sentiment. PLUS- and even more importantly IMO- it is important to say that if the UN insists that Israel must receive rebuke for certain acts, then certainly there are far more acts by Palestinians and other Arab nations that must be condemned.
CS I don’t know if you read my comment above. The original resolution put forth by an Arab ambassador was more aggressive in attacking Israel and ignoring Palestian actions. The EU and Bolton changed the language to –
The resolution also carried a demand that the Palestinian Authority take action to stop rocket attacks on Israel. It is this watered down resoltion that Bolton vetoed in the Security Council and condemned in a General Assemby vote. If you read the Powerline “hack job” and read the original article from CalcuttaNews you would better understand the implicaytions of the votes.
On the issue of anti-Israel bias, I don’t see any room for doubt.
But that issue is entirely irrelevant to the renomination of John Bolton. The president isn’t going to nominate anyone critical of Israel. Even if he did, neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats in Congress would vote to approve him. The US is an unflinching ally of Israel and has been for decades now.
The UN ambassador doesn’t make US policy. His job is to convince other nations to support our point of view. Bolton is fundamentally unqualified for that assignment.
Here’s a good sample of why I think Bolton should go, from your post:
“This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region,”
His job is diplomacy. Doing deals. You can’t do that if you’re yelling at people and raising fears.
Is the UN healthy? Is it doing the right thing on the Middle East? No and absolutely not. But it’s neither a little kid or a soldier – yelling at it won’t help it. You can find millions of people, on the streets of DC, even, who can see the UN’s downsides and would make deals in a constructive way to make things better. Why isn’t one of them in there instead already?
I just don’t get this fascination some have with people who shout alot. Did it help with Porter Goss? No. Did it work for Goss’ predecessor Colby? No, he caused unbelievable heartache for Reagan by deciding to shout at Congress.
Name me one DIPLOMAT who did famously well by shouting alot.
Where’s Bolton’s constructive position on new UN Reform? All he’s doing there is criticising details (OK, better than nothing, but little compared to the opportunities), but the Human Rights Commission isn’t the heart of the UN). If he was up to this job, he’d have contructive proposals for reducing the UN’s troubles with vetos, and/or be using talk about the Committee of Democracies to put pressure on the UN to behave and move toward transparency.
I don’t see it as entirely irrelevant, but I do see these as two separate but interrelated issues. Anti-Israel bias and the US reaction to that by supporting Israel 100% is one issue; Bolton’s style of confronting that (and whether or not it is the right approach) is another issue.
I find it humorous that the UN savaged here by Michael, and the rest of the right wingnut brigade, is the very same organization whose resolutions were repeatedly cited to justify why we just HAD to invade Iraq. I guess we pick and choose when it is convenient to support the UN and when it is not. And some wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t like us?
It’s an interesting statement that the West can’t afford to lose Bolton. If the West needs Bolton so badly, why do the representatives from the West nearly unanimously vote against him? If he were so important to the West, you’d think he’d gain support from at least one European representative.
It would seem as though it’s just Israel and Bush that need him. For the better of the international community and the United States, it’s time for Bolton to go. Our UN representative should be a diplomat, not an anti-UN bully.
Looks like “the West” has dwindled down to the US, Australia and some Oceanic island nations. Well, it is quite “west” I suppose.
I completely agree with Michael, Bolton should stay. The UN is indeed overwhelmingly anti-Israel, due to first of all, the large arab-muslim block, and secondly most of the rest of the non-arab muslim world which depends on arab oil and trade, or is afraid of islamic terrorism, or simply because the arabs overwhelmingly outnumber the Jews and the safer course is to take the muslim side against Israel. Boozer1000, you must be naive to believe the votes against Israel were the result of a principled stand rather than the above reasons I mentioned. God bless Bolton and America as well as Australia for taking the truly principled stand against the forces of darkness. It would have been alot easier to go along to get along with world sentiment, but they did the right thing instead. Just because a position is popular doesn’t make it right, and that’s true certainly in the case of world opinion toward Israel.
For a moderate blog, I’m surprised there isn’t more variety of opinion on this subject amongst the commenters. I can’t believe this site attracts so many lefties.
I’m astonished that so many “progressives” in the west think we should give up our support of the only free, ethical, western style democratic country in the Middle East, in favor of its despotic, oppressive, misogynist terrorist enemies whose “values” are antithetical to our own. It only goes to reveal their own moral bankruptsy.
MikeF, what we need is someone like Bolton who will confront the UN and tell the truth about its corruption and bias. The UN invites hostility against it. I don’t want a quiet diplomat who goes along to get along. You can’t seriously believe the UN is pro-Israel, since its hatred of Israel is so open and up-front. What can be a greater example of the UN’s anti-Israel bias when Israel is singled out for condemnation while real human rights violators are ignored, as Bolton mentioned?
Far from being the evil entity that Israel is portrayed here and amongst the left in general, if Israel fought by the “morals”,”ethics” and “values” of its enemies, Israel would have no more enemies left. None of the countries that have codemned Israel would fight a war as moral and ethical as Israel does. They wouldn’t issue warnings for the civilian population before they struck, or refrain from launching an airstrike because the building being targeted was surrounded by human shields.
In Sri Lanka more than 250.000 civilians are affected by heavy clashes between the Tamil Tigers and the army, which had killed 61 children and injured over 150 in an air strike on an orphanage as confirmed by the UN children’s fund (Unicef) and the Swedish-led peace monitors. Russia slaughtered thousands in air strikes in Grazny in ’99. In neither of these cases were there resolutions in the UN against Sri Lanka or Russia, and in fact these stories didn’t even make the MSM. If this isn’t an example of the world’s anti-Israel bias, I don’t know what is.
Bingo, Laura- sign me up on your moral BK concept; my reaction is the same. It’s worth mentioning that the US Senate, Dems and Reps, are huge backers of Israel. Labeling such bipartisan support as right-wing nutball thinking overlooks this fact. I hardly think Chuck Schumer is a rightwing nutball. I like CStanley’s comment above re: the 90/10% rule. It makes a lot of sense. I’m a John Bolton agnostic, frankly. Our UN representative needs to be strongly pro Israel- whether it’s Bolton, Leach or whomever.
It’s worth mentioning that the US Senate, Dems and Reps, are huge backers of Israel. Labeling such bipartisan support as right-wing nutball thinking overlooks this fact.
Who’s labelled it that way? Objecting to Bolton isn’t the same thing as hostility to Israel. The U.S. is guaranteed to have a strong stance friendly to Israel, whether Bolton stays or goes. That was the case long before he became ambassador and it’ll be true long after he’s gone. It would be better for all of us if we had someone capable of making our case to the international community instead of constantly putting them on the other side of an us-against-them rant.
How about comments like this?
And like this:
Michael, seems you like to go for the low hanging fruit.
“Isn’t Dittohead lovely?
Completely irrelevant Rudey (wtf).”
While ignoring the pertinent points and questions raised by others.
Laziness? I don’t know.
But I think it’s a reasonable question to ask, should the US Ambassador to the UN have diplomatic skills. You know, since he’s going to be considered a diplomat and all.
And also, you just ignore the US’s countless SC vetoes on issues dealing with Israel.
If as you say, Israel needs Bolton at the UN, then I agree with previous commenters. Israel should definitely hire him.
But as far as being a representative of the US, well that’s been tried before and failed. And it’s dead now.
But hey, AssRocket says….
shorter Laura: if you disagree with me you are anti-Israeli and moraly bankrupt.
ya just gotta love the arrogance of the right don’t you?
Yeah I said it kreiz, and I mean it. After all the billions of taxpayer dollars shipped to Israel year after year, without so much as a single unanamous ok from the American public, I think the least they can do is speak for themselves instead of expecting us to do it for them. It’s a mightily one sided love affair our government should seek counseling for, with the taxpayer as therapist.
There’s no link between Bolton’s appointment and the US’s pro-Israel stance. In fact, Bolton’s neocon past muddles an interesting disjunct between factions in the Dem Party. Simply, why some left-leaning folks anti-Israel, whereas a Dem-dominated Senate (fictional) wouldn’t ratify a UN ambassador who embraced that philosphy? Presumably, irrespective of Bolton, Psyt and his tribe have a problem with Clinton, Schumer, et al. Thoughts?
For example, Joe’s coblogger, the self-confessed liberal Michael Stickings, is pro-Israel. I’m not complaining; I love it.