Now will U.N. see folly of terror? by Alan Dershowitz Published September 2, 2003 DERS02 Recently I received a phone call from a Brazilian journalist who asked me to respond to the charge being made in her home country: that Israel was at least indirectly to blame for the deadly truck bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that killed, among others, a prominent Brazilian diplomat, Sergio Vieira de Mello. I was not surprised at the question, considering its source. Among many South Americans, the knee-jerk response to nearly every evil is "blame it on the Jews." For example, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Meridiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, has blamed the "Jewish media" for the scandal involving Catholic priests having sex with young parishioners. But the question got me to thinking: Who does share the blame with the terrorists themselves for the horrific explosion that killed and injured so many innocent people? Although the primary culprit is clearly the terrorist group that planned and executed the mass murder, the secondary culprit is the United Nations itself. For more than a quarter of a century, the United Nations has encouraged terrorism by rewarding its practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters." No organization in the world today has accorded so much legitimacy to terrorism as has the United Nations. Consider the following: • There are numerous occupied peoples around the world seeking statehood or national liberation, including the Tibetans, Kurds, Turkish Armenians and Palestinians. Only one of these groups has received official recognition by the United Nations, including observer status and invitations to speak and participate in committee work. That group is the one that invented and perfected modern international terrorism -- namely, the Palestinians. These rewards were first bestowed in the 1970s when the Palestine Liberation Organization was unabashedly committed to terrorism. In fact, Chairman Yasser Arafat was invited to speak to the U.N. General Assembly in 1974 at a time when his organization was seeking to destroy a member-state of the United Nations by terrorism. By rewarding Arafat and the PLO for such behavior, the United Nations made it clear that the best way to ensure that your cause is leapfrogged ahead of others is to adopt terrorism as your primary means of protest. The Tibetans, whose land has been occupied more brutally and for a longer period than that of the Palestinians, but who have never practiced terrorism, cannot even receive a hearing from the United Nations. • The United Nations has for years refused to condemn terrorism unequivocally, while encouraging and upholding "the legitimacy of the struggle for national liberation movements" against "occupation" -- in other words, the use of terrorism against innocent civilians to resist occupation. This has sent the message to aggrieved groups that terrorism is legitimate. • The United Nations has allowed Palestinian terrorists to use U.N.-sponsored "refugee camps" like Jenin as terrorist bases. This has sent the message to the world that the United Nations closes its eyes to terrorism. • The United Nations has repeatedly condemned efforts by Israel to prevent and respond to terrorism. For example, the Security Council condemned Israel for isolating Arafat in the West Bank last year, even after it was proved that Arafat remained complicit in acts of terrorism. This has sent the message to the victims of terrorism that if they fight back they risk sanctions. • The United Nations has allowed states that sponsor terrorism, such as Syria, to sit on the Security Council and to chair important committees, while denying Israel these same rights. This has sent the message that the United Nations applies a double standard when it comes to terrorism. The bottom line is that the United Nations has served as an international megaphone for the perverse message that any people who feel that they are occupied have the right to resist occupation by randomly murdering innocent civilians anywhere in the world. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Some Iraqis, who feel that they are now occupied, have taken the U.N.'s message to heart and are engaged in a "national liberation movement" of the kind long praised by the United Nations and are using the tactics rewarded by the United Nations against that very organization. Now that the victims of "national liberation terrorism" are U.N. employees instead of Jewish babies, maybe the United Nations will finally come to its senses and understand that by legitimating and rewarding terrorism, it has created a monster that can be turned against any nation, organization or group. Unless there is a change, no one will be safe from this U.N.-created, -fed and -rewarded monster that threatens the entire world. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and author, wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.
Interesting viewpoint. So I take it you think the secondary culprit for the Sept. 11 attacks is the United States.
That's not what he was getting at. The reason why the UN is the "secondary culprit" is because they have ligitimized terrorism by rewarding the Palestinians for numerous suicide attacks. Now when has the U.S. justified hijacking a plane and slamming it into a building?
Elaborate a little more... I could go off into a number of different tangents. Who are the said terrorists that we funded and armed?
No problem. The Reagan Administration funded, trained and armed Osama bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I could also list the numerous terrorists, er, contras we supported in Central and South America. Let's not forget all the weapons we gave Saddam Hussein, too. But this isn't about how America "caused the attacks," or America had "nothing to do with the attacks." It's a very complex issue. I was just taken aback at Dershowitz's claim that the U.N. is partially responsible for that horrible embassy bombing. I happen to agree (for very different reasons, and on a much different scale), but it was surprising to read that from a conservative.
I see your link to us funding OBL and it's sad that we didnt know he was that radical. We were fighting the russians and didnt care who we were arming. We armed OBL for a ground war, not a terrorist campaign. As the article states, the UN continues to back palestinian statehood even when their main negotiating tool is the suicide bomber. Now does that mean that the UN is responsible for what happened? No, and I think thats a little ignorant on Dershowitz's part. Hopefully the UN will take a harder stand against those who use and legitimize terror.
I thought some very notable Democrats supported the idea of having Islamic fighters (Mujahadeen) oppose Russia/USSR in Afghanistan. Why it keeps getting completely attributed to Reagan & Co is beyond me.
Yes, notable Democrats supported the idea, but bin Laden wasn't trained by the "Notable Democrats and others Administration."
I'm not sure if I understand GreenVegan76's line of thought - although judging by the context of the statement, I can certainly say that I do not see world within the same geopolitical / moral plane. If we extend the line of reasoning that has been presented, wouldn't the blame for much of present day reality default to communist regimes that initiated our action? Granted, had the U.S. forgone such proactive measures as those under Reagan, the world would be a much different place; I would speculate however that our adversaries would be much more than they are today.
Exactly when did the Democrats all fall in line and decide that bin Laden was <i>bad</i>? How was that conclusion arrived at? Did they share this knowledge with the Republicans? From my viewpoint, the Democrats <b>have quite a bit of credit</b> to take in regards to Islamic fighters (Mujahadeen) in Afghanistan versus Russia/USSR. You are focusing on bin Laden, but the scope of the matter is greater than a singular individual.
Man, GV76, if you think Dershowitz is a conservative... you must be space-walking out on the left edge of the political spectrum...
If we don't care what celebrities think about political topics, why the hell would we care what one of OJs lawyers thinks about political topics. What will the title of the next thread be: "Danny Bonaduce disses President Bush" or "Leif Garrett says Bomb Iraq into the Stone Age"? Enough!
I cannot stand Deshowitz, but to compare an acclaimed Harvard professor and author to an entertainment celebrity is a bit inaccurate, no?
Poor Dershowitz, he starts off commenting on the stupid theory that Jews were responsible for 9/11. He then puts forward the nearly as stupid theory that the UN was. In a wierd way when a Harvard law professor can think like this it gives you more sympathy for those misguided folks with the Jewish conspiracy nuttiness. How could Dersh come up with this crap? Maybe in the back of his legal mind somewhere it bothers him that Israel is in contempt of international law.. Maybe there is a contradiction between his backing an invasion of Iraq because they weren't following some UN resolutions and his encouraging of Israel to not follow many UN resolutions. Maybe he thinks if he could just get rid of the UN than you wouldn't have these stupid international law thingees and everyone could just back an expansionist Israel, with torture warrants, state funding of a particular relgion (his) and the other things he supports in Israel. Note he is against state funding of religion in the US and likes a lot of separation of church and state here, probably because he is afraid that the religion that will benefit won't be his. Wierd, but in his old age he is becoming in many ways more and more like Jerry Falwell, his old foil on the Geraldo political show that I used to watch.
Not this "acclaimed Harvard professor". The man is an all out publicity w****. I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue.
He is a publicity nut, I don't trust him either. He still is not analogous to an entertainment celebrity. He's a Harvard professor who's studied the ME conflict for 30 years. He may be biased, but I imagine he will make a much better case for his opinion than some celebrity who's studied zip.
