The UN's Usual Response

Shalom All,

It has been reported that the President of the UN said the following to an emergency session of the security council:

"While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed an injured so many civilians, including children".
The head of the UN is either ignorant, naive, or both. Please explain to me how in any possible way continuous rocket fire coming from an enemy with which you are in a declared state of war and which is increasing in scope, range, and damage may be construed as anything but an escalation of the war by that enemy and when publicly supported by the governing body of said enemy be anything other that justification for full scale war against said enemy? That the enemy is weaker does not matter at all, except to the degree that there will be greatly more significant harm done once the provocation to and escalation of war are successful and the more powerful military entity responds.

What would constitute "proportionate" and "adequate" force in a case in which rocket fire has INCREASED since the conflict has been joined. Logically, one must conclude that not only have Israel's actions not been "disproportionate and excessive" but that they have been instead "too weak to be effective." Continuing to act as if Palestinian civilians will not and should not die while Hamas and its allies continue to fire rockets by the dozens at Israeli civilians from amid Palestinian civilian population areas is not only naive and ignorant, but well beyond that.

The correct military response to the current state of affairs would be to use any amount of force necessary to permanently end the rocket fire coming from Gaza regardless of the number or nature of casualties until the rocket fire ceases and those firing them surrender so that the rocket fire will not begin again as soon as hostilities are ended. The ONLY reason this is not happening currently is that it will result in many deaths and Israel is hoping to avoid that option, something which it cannot possibly do forever and cannot reasonably do for much longer.

It is appalling to me that the UN continues to do anything but demand the immediate surrender of Hamas, the immediate cessation of rocket fire, or support Israel's efforts to make it cease. Should ANY other Western nation be facing rocket fire upon civilian populations from a declared enemy, there is little doubt that the UN would raise an army to come to its aid and much of that army would come from the EU.

If qassams rained down on France tomorrow, France would be at war and the UN with it. If qassams rained down on Germany, Italy, Greece, the UK there would be war and the UN would support it. Yet qassams raining down upon Israel for months is justification for condemnation of any response by Israel other than a declaration of "Come on, stop it and we'll give up." It's just pathetic.

The UN is either irrelevant to the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or, and this is what I believe, a primary reason that it continues without a resolution resulting in a peaceful settlement between the peoples as it continues to defend the side initiating and prolonging a state of war and condemns the side trying to bring it to an end. There is no possibly peace in which Hamas is able to declare victory. As soon as the UN realizes this, perhaps peace may be achieved.

-David