Other Columns by Oliver North
Oliver North Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

On Wednesday, Aug. 9, when Israel finally launched a major ground operation into Lebanon aimed at crushing Hezbollah terrorists, there was a collective gasp from the striped-pants set at U.N. Headquarters in New York. But this offensive wouldn't have been necessary if the unaccountable, America-bashing, Jew-hating, tea sippers at the United Nations had the integrity to act in accord with their own charter.

More than a month ago, Hezbollah terrorists crossed the Lebanese border, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and started a daily barrage of Iranian-supplied rockets, missiles, even sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles against Israeli towns and cities. All but ignored by the so-called "western media" -- more than 1,500 Israeli casualties were inflicted by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's "rain of steel."

For 30 days, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) responded with air and naval strikes and limited ground operations against known and suspected Hezbollah positions in Lebanon -- and were pummeled in the press for a "disproportionate response." The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, naively hoping for a "forceful international reaction" to Hezbollah's aggression, adopted a "go-slow" approach and reigned in the IDF. To some, Olmert's caution appeared wise. It was not.

On Aug. 4, Kofi Annan's flaks leaked word to willing press puppets that a "diplomatic breakthrough" had been achieved to "end the conflict in Lebanon." In fact -- Washington and Paris had reached only a tentative agreement on the general shape and size of a multi-national force (MNF) to "supplement" the Lebanese Army and the ineffective U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). But on Aug. 8, Olmert learned what he should have known all along -- the United Nations will not stand up to Iranian supported and directed terrorism.

Four days after promoting a U.N. accord that would "end the bloodshed," the deal was dead -- shot in the head by Arab "leaders" who viewed a powerful, well-armed, European-led intervention force -- along the lines of Kosovo in 1999 and today in Afghanistan -- to be an "affront to Lebanese sovereignty." The new U.N. proposal: an immediate cease-fire, withdrawal of all Israeli troops, followed by the introduction of 15,000 Lebanese Army soldiers along the border, "backed up" by the same UNIFIL contingent that had done nothing to stop Hezbollah aggression in the first place.

If Olmert was surprised at this outcome, he shouldn't be. It's just the latest in a long string of failed U.N. initiatives emanating from the most expensive debating club on the planet. Since Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanon on May 24, 2000, there have been 40 U.N. Security Council Resolutions on "the situation in the Middle East" -- an average of one every two months. This year there have already been six -- and none of them are worth the paper they are printed on to Hezbollah -- or their masters in Tehran.

As Tom Kilgannon points out in his new book, "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations," the UNIFIL contingent now being so highly touted in the big blue building in Turtle Bay was established by U.N. Security Council 425 in 1978 "for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." Like so much else of what the United Nations does, it has been a miserable, impotent failure.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2