The Moral Relativism of Killing 19 Civilians

John Bolton blasted the United Nations for adopting a resolution that expressed regret over the deaths of 19 civilians who were killed when the Israeli military launched an artillery strike in the Palestinian town of Beit Hanoun [my emphasis in last paragraph]:

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.

"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.

"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.

The United States, and Australia joined Israel in voting against the motion, together with four small Pacific island nations. All countries in Europe, including Britain, voted to support the resolution.

The original text condemned Israel over the Beit Hanoun attack and its operations in Gaza, however the adopted resolution had the General Assembly expressing, "regret."

Rather than an outright investigation of the incident the assembly resolved to form a committee, "to look into the facts." The resolution also carried a demand that the Palestinian Authority take action to stop rocket attacks on Israel.

Bolton launched his attack despite gaining these concessions.

Equally critical was Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman who stormed out of the session after telling members, "I caution everyone who will support this resolution. By doing so, you will be an accomplice to terror. The blood of more innocents will be on your hands."

The resolution was taken to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto to squash a similar motion in the Security Council. It was the 31st time the U.S. had used its veto at the UN to stop resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians.

Pamela "mad dog" Geller Oshry applauds John Bolton for condemning the UN for publicly stating that it's a terrible thing for 19 innocent people -- most of them from one family -- to die because the world's second most powerful military "made a mistake." In fact, mourning the violent deaths of Palestinians -- any Palestinians, innocent or guilty -- is proof of anti-Semitism:

Another Jew hating, Israel bashing resolution passed by the corrupt world body that ignores the Islamic Jihad of the Khartoum Government in Sudan, ignores the oppression of non Muslims in Muslim countries, ignores the mad ravings of Islamic Iran bent on annihilating the West, ignores the brutal killings in Indonesia, ignores their own peace keepers' acts of child rape and slavery - but the light unto nations? That is what they wish to extinguish.

What was it again the dhimmicrats have against Infidel Hunk of the Week, Ambassador Bolton?

Tell me again. Explain to me what it is they have against his extraordinary record of accomplishments. Go read Ben Johnson's indictment of our feckless leaders, over at Front Page Mag, "JOHN BOLTON, THE NEXT BLOOD SACRIFICE?"

If you don't BLOG FOR BOLTON you can't hang in the Atlas Sphere. That's the price of admission.

Someone wake the President. It's five minutes to midnight.

Geller Oshry, in her endless raving against the "Jew hatred" she sees in everyone who does not uncritically accept anything and everything Israel does, evokes in her screed against Muslims the same blood libel canard used for centuries to justify persecution of the Jews:

Blood libels are accusations that Jews use human blood in religious rituals. Historically these are accusations that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted. In many cases, blood libels served as the basis for a blood libel cult, in which the alleged victim of human sacrifice was elevated to the status of martyr, and in some cases, canonized. Although the first known instance of blood libel is found in the writings of Apion, who claimed that the Jews sacrificed Greek victims in the Temple, no further incidents are recorded until the 12th century, when blood libels began to proliferate. These libels have persisted from then through to the 21st century.

Compare this drawing on Geller Oshry's post:



to this one found on a search for "blood libel" images at Google:










Changing the object of hatred from Jewish to Arab does not change the hatred.

Sister Toldjah loves John Bolton because, she says, there is right and there is wrong and Bolton takes a stand against the wrong:

Modern day liberals here at home and abroad are not only embarassed [sic] by our staunch suport [sic] of Israel, but also by US projections of strength because they'd rather wallow in the morass that is moral relativism than believe that there is a difference between right and wrong and that there are, unfortunately, all too few countries who are willing to take a stand against the wrong. This is precisely the reason we need Bolton at the UN -- because he's willing to take that stand -- and precisely the reason liberals reject him.

One can only assume, then, that both John Bolton and Sister Toldjah believe that killing 19 civilians is right, since they both think it's outrageous that the UN should express regret for those deaths.