Decades ago, when I still naively believed that the UN was an organization that would preserve world peace, I knew that certain Evangelical Christians believed it to be a harbinger of the Anti-Christ’s One World government, and a precursor to the End of Days. How I laughed at their religious foolishness. I’m not laughing now. Since I’m Jewish, I don’t have a religious frame of reference for an Anti-Christ. Nevertheless, I’ve concluded that the Evangelical’s long-standing hostility t the UN is absolutely right — the UN is irredeemably evil.
If you’d like lots of details about just how bad the UN is, you can make regular visits to Eye on the UN. If you’d like just one recent story about how evil the UN is, you can read about its supporting and covering up for Hezbollah when it kidnapped Israelis in the past. Or you can read Kofi Annan’s wild accusations when four UN operative, functioning in a war zone, were killed:
A diplomatic furor erupted Wednesday after four U.N. observers died in southern Lebanon in what the U.N. secretary-general said was an “apparently deliberate” Israeli airstrike.
Israel angrily denied the accusation.
The U.N. observers were killed when an Israeli bomb made a direct hit on their bunker in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. They had called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position, according to a U.N. officer. (Full story)
Lebanese security sources told CNN Wednesday at least three precision-guided bombs were dropped by Israeli aircraft on the U.N. observers’ bunker.
A Western diplomat familiar with preliminary U.N. assessments of the scene also said that it appeared the munition that hit the bunker was precision-guided.
But Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni denied that the strike was deliberate.
“Of course it was not a deliberate action,” she said.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and “expressed his regret at this tragedy in Lebanon.”
Kofi Annan is a fool and a malevolent one at that. Israel would never have been foolish enough, temptation notwithstanding, to target the UN. However, if in a fantasy world Israel did decide to target the UN, on the theory that it is one of her worst and most dangerous enemies, my suggestion would be that should ignore little outposts, and target Annan directly. What a dreadful, corrupt, morally-bereft human being he is.
UPDATE: It turns out that Israel probably had a good reason for aiming its guns in the direction of the UN outpost:
Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.
Now, given the UN’s tight relationship with Hezbollah in the past, one rather wonders whether the UN operatives were either (a) invited to position themselves in what might have been a safe spot near the UN or (b) asked to leave if they unilaterally decided to camp out near the UN.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs, which also bolded the appropriate language.
UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has more on the cozy relationship between the UN and Hezbollah.
Talking to Technorati: UN, United Nations, Kofi Annan, Israel
Filed under: United Nations
right on bw! nope, you’re not bloodthirsty at all.
“However, if in a fantasy world Israel did decide to target the UN, on the theory that it is one of her worst and most dangerous enemies, my suggestion would be that should ignore little outposts, and target Annan directly. What a dreadful, corrupt, morally-bereft human being he is.”
–where is the un headquartered? who is one of the founding nations of the un? which nation had the most influence in shaping the un’s policies on international conduct?
the answers would be new york, the united states and the united states. WE ARE THE UN (or at least we were before diplomacy and an international standard of conduct became demonized)! the un was founded on principles based largely around what the united states intrinsically stood for in promoting world peace and oversight.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm
why do you hate america so much?
peace
” I knew that certain Evangelical Christians believed it to be a harbinger of the Anti-Christ’s One World government, and a precursor to the End of Days.”
The Evangelicals’ thoughts on this have been popularized by the wildly popular “Left Behind” series. So far, I’ve only read about the books and the authors, but, as a Catholic who will reportedly be in as much trouble with the End Times Big Guy as the Jews will be (Unless we all agree to repent and become just like the Evangelicals), the plot line leaves me cold.
But then again, Catholics are not big on the Book of Revelation, have sizable doubts about the Rapture and question whether or not John Darby’s vision was truly divinely inspired.
Ditto for King Henry VIII’s vision.
But that’s neither here nor there. Most troubling, it seems, is the mean streak beneath all that piety. Yes, the giddiness of the folks tuning into Rapture Ready.com seems downright uncalled for.
While Evangelicals may sound as if they mean well, the end goal — what they are actually praying for — is the destruction of Israel and the end of the Jews.
Cattle cars of a different color, if you ask me.
T.S.
preach!
peace
Well, yeah. As I mentioned here once before, I have met Annan a couple of times, and the man is just a dope. I don’t say this as representing a political view, and I don’t say it for the sake of pointing out disagreement; I state it as a simple fact based on experience: the man does not have a high IQ. He is, in fact, a dope.
But a snappy dresser.
The problem I perceive with the UN is that it insists on an entirely fictitious equality in the general assembly. In other words, if the US is in favor of some course of action, but Nauru and Vanuatu are opposed, well there are two of them, one of us; the course of action we would like to see is therefore defeated.
There is no reference given to relative importance in the world, to the fact that the US, or the UK, or China or Japan count for something in these terms, and Nauru and Vanuatu do not. There are two of them, they outvote the US, etc. – period.
Thus the general assembly becomes nothing more than a tool by which legitmacy is conferred on pretty much anyone. (This was, in fact, the idea: that no smaller countries could be overrun by larger more powerful ones.) But it failed to take human nature into account, and now those countries that do count for something in real terms are consistently outvoted by coalitions of those who do little but make trouble. They have been granted a great deal of artificial power. The ambassador from Kiribati is doubtless charmed by carrying as much weight – in the assembly – as do those from the US, the UK, China, Japan or Germany; but it often doesn’t lead to bringing much resembling good sense out of that body.
Thus Israel is condemned in the general assembly, because there are only half a dozen countries who support it, and there are more than enough Islamic and fromer Soviet client nations floating around to outvote the sensible ones.
The Security Council was invented by those perspicacious enough to see precisely this sort of trouble coming, but it was a creature of its time. Quite clearly Joe Stalin should not have been given a seat anywhere on anything that had meaning for the world – but he was part of the victorious side in WW II, so he got the seat. It was also obvious that as a major influence on world events, France’s time was past, but everybody felt bad for the wreckage there in the wake of the war, so they got a seat.
Here again, one country, one vote, with the added fillip that a single veto could kill anything. So exhausted and largely irrelevant France was able to thwart both the US and the USSR at times by excercising their veto. Even when everybody else was on the same page, as when North Korea invaded South Korea, they had to wait until the Soviets were out of town to pass a security council resolution against North Korea. Had the Soviets been there, there would be no South Korea, because they’d have vetoed any action.
I don’t know what to do with the UN at this point. It’s one accomplishment has been to legitimize the world’s bandits, and give them a voice that everyone else must, perforce, listen to. Which is why you get clowns like Boutros-Boutros Ghalli and Kofi Annan running the place: the bandits vote them in. Who are these people? What would their qualifications to be in charge of anything be? Doesn’t matter, they’re elected.
In a way this is positive, though. The UN at this point is pretty near to the point where they will terminally annoy those actually trying to accomplish something in the world, and render themselves completely irrelevant.
“–where is the un headquartered? who is one of the founding nations of the un? which nation had the most influence in shaping the un’s policies on international conduct?”dagon
What a simplistic view you hold. Any one of the UN security council members can effectively neutralize US proposals. The US stopped being the nation of primary influence at the UN long, long ago.
It is an interesting, if unfounded intellectual leap you’ve made in characterizing Bookworm’s assertions about the UN into ‘hating’ America…
d_brit
“The US stopped being the nation of primary influence at the UN long, long ago.”
–not THAT long ago amigo. and it could be argued that this loss of influece has coincided with an erosion of some of our oldest and more staunchly held beliefs such as the preference of diplomacy over military intervention.
peace
“While Evangelicals may sound as if they mean well, the end goal — what they are actually praying for — is the destruction of Israel and the end of the Jews.”TS
Evangelicals are praying for the return of God’s righteousness and direct reinvolvement in human affairs. As a Catholic, welcoming THAT goal should be something you fully support.
Since the majority of evangelicals are ‘literalists’ they accept the Bible’s pronouncements at face value. ‘Revelations’ predicts a great battle in the ME as a precursor to God’s return and direct involvement in human affairs.
It is pertinent that Revelations was incorporated into the Bible prior to the Protestant reformation…
It hardly seems fair to remonstrate against evangelicals for believing in passages the Catholic church was instrumental in including in the Bible.
Many evangelicals have evolved in their perceptions past the prior views that Jews are condemnded to hell by their ‘jewishness’.
It was indeed a speaker from EyeOnTheUN who impressed me in yesterday’s comment:
(A rather collected speaker from the Hudson Institute briefly appeared on FoxNews today..)
—
JJ scares me with this:
‘It’s one accomplishment has been to legitimize the world’s bandits..’
Q: Will the UN indeed legitimise terrorism?
Nasty games persist from the insane Left blaming so much of the world’s ill on the US; or the West; or the traditional faiths of the West. What if we blame Today’s Evil on the UN?
How horrific to see unbridled despair and death in the shattered Soviet empire, Africa, the Arab world through that lens.
Or, as Bookworm poses, What monster have the Allied Powers birthed?
““The US stopped being the nation of primary influence at the UN long, long ago.” d_Brit
“–not THAT long ago amigo. and it could be argued that this loss of influece has coincided with an erosion of some of our oldest and more staunchly held beliefs such as the preference of diplomacy over military intervention.”dagon
It’s been an on again, off again thing but its safe to say that since Reagan assummed office, the UN has been independent of US influence. That’s a 26 year period, in international affairs a very long time indeed.
I would argue that ‘this loss of influence’ has coincided precisely with military intervention over ‘diplomacy’.
The effectiveness of the ‘diplomacy’ you cite is obvious to any objective evaluation and, the ‘manipulative’ efforts of the EU, Russia, China and supportive smaller nations to use ‘diplomacy’ to advance their interests over the ‘larger good’ is transparently clear for anyone with ‘eyes to see’.
“The effectiveness of the ‘diplomacy’ you cite is obvious to any objective evaluation and, the ‘manipulative’ efforts of the EU, Russia, China and supportive smaller nations to use ‘diplomacy’ to advance their interests over the ‘larger good’ is transparently clear for anyone with ‘eyes to see’.”
so what are you asserting? that diplomacy is no longer an effective tool for the us to employ?
peace
[...] Bookworm Room [...]
Don’t you like being killed with kindness book? Doesn’t the dredges of humanity in the outer colonies, in Africa and Asia, love being killed with kindness?
right on bw! nope, you’re not bloodthirsty at all.
I have enough bloodthirstiness for Book and DonQ both, they need not borrow any from their own supply banks.
the answers would be new york, the united states and the united states. WE ARE THE UN (or at least we were before diplomacy and an international standard of conduct became demonized)! the un was founded on principles based largely around what the united states intrinsically stood for in promoting world peace and oversight.
See, Book, now you can glimpse one of the reasons why I want Bolton with the evil mustachios to have plenipotentiary rights to arrest, trial, and execution concerning UN bureacrats and diplomats. The rest of the world believes the US sanctions the UN by keeping the UN close to the circles of power near our capital. What is a poor downtrodden African supposed to believe, that the US would host the capital of the UN, yet is powerless to stop the UN’s plundering of the world through the new justification of “peacekeeping”? A lot of associates on the right have told me that we should keep the UN close, because they are an enemy and we should keep our enemies closer than our friends. My answer is simple. When the enemy is in range, then so are you. Their reasoning is flawed.
As far as I can tell (in all of my years attending catechism) Catholics don’t buy the idea of the Rapture and all that goes with it. I never heard of any of this stuff until I got to know a zealot or two.
Why do I call them zealots? Because they were so sure that they were right, and everyone else was wrong, that they had become blind to the notion that there are different interpretations of the Book of Revelation.
(As this link proves, one man’s prophecy is another man’s “crock.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Soem_Christians_see_Biblical_endtimes_0725.html
If people start getting Raptured, I’ll change my beliefs. Til then, I’ll remain leery of Evangelicals, or any organization that lays claim to Absolute (yet highly suspect)Truth.
T.S.:
How did you manage to turn a post about the evil done by the UN into a rant against Evangelicals? Catholicism, in case you weren’t paying attention to your catechism, also “lays claim to Absolute Truth”. So does every other organization, religious or not, that has ever existed. Even the statement, “There is no absolute truth” is a claim that THAT is Absolute Truth.
I think you should learn a bit more about Evangelicals before you slander them with such accusations as their wanting to destroy the Jews. They do not want to destroy anyone.
The “Left Behind” series, which you admit you have not read, is a work of fiction. It is not a statement of Church policy.
(By the way, I am not myself an Evangelical.)
Zealots are not people who believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Zealots are people who believe that they are right, and anyone who disagree should be considered for extra-judicial execution. Zealots are also not afraid of risking their life to do the deed, either.
Zealotry originally was about… something or the other.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/why-dennis-prager-and-i-like-admire-and-respect-evangelicals/#comment-6569
Btw, here’s a link back to the argument.
Mea Culpa for the triple posts, but inspiration is low set at my heels today.
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-hath-un-wrought.html
I just checked and neo neocon has a post about once loving the UN too. Bookworm and Neo sometimes post in such in-sync phase shifts that I am considering re-evaluating telepathy amongst females.
I’ll cross link your post to her comment section. I like synergy. Maybe because I always get this visualization of arterial blood when I think about it.
No, wait, it was seeing neurons. I only visualize arterial blood spurting when I hear stories about injustices.
TS Said:
“If people start getting Raptured, I’ll change my beliefs. Til then, I’ll remain leery of Evangelicals..”
Sorry TS — you’ll be too late.
I have a recent post on Israel and Her Land.. in which I mention the Rapture.
http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/
TS further says:
“While Evangelicals may sound as if they mean well, the end goal — what they are actually praying for — is the destruction of Israel and the end of the Jews.”
Couldn’t be further from the truth.. True Christians love the Jews and Israel.
We pray for Israel and the Peace of Jerusalem.
ExPreacherman
Postscript:
The UN is an enemy of the United States.. and has been since the inception.
I’ve followed carefully the treacherous business of the UN since 1950..
Best thing we could do is stop UN support– it is bankrupt anyway (morally and financially). Sell the property on Turtle Bay and give the $$$ back to American citizens.
ExPreacherMan
How did you manage to turn a post about the evil done by the UN into a rant against Evangelicals? — trish
I was responding to Bookworm’s opening line and Evangelical’s views on the anti-christ. the Left Behind books popularlize the notion of the antichrist being the head of the UN.
“Catholicism, in case you weren’t paying attention to your catechism, also “lays claim to Absolute Truth”. — Trish
Actually, I attended a Jesuit College and was taught that the search for the Truth is ongoing and that the very act of questioning fortifies, rather than reduces, Faith. Evangelicals take a rather concrete look at the books of the Bible and say “This is the Truth.”
To them, Israel and the Jews are goners. Which is an unfortunate byproduct of the unwavering Truth. It’s going to happen. There is nothing anyone can do. The Jews are an important part of the play, but they disappear in the forth act.
“I think you should learn a bit more about Evangelicals before you slander them with such accusations as their wanting to destroy the Jews. They do not want to destroy anyone.”
They believe that the antichrist will destroy Isreal as part of the deal for Christ’s return. And the remaining Jews must convert or perish. They believe it. And yes, many appear to long for it. Some must die so that they may be saved. What am I missing?
I’ve read TONS of articles on the Left Behind books, the underlying theology and on Rev. LaHaye, Beverly LaHaye et al. I’ve also read excerpts from the books.
My stomach turns. I read enough to sense a real mean-spiritedness behind it.
Yes, the Left Behind books are fiction, but the theology is not. And don’t kid yourself. The LaHayes have buttloads of clout.
TS, as for your comments on the Evangelicals: I think not. You may be analyzing yourself.
TS Said:
“If people start getting Raptured, I’ll change my beliefs. Til then, I’ll remain leery of Evangelicals..”
Sorry TS — you’ll be too late.
Question: Can Jews be “raptured”? Or do they have to change their faith and accept Jesus as their personal savior first?
Show me where anyone can be “raptured” and enter the kingdom of heaven (without accepting Jesus as their personal savior) and I’ll freely admit I got it all wrong.
I see Evangelicals as expecting Jews, Catholics and others to think as they do – or accept some rather horrid consequences.
The Future will unfold as they see it and that’s all there is to it.
The U.N. is worthless, since it equates the leaders of free and democratic countries with oppressive and tyrannical dictators.
That and that alone, ought to make it clear to everyone in the free (and not so free) world that the U.N. is irrelevant.
If the U.N. is all about keeping peace, then why does it still allow brutal dictatorships to exist?
Why does it allow genocides to occur? Why does it not condemn Hamas, but it will condemn Israel, given any opportunity?
If the U.N. stands for peace, then why does it allow dictators to violate and mock resolutions that it has made, without response, yet when a country like the U.S., who actually has the power to enforce the resolutions, is condemned? In other words, why does the U.N. criticize the U.S. for protecting and enforcing the resolutions and international laws that the U.N. makes to begin with?
The U.N. is a body which does not substantiate its words with actions. It’s a case of actions vs. words. Without actions to back up the words, what good are the words? Anyone can flap their jaws, but when real action is needed, where is the U.N.? They are condemning those who take action!
“so what are you asserting? that diplomacy is no longer an effective tool for the us to employ?”dagon
Most of the time, yes and most especially when dealing with fanatical regimes. Include with that group countries that are willing to see the world turn into a much nastier place in order for them to advance narrow self-interests.
Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, France, etc. welcome ‘negotiations’ because it plays right into the lets-talk-but-not-really-do anything-to-change-the-status-quo game they are playing. They are laughing all the way to the ‘bank’.
That kind of ‘diplomacy’ is a fools game.
“Show me where anyone can be “raptured” and enter the kingdom of heaven (without accepting Jesus as their personal savior) and I’ll freely admit I got it all wrong. I see Evangelicals as expecting Jews, Catholics and others to think as they do – or accept some rather horrid consequences. The Future will unfold as they see it and that’s all there is to it.” TS
It’s undeniable that many evangelicals hold that view.
That said, many other evangelicals do not strictly hold that view.
It’s a matter of discernment in understanding.
You are somewhat misstating Evangelical views. It isn’t thinking as they do that they expect. It’s accepting Jesus or more accurately, his message as the ‘door’ to salvation.
Certainly Catholics accept Jesus as their savior and lord. Guess what? By Evangelicals own reasoning, they get ‘in’! As by definition, catholics have accepted the ‘truth’ of Jesus.
As for Jews, its all about the ‘message’. So working within the evangelical context, if a Jew fully embraces Jesus’ message of love, then whether consciously stating acceptance of Jesus the person, the acceptance of the message places them by his side.
Same would apply to a Buddist, Muslim or any other ‘religion’.
The fact that many or even most Evangelicals don’t see the issue this clearly, changes not at all the ‘truth’ of Jesus message, nor the pathway that he came to illuminate.
In truth it is not possible to embrace the message without embracing the messenger because Jesus fully embodied his message.
He was the message.
That and that alone, ought to make it clear to everyone in the free (and not so free) world that the U.N. is irrelevant.
Well, Brent, how do you expect people in Africa and the rest of the world without running water and sewage systems to know this? I mean, why would they believe the UN is full of not so free nations, when the UN is in New York of all places. The prestige of America prevents the UN from becoming irrelevant.
People at neo neocon are still even today, using the flawed false logic that you keep your enemes, the UN, close than your friends. An unreasonable rationalization.
I only say that Brent will find it hard to convince people on the fence that what he says is true. regardless of the fact that I believe what he says it is true, it is very difficult on a propaganda level to convince others of the truth when the UN sits in New York enjoying both the political and military protection of the leader of the free world.
On this level, American criticism of the UN has zero credibility amongst the masses of the world. That is why the first step, de facto, has to be to kick the UN out of American soil. It’s not so clear to anyone that the UN is irrelevant. The propaganda value the UN has of claiming that they enjoy American protection is on the same level of Arab dictators saying that they have American protection, so go hate Amis and kill them instead of you know who.
The UN was, is, and always will be an anti-Semitic, anti-American “think” tank. Like you, Bookworm, I once had faith in it. No more. Frankly, I wish that the organization would be kicked out of NYC. Let it go to Europe, where they love it so much………..
The truth is,in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.What i do know is that evangelicals that i know dont hate jews or want them to be destroyed.They have a great concern for what they believe to be GODS chosen people.If you hate them than you cant call yourself a true believer.It states clearly in the bible that GOD chose them above all to be his children and that he loves them deeply.If your a christian and you hate jews then you are in direct contradiction with GOD.Not a place you would want to be if you are chritian, catholic evangelical or otherwise.
The truth is,in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.What i do know is that evangelicals that i know dont hate jews or want them to be destroyed.They have a great concern for what they believe to be GODS chosen people.If you hate them than you cant call yourself a true believer.It states clearly in the bible that GOD chose them above all to be his children and that he loves them deeply.If your a christian and you hate jews then you are in direct contradiction with GOD.Not a place you would want to be if you are christian, catholic evangelical or otherwise.