Orwellian logic at the U.N.

The Washington Times ^ | August 1, 2007 | Herbert London

[neverdem]

In George Orwell's novel "1984," the protagonists in the totalitarian society employed "newspeak," the inversion of words to create false meaning. "War is peace," "good is bad," "moral is immoral" are merely a few of the possible inversions.

While Orwell passed this mortal coil years ago, his notion of false meaning is alive and well and residing in the United Nations.

In fact, there is scarcely a sentence uttered at this institution that isn't Orwellian. Human rights, for example, the hallmark of U.N. efforts, does nothing to promote these rights. The commission organized to promote this goal is composed of the most serious violators of freedom.

The 57 Muslim nations invariably condemn Israel as an autocratic nation occupying and dominating Arab territory in the West Bank. Yet this condemnation overlooks the fact that Arabs comprise 20 percent of Israel's population, are accorded the citizenship and rights of every Israeli and even have representation in the Knesset. By contrast, Jews are oppressed in every Arab Muslim state, are denied their right to worship and, in most cases, have been forced to emigrate.

U.N. pronouncements have indicated "Zionism is racism," while the racism or the denunciation of infidels — nonbelievers — is embraced whenever Wahhabism prevails.

At this late date, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the July 7, 2005, attacks in London and the 2004 Madrid bombings and a host of terrorist attacks all over the world, the U.N. cannot come up with a definition of terrorism, relying, instead, on the empty cliche that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Tell that to innocent women and children maimed by suicide bombers.

Terror at the U.N. is a relative term: If it leads to Jewish blood being shed or Western lives being lost, it is acceptable or, at...

[neverdem]

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of "Decade of Denial" (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2001).

United about what?

[3AngelaD]

Terror at the U.N. is a relative term: If it leads to Jewish blood being shed or Western lives being lost, it is acceptable... And so why are we still financing this anti-American, anti-Western fiasco, and allowing it to crouch on American soil?

[Red Badger]

United about what? United in their hate for Israel, The United States and Great Britain. United in their hate for Christians and Jews. United in their hate for Western ideals of freedom and liberty. United in their hate for anything or anyone that has an ounce of respect for women and children. United in their hate for the light that shines on their dark way of life...........................

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

PING

[neverdem]

ping

[sergeantdave]

“Terror at the U.N. is a relative term”

This, of course, is not entirely true. The UN and about 95% of its NGOs are peopled by totalitarians of every kind, stripe and manner.

These leftists understand and react to one of three things: Threats of violence, violence and death. So there may be relative terms at the UN, but there are absolutes that UN totalitarians completely understand and cannot avoid when put into action.

[piytar]

I’d say that Mr. London just about nails it 100% accurately. Thanks for posting the article.

[Paleo Conservative]

I’d much rather read Herbert London that Bob Herbert.

[nw_arizona_granny]

agree.

[Regulator]

There's logic of any kind at the UN, even Orwellian?

That's news to me.

[knighthawk]

At this late date, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the July 7, 2005, attacks in London and the 2004 Madrid bombings and a host of terrorist attacks all over the world, the U.N. cannot come up with a definition of terrorism, relying, instead, on the empty cliche that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Tell that to innocent women and children maimed by suicide bombers.

No more UN for US-list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thank you for the ping.

[DTA]

It is not that simple. In September 2001 W proclaimed: "You're either with us, or against us".

It was straightforward - if you support Islamic terror, you are against The United States.

But what happens when U.S. supports Islamic terror? Then all those who suport Islamic terror actually support The U.S. and those who are against U.S. suport to terrorism become against U.S.

In 2007, Islamofascist terrorists linked to AQ try to steal Christian land with the full support of The United States.

It is not Condi's blunder any longer, W has become Islamofascist supporter himself.

War on terror has become a joke. American support to Kosovo Albanian terrorists is a proof.

[lakey]

Thanks for the ping. The U.N. continues to be a useless, self-serving organization.