United Nations Anti-Semitism

Another devastating video, via Anne Bayefsky, at Big Peace, "The UN’s Anti-Semitism Agenda on Display in ‘Durban III’":

PREVIOUSLY: "United Nations Bias Against Israel."

'Climate Justice'

Climate justice?

That's a scam right? There's no such thing as "climate justice," right?

Think again, at Pirate's Cove, "Apparently, 4.5 Billion Years Of Changing Climate Threatens “Human Rights”." Follow the links to the discussion of "restorative justice" for "those countries worst affected by the issue..." And "those countries" would be the LCDs, in the latest round of the global left's developmental shakedown regime.

RELATED: From Zombie, "Justice Justice."

To the Shores of Tripoli

From Robert Kagan, at Weekly Standard:

... the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally. It is a shame that some administration officials are trying to downplay the role of the United States in this whole affair, absurdly trying to turn the “leading from behind” gaffe into a kind of Obama doctrine. In fact, the United States was not “leading from behind.” By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Ben ghazi massacred.



That American choice was the turning point. All praise to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron for being ahead of the president in seeing the need for armed action—just as Margaret Thatcher was ahead of George H.W. Bush in seeing the need for action against Saddam Hussein in 1990. But here is the plain and critical truth of the matter: None of this could have been done without the United States leading the way.



Only the United States has the military capacity, the weaponry, the surveillance technology, and the skill to open a safe path for the air and ground war against Qaddafi’s forces. France and Britain alone would not and probably could not have done the job without unacceptable risk to their forces, which were very thin to begin with. In the early days, especially, American A-10 and AC-130 ground attack aircraft were critical in pummeling Qaddafi’s armored vehicles and forcing them to halt offensives against rebel positions. In the last days of the conflict, American high-tech surveillance allowed the rebels to pinpoint the positions of Qaddafi forces in and around Tripoli. Throughout months of fighting, prowling American Predator drones forced Qaddafi and his men to keep their heads down.



The president and his secretary of state also carried out an adept diplomacy that eventually garnered not only European but, remarkably, Arab support as well. This in turn forced both Russia and China—fearful of Arab wrath—to acquiesce. There were costs, of course: a U.N. resolution inadequate to the task at hand and the usual problem of trying to keep many players on board during a mission. On balance, however, it was worth it. The administration was surely right that the intervention would be more effective if it did not appear to be exclusively an American operation and that the combination of European and Arab support for removing Qaddafi was enough of a prize to warrant some compromises.



But the larger point is that, again, only the United States could have pulled all these disparate political and regional forces together. No other nation, not France, not Great Britain, not even a united EU (which German opposition prevented) could have managed this global diplomatic task. In this allegedly “post-American” world, the United States remains both indispensable and irreplaceable.

That's a dramatically different take than Max Boot's, "Did Libya Vindicate 'Leading From Behind'?" Boot doesn't love America's reserve role in these interventions, especially since success requires American military power to begin with. Why shrug off our leadership role and argue "we've got your back"? Kagan just calls it an American victory no matter how you slice it. But all along I've found Victor Davis Hanson's arguments to be the most compelling, which hold, for example, that the Obama administration hadn't the slightest clue about toppling Gaddafi, as evidenced by the administration's pathetic flip-flopping on the goal of regime change or not.



In any case, Kagan and Boot agree on one thing: The war's not over yet.

Libya War Not Yet Over

Well, I need to start watching MSNBC more often. I just love Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis at STRATFOR:

And at Telegraph UK, "Gaddafi releases new audio message," and "Gaddafi vows to 'let Libya burn' as he defies calls for surrender."



Plus, "Libya: rebels prepare to seize Bani Walid."

Israel Largely Vindicated by U.N. Marmara Report: Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Threatens Legal Reprisals

At New York Times, "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid." The report was issued last month but its release delayed while Ankara and Jerusalem sought to patch up differences. Good luck with that, it turns out. See Israel Matzav, "Turkey expels Israeli envoy," and Jerusalem Post, "Turkey vows legal action against Israelis involved in raid":

Turkey said on Friday it will seek to prosecute all Israelis responsible for crimes committed during an Israeli raid on a ship bound for the Gaza Strip that killed nine Turks in May 2010.



"Turkey will take legal actions against the Israeli soldiers and all other officials responsible for the crimes committed and pursue the matter resolutely," Turkey's embassy in Washington said in a statement.



The threat follows a UN report that confirmed the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza but said Israel had used unreasonable force in the raid. Both Turkey and Israel disputed some of the conclusions of the so-called Palmer Report.



The names of the Israeli marines involved in the raid have not been released, so only ranking commanders overseeing the operation could be identified if Turkey follows through with the legal action.



The full text of the UN report, which was leaked on Thursday, was delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office on Friday and will soon be officially published, UN spokesman Eduardo del Buey told reporters.

Of course, Turkey would have acted precisely as Israel did if faced with the same situation. And click on that New York Times piece. Turkey's mad that Israel has the right under international law to impose a blockade.



ADDED: At Astute Bloggers, "IS ISLAMIST TURKEY ATTEMPTING TO INSTIGATE A NATO WAR AGAINST ISRAEL?‏"

Germany Pulls Out of Durban III Anti-Racism Conference

At Jerusalem Post:

BERLIN - Germany's Foreign Ministry announced on Friday that it will not take part in the UN-sponsored Durban III anti-racism conference on September 22, because of the possibility that the event can be turned into a forum for anti-Semitic statements.



In a statement to The Jerusalem Post on Friday, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said “Germany will not participate in the commemoration event for the 10th year anniversary of the Durban conference.”



He added that Germany “cannot rule out that the Durban commemoration event in New York will be misused for anti-Semitic statements, as was the case in previous conferences.”



Westerwelle continued that “therefore Germany will not participate. This is also an expression of our special responsibility toward Israel.”

You can say that again.

United Nations Bias Against Israel

Via Theo Spark, "Video: Understanding UN Bias Against Israel -- Invite to Durban 3 Protest, NYC, Sept 21":

Rebels Bust Gaddafi's Bunker

A huge report at London's Daily Mail, "Missed him by minutes: How rebels and special forces came close to snaring Gaddafi." Also at Telegraph UK, "Libya: rebels surround apartment block 'hiding' Col Gaddafi."



Plus, at LAT, "Eww! Moammar Kadafi (hearts) Condoleezza Rice." And Memeorandum.

Muammar Gaddafi On Verge of Defeat

Well, I hope this is accurate. Let's finish up with this regime change business in Libya and move on. The silver lining for the Democrats is that Obama will be able to claim some kind of victory, which will help leftist talking points, since I can't think of a least well-conceived U.S. military intervention.



Anyway, at Miami Herald, "Heavy fighting surrounds Gadhafi stronghold of Tripoli." And at Telegraph UK, "Libya: Gaddafi faces final battle as fighting erupts in Tripoli." Also, at New York Times, "Heavy Fighting Reported in Tripoli; Rebels Encircle City."

Protection Racket: 'Responsibility to Protect' Becomes a Doctrine

From Joshua Muravchik, at World Affairs:

The world has mostly enjoyed peace since 1945, but that owes nothing to the UN and everything to American power, exercised mostly in the form of guarantees to Japan, NATO, and other allies, rather than in shooting wars. In this era when violence within states is far more common than between them, cases of extreme abuse will sometimes cry out for outside intervention. But the traditional doctrine of humanitarian intervention, invoked by the United States and other democracies at their own discretion, is likely to offer a more usable basis for such action than the shiny new version called R2P, which places all authority in the paralytic hands of the United Nations Security Council.

It's a good piece. RTWT.



And recall David Rieff, at National Interest, "Saints Go Marching In."