The Moral Vertigo of Ban Ki-Moon
But why does the secretary-general of the United Nations have to hop on this blood-soaked bandwagon? Speaking Monday in Switzerland, where he has been immersed in such matters as "climate change" and Switzerland's support for the renovation of the UN's luxurious digs at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Ban Ki-Moon delivered himself of the following statement on the swap of the parade of Palestinian terrorists for the kidnapped Israeli soldier:
The recent announcement, particularly on this exchange of prisoners -- that is very welcome. And I sincerely hope that this will give some positive momentum for their relationship for peace and security.
One need not question Ban's sincerity in this prattle about peace and security. I'm sure he would be delighted if on his watch at the UN, peace were to descend on the Middle East. But he is not a teen-age beauty contestant answering questions here about dreams for mankind. Ban is now well into his fifth year in the top job at the UN, and he was commenting on a cynical deal in which an Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorist group, in a swap for a kidnapped Israeli soldier held hostage since 2006, is now extorting a mass release of terrorists. This is "very welcome"? This will give "positive momentum" to "peace and security"? It won't even accomplish that for the Palestinians, who, to their own detriment, are led -- or, more accurately, misruled -- by gangs that thrive on hate and conflict. It won't buy peace or security for Israel. Nor will it make the world, generally, a safer place. This is a wretched set of de facto rules now being engineered for the 21st century international order. And enthroned at the United Nations, bankrolled to the gills by the U.S., is this bland international bureaucrat, lost in moral limbo, dishing out sentiments that do worse than nothing for peace, security, or even basic decency.
An obvious question follows. When the next terrorist hit on Israel takes place, will Ban's speech-writers describe him as "disappointed," or "concerned," or maybe even "deeply concerned"? Whichever it's going to be, it is horribly likely he'll be needing that statement soon. Nor, I'd wager, will he be in the least surprised.
Article printed from The Rosett Report: http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-moral-vertigo-of-ban-ki-moon