UN: Eilat Terrorist Attack Cannot Be Condemned Unless Israel Condemned For Killing The Terrorists

It's not the UN per se that stood in the way of a condemnation. Lebanon refused to allow the UN Security Council to condemn the terrorists:

Lebanon's representative to the U.N. Security Council said it would endorse a condemnation of the attacks only if the council were to condemn Israel as well, for killing the terrorists who planned the massacre.

Lebanon refused to call the attacks “terrorism,” arguing that the attacks were not legally terrorism because one of the buses the attackers fired on had been carrying soldiers.

The fact that the terrorists also fired on civilians--and shot those innocent victims at close range to ensure their deaths is apparently irrelevant.

That is the more novel approach to Israel defending itself against terrorists.
There is still the old tried and true approach, like the one taken by Norway, warning Israel not to stir things up:

“Such violence is absolutely unacceptable, and Norway condemns all use of terror. Those responsible must be brought to justice. At the same time an effort must be made to prevent a general escalation of the conflict in the area,” said [Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr] Støre.

So Israel is supposed to "bring to justice" the terrorists--leaving open the implication that an actual trial is preferred--while preventing any additional violence from breaking out.

I don't suppose it occurred to Store suggest announcing world-wide condemnations including concrete consequences for terrorist groups like Hamas for getting involved?

Instead, the West issues more words, while it waits on the sidelines, ruler in hand, waiting to rap Israel on the knuckles.

Not sure whether it's Lebanon or Store which has more chutzpah.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Norway and Lebanon and UN.