Bush Shows Chutzpah in Dealings With the U.N.

By Gus Tyler

Published September 05, 2003, issue of September 05, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

The bombing of the United Nations’ headquarters in Iraq opens up a new chapter in the strained relationship between the United States and the U.N.

It began with the charge of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was violating a provision under a U.N. agreement that forbade his (Hussein’s) building weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. Security Council responded by calling for a stepped-up investigation by U.N. inspectors to determine whether the charge about weapons was valid.

President Bush brushed the requirement aside and went to war against Iraq on the theory that someday he would discover weapons of mass destruction — the equivalent of sentencing a man to death for committing a murder because the accuser knows that someday he will.

On May 1, our president proclaimed that the war was over, and that we would begin to reconstruct Iraq. The U.N., letting bygones be bygones, offered to help in the reconstruction. If Bush had accepted, some of the cost of reconstruction would be carried by the U.N. and its members — like France and Germany — and Bush could ultimately get out of the Iraqi morass by placing more and more of the responsibility for postwar reconstruction on the shoulders of the U.N. — an organization that has multiple agencies with decades of experience in dealing with human suffering in the fields of healthcare, housing, education, childcare, medicine, financial assistance, etc.

But, alas, Bush said “no thank you” to the U.N. — Uncle Sam would be in charge of Iraq’s future and no partners were welcome. Then came the attack on the U.N. headquarters in Iraq. The U.N. now had a compelling reason to take action in Iraq. Apparently, the American operation was unable to provide protection for the U.N. This was a moment for the U.N. to join with the United States and Britain to provide both military and humanitarian aid in Iraq.

Bush responded that he would welcome the U.N.’s cooperation. He proposed that the U.N. Security Council call upon its member nations to make troops available — troops that would operate under American command. But the U.N. per se would not be in the picture.

Imagine what this means. The U.N. would call upon its members to provide troops to serve under the command of the United States. On the U.N. Security Council issuing such a call would be France and Germany and Russia, among others. They opposed American entry into the war in Iraq. They believed the American action was a gross mistake and was a slap in the U.N.’s face. Can we expect these nations now to reverse their judgment and make their boys available to serve under American command?

What word, one wonders, is appropriate to describe Bush’s conduct? Some suggest words like “unilateralism,” “hubris” or “arrogance.” May we suggest a popular English word drawn from the Yiddish lexicon. It is “chutzpah,” a word easier to describe than define. For instance, as one story goes, a young man was found guilty of murdering his parents. The young man pleads for clemency. When the judge asks why, he replies: “Please remember, your honor, I am now an orphan.” That is chutzpah!






Find us on Facebook!
  • The rose petals have settled, and Andi has made her (Jewish?) choice. We look back on the #Bachelorette finale:
  • "Despite the great pain and sadness surrounding a captured soldier, this should not shape the face of this particular conflict – not in making concessions and not in negotiations, not in sobering assessments of this operation’s achievements or the need to either retreat or move forward." Do you agree?
  • Why genocide is always wrong, period. And the fact that some are talking about it shows just how much damage the war in Gaza has already done.
  • Construction workers found a 75-year-old deli sign behind a closing Harlem bodega earlier this month. Should it be preserved?
  • "The painful irony in Israel’s current dilemma is that it has been here before." Read J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis of the conflict:
  • Law professor Dan Markel waited a shocking 19 minutes for an ambulance as he lay dying after being ambushed in his driveway. Read the stunning 911 transcript as neighbor pleaded for help.
  • Happy birthday to the Boy Who Lived! July 31 marks the day that Harry Potter — and his creator, J.K. Rowling — first entered the world. Harry is a loyal Gryffindorian, a matchless wizard, a native Parseltongue speaker, and…a Jew?
  • "Orwell would side with Israel for building a flourishing democracy, rather than Hamas, which imposed a floundering dictatorship. He would applaud the IDF, which warns civilians before bombing them in a justified war, not Hamas terrorists who cower behind their own civilians, target neighboring civilians, and planned to swarm civilian settlements on the Jewish New Year." Read Gil Troy's response to Daniel May's opinion piece:
  • "My dear Penelope, when you accuse Israel of committing 'genocide,' do you actually know what you are talking about?"
  • What's for #Shabbat dinner? Try Molly Yeh's coconut quinoa with dates and nuts. Recipe here:
  • Can animals suffer from PTSD?
  • Is anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism?
  • "I thought I was the only Jew on a Harley Davidson, but I was wrong." — Gil Paul, member of the Hillel's Angels. http://jd.fo/g4cjH
  • “This is a dangerous region, even for people who don’t live there and say, merely express the mildest of concern about the humanitarian tragedy of civilians who have nothing to do with the warring factions, only to catch a rash of *** (bleeped) from everyone who went to your bar mitzvah! Statute of limitations! Look, a $50 savings bond does not buy you a lifetime of criticism.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.