Video: Gillermania IV — Gillerman Takes Manhattan

posted at 7:51 pm on November 19, 2006 by Allahpundit

It’s been awhile. Gillermania III debuted on July 29th, which in blog-time is about the same lag between sequels as “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” and the one coming out next year.

The topic is the UN resolution drafted by Qatar and championed by France that “deeply deplore[d]“ the accidental Israeli shelling of an apartment building in Beit Hanoun that killed 19 people. Bolton vetoed an earlier draft when it came before the Security Council but the General Assembly passed it late Friday afternoon as a symbolic, non-binding rebuke. Language was apparently inserted at the last minute, merely as an afterthought, calling on the Palestinians to halt the firing of Qassams into Israel.

Voting no on the measure: the United States, Israel, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Canada abstained.

Gillermania was especially outraged at the French role in all this:

Gillerman is of the opinion that “what spurred the French were tensions in Lebanon. The French expressed at the UN their chagrin at Israel for the overflights of Israel Air Force jets near French army positions in southern Lebanon, which they believe jeopardized their troops.”

On Sunday morning Gillerman told Israel Radio: “If the French feel under attack then I think it would be a classic case depicted by the childhood phrase ‘the thief’s hat is on fire’ (meaning the culprit’s guilt is clear to all).”…

“Anyone who saw the French ambassador leaning over the shoulder of the Palestinian envoy during my speech realizes this is more than a reasonable effort to try pass this resolution and to force other European countries to join in on the effort,” Gillerman said.

UN cameras captured it for posterity:

france-pali.jpg

Here are highlights from his speech to the Assembly on Friday; the contempt drips from every word, especially when he addresses the French towards the end. You can watch the full clip at the UN website. Click here and fast forward to 50:00. It’s well worth 15 minutes of your time.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The French expressed at the UN their chagrin at Israel for the overflights of Israel Air Force jets near French army positions in southern Lebanon, which they believe jeopardized their troops.”

The most dangerous place in the world is between a Frenchman and the surrender flag.

DAT60A3 on November 19, 2006 at 8:01 PM

It’s been awhile. Gillermania III debuted on July 29th, which in blog-time is about the same lag between sequels as “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” and the one coming out next year.

Lucas, in an attempt to make every one of his former fans hate him with an undying passion, killed that film.

Slublog on November 19, 2006 at 8:07 PM

Dangit. First sentence is supposed to be quoted.

Slublog on November 19, 2006 at 8:08 PM

Will the U.N. become a factor in the U.S. government if the Clintons get back in the White House.

sonnyspats1 on November 19, 2006 at 9:45 PM

OK AP I comment. I had to download REALplayer to watch the UN clip but it was well worth it. Excellent fifteen minute speech. I appreciate your efforts. More need to see that speech. Disgusting lack of representation in all those empty UN seats.

infidel on November 19, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Gillerman is a hell of a speaker. As for France, I would not say a word.

Ouabam on November 19, 2006 at 10:02 PM

I love how he zeroed in on the word “occupation”. He’s absolutely right! Israel left Gaza and it’s their fault it turned into a terror base – again – because of…H.A.M.A.S.!! So, instead of roundly condemning the Palestinian “government” for doing nothing but supporting terror, France would, of course, rather pander to them. As for what the “French would do?”, the word is, surrender, of course!

P.S. Thank you Allah for the time you put into this thread! I never tire of hearing this man speak.

thedecider on November 19, 2006 at 10:12 PM

More Gillerman! Less TomKat! How many’s that make now? Jeez, I already left you a trackback!

bdfaith on November 19, 2006 at 10:18 PM

Look at this very small list of morally responsible countries. Its so depressing that the world is so indifferent to Israel’s plight. Countries not on this list won’t even offer a vote of support for the right thing, and a vote cost them nothing.

Voting no on the measure: the United States, Israel, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau

Maxx on November 19, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Comment: No more TomKat. PLEASE!!

Just sayin’

V5 on November 19, 2006 at 10:47 PM

Gillerman’s on target, as usual.

One more compelling reason for the UN moving to a country where they are truly appreciated – such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, or perhaps even Vietnam or Mexico.

and, again, pretty please – no more TomKat!

Emmett J. on November 19, 2006 at 11:02 PM

Further – No, the French wouldn’t send flowers, they’d send what seems to be their (soon to be) new President.

Which, if you think about it, sums it up totally – their philosophy, national attitude, and will.

Or lack of same in the name of PC!

Emmett J. on November 19, 2006 at 11:20 PM

Come on folks! As of this post there’s only 12 comments here. Start posting or you know what we’ll get…more TomKat. I know you don’t want that.

thedecider on November 20, 2006 at 12:01 AM

Come on folks! As of this post there’s only 12 comments here. Start posting or you know what we’ll get…more TomKat. I know you don’t want that.

thedecider on November 20, 2006 at 12:01 AM

Darn right – we sure don’t!

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:09 AM

Now there’s 13 – or 14 (with this one) – maybe we’ll get lucky.

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:09 AM

And there’ll be……………………

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:11 AM

more…………………………..

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:11 AM

TomKat!

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:11 AM

how about NO more TomKat – my boo-boo!

Emmett J. on November 20, 2006 at 12:12 AM

“Hamas” is not the word that needs to be spelled out. Try:

Pee.

Ay.

El.

Ee.

Es.

Tee.

I.

En.

I.

Ay.

En.

Es.

Shy Guy on November 20, 2006 at 12:36 AM

Canada abstained? As in Canada abstained from voting, or voted yes to the resolution? Either way I’m dissapointed.

There needs to be more Gillerman’s in the U.N.

emmaline1138 on November 20, 2006 at 2:05 AM

*sigh* He makes me want to cry. His statement about his words falling mostly on deaf ears in that chamber is heartbreaking.
I am FED UP with the feckless UN..as for the French, I have run out of disparaging comments.

labwrs on November 20, 2006 at 8:52 AM

*sigh* He makes me want to cry. His statement about his words falling mostly on deaf ears in that chamber is heartbreaking.

You beat me to it, but that’s exactly what I was going to write about.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 8:57 AM

You can’t help but feel for him and his country.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 8:57 AM

Shy Guy on November 20, 2006 at 12:36 AM

What are you spelling out? I’m lost.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 8:58 AM

What are you spelling out? I’m lost.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 8:58 AM

One last hint:

P
A
L
E
S
T
I
N
I
A
N
S

What’s that spell??!!
What’s that spell??!!
What’s that spell??!!

Shy Guy on November 20, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Ah. You were spelling phonetically.

It’s early monday morning.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 9:53 AM

Ah. You were spelling phonetically.

It’s early monday morning.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 9:53 AM

I mean you were spelling the LETTERS phonetically, just to be clear.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 9:54 AM

Gillerman is great, but why even waste ones time saying anything to the League of Nations United Nations?? When was the last time the UN was relevent? Other then our (USA) leading the way in Korea (1950-54), I can’t think of any.

opusrex on November 20, 2006 at 9:54 AM

Often I wish I could edit my posts after submitting them.

Esthier on November 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM

i love this man. i remember watching his speech to the UN when we were interupted by incoming Katyushas.

good times…

Adeptus on November 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Wow! That vid was well worth the watch. Thanks AP.

SunnyBrook on November 20, 2006 at 10:09 AM

I would watch it if it were dubbed over some Sims. Come on Allah. Help a brutha out!

Nethicus on November 20, 2006 at 10:26 AM

A pearl in the wasteland…

Entelechy on November 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM

This was a good post about Gillerman. But do you know what would make it even better/

More TomKat!

I gotta have more TomKat!

Cuz I gotta fever. And the only prescription,… is more TomKat!
.
.
.

.
OK. Enough with the gratuitous “Cowbell” references. I’m finished.

EFG on November 20, 2006 at 1:02 PM

…would the French government send flowers to their attackers?

Doubt it. Rainbow Warrior, Zaire, dozens of other adventures internationally…they don’t have that history.

Good for Gillerman. The UN is in the pocket of the anti-Semitic Left. It was founded by communists for the benefit of communism, and, as tearing the West asunder is one of the major goals of communism, ripping up Israel to tear at the United States is a goal high on the agenda.

The apparachniks and career “diplomats” in the UN and among the “non-governmental organizatins” don’t care a fit for “Palestine”. They’re a convenient tool.

Good for Gillerman. Tell it like it is.

Puritan1648 on November 20, 2006 at 1:11 PM

Gillerman: Speaking truth to weakness.

The Colossus on November 20, 2006 at 2:43 PM

The UN is filled with men and woman with low character and even lower moral fiber.

x95b10 on November 20, 2006 at 7:57 PM

Terrorists launch inaccurate rockets that randomly kill people and they are barely, if at all, condemned. Isreal uses smart weapons to specifically target the attackers and they are condemned at the slightest possibility of collateral damage.

I had a thought. Why is Isreal bothering to use smart weapons in this way? You may was well carpet bomb the area with dumb bombs no? We seem to be in a strange era of warfare where the side with technology is politically bound by rules that make them lose. Unending warfare is a worse fate then just leveling a society, establishing peace, and then letting them rebuild.

Resolute on November 20, 2006 at 9:14 PM