The U.N. defines terrorism

You might be wondering what it takes for the U.N. to use the word “terrorist” when describing a deadly attack. Sure, they whipped it out on 9-11, but in general, they’ve been pretty inconsistent.

After all, Hamas and related Palestinian terror groups have:

• suicide-bombed a pizza parlor.

• bombed and shot mortars at school buses full of children.

• Stormed into people's homes and shot their babies dead.

But despite these and hundreds of similar atrocities, the U.N. still gives Palestinian terror groups a free pass. When it comes to attacks on Israelis, it seems the U.N. just can't define what "terrorism" is.

Indeed, instead of blacklisting Hamas, the U.N. puts Hamas members on the U.N. payroll and funnels money to it through Palestinian “charities”.

However, I may have discovered a surefire rule for predicting when the U.N. will feel comfortable applying the “terrorist” label. It's not all-inclusive, but it's a start.

Here it is: When the U.N. itself is attacked.

In July 2003, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a handpicked team to Iraq led by Sergio Vieira de Mello to rebuild peace. Even after the horrific terrorist bombing of the UN building in Baghdad, Mr. Annan sent in his special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to Iraq when requested by the Iraqis and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

It seems like not even the old "armed struggle for self-determination" exemption, so often used by Islamic states to justify terror attacks against Israelis, applies when the U.N. is the target.

The U.N. as a source of black-and-white moral clarity. I never thought I’d see the day.