It is difficult to say that an organization that seems to have no purpose other than to promote hypocrisy could possibly be embarrassed by a report by one of its committees, but this one actually should. As noted by my friend Rabbi Micky Boyden of We Are For Israel here, the UNHRC commission had biases that made it and make it impossible for Israel to conduct any legitimate defensive measures regarding Gaza in its view. The problem, for those who will jump to the defense of the UNHRC, is that the UNHRC believes that Israel should not be able to defend itself against attacks coming from Gaza or the West Bank, or for that matter, anywhere at all. This is proven by the simple fact that it condemns every effort to stop violence by preventing the importation of weaponry.
We can continue to pretend that the UN is concerned with “disproportionate force” which in this case was not used, if we wish to do so. Yet anyone who understands what occurred on the flotilla or anyone who has even seen the BBC documentary on the events will tell you that it was only through extreme skill that only nine militants were killed. Or we can admit the truth of the matter, which is that the UNHRC would condemn Israel for using a wet noodle in response to attacks that kill its civilians because the wet noodle would make those trying to harm Israel uncomfortably wet.
I am not saying that Gazans are not suffering, they are. Nor am I saying that conflict and violence are not bad. I’m not arguing that Israel should use more force. What I would argue is that if indeed the people of Gaza would like to improve their lives, perhaps making peace with Israel would serve that purpose better than trying to break the blockade so as to import more and better weaponry. That the UN is not arguing this point exactly is demonstrative of its greatest failing, an inability to deal with reality, especially when it comes to Israel.
This report functionally undermines the ability of any nation to enforce its defense against those pledged to harm it and who are actively seeking arms to do so. The UNHRC believes that Israel has no “legal right” to blockade Gaza. This is beyond asinine. A nation has every legal right to enforce a blockade if such a blockade is necessary for defensive purposes. Clearly the importation of massive amounts of rockets and large scale ammunition would make it so necessary. The overt declaration of the flotilla as humanitarian was but a ploy, a lure, swallowed whole and with joy by the UNHRC. The medical supplies were not even usable as shown in BBC documentary. The flotilla’s purpose was clearly to break the blockade so as to allow future vessels to travel unimpeded, thus enabling them to deliver anything desired, including weaponry.
The only reason that ships need to reach Gaza directly are to deliver to Gaza items for which Israel would refuse entry over land, such as weaponry or militants. In fact, the action of trying to break such a blockade is an act of war no matter what the cargo.
I believe that rather than trying to reform the UNHRC through its radiant presence while watching the council undermine every value for which it theoretically stands, the United States should actively pursue dismantling the council, perhaps creating a new one for which participation requires that a nation be a democracy that does not discriminate against women or against religious or ethnic minorities. Otherwise, we can stop pretending that human rights apply to all human beings and that this council is anything but a forum for the pontification of values for which we do not stand as Americans and against which our nation has lost many a life in battle.
Hag Sameach, by the way.
The only problem with setting up a new council to replace the UNHRC is that the current one was only established in March 2006 to take the place of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which had been heavily criticized for allowing countries with poor human rights records to be members. Changing the name did not change anything and the UN clearly does not have the moral integrity to call its own members to task – except, of course, if it happens to be Israel!
Amen v’amen.
“one for which participation requires that a nation be a democracy that does not discriminate against women or against religious or ethnic minorities.”
OK, that would exclude four out of five states in the world and all Muslim countries. Somehow I don’t think you’ll find a UN majority to vote to exclude themselves from such a committee. How about just dismantling the UN as a whole? Then we could start over wiht an organization of halfway decent countries, associated by invitation only. Or just forget about it, and use traditonal bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. So far the League of Nations has failed and the UN has failed, both making things worse than they were before.
I would argue that the US needs to establish a new organization, not that it should work through the UN. The UN is marginally good at directing humanitarian relief and dealing with health concerns. It is terrible at dealing with political conflicts because it is on everyone’s side. Problems are still dealt with in reality, outside of the UN anyway, according to how the US, Russia, and China feel that they should be addressed, possibly with only one of the three in favor. Is the UN responsible for the fact that there has been no major war since WWII? I would say that it is not, that instead it is the United States, if not alone then with limited help from the UK and France, who is responsible and that the expansion of the UN to include nations that clearly do not stand for the principles upon which the UN was established has undermined most of the functions of the UN to the point of making it not only ineffective, but rendering it an impediment to achieving those goals.
I wonder why no major party candidate for US President has ever suggested putting our ‘donation’ to the U.N. into an escrow account. Which can be drawn on ONLY if – not likely – the UN reforms itself. Why on earth should we Americans have to pay for the anti-Democratic screeds by the dictators of the world. Surely Bill Ayers doesn’t have THAT much influence over President Obama.