However, I became so infuriated when I read MJ Rosenberg’s piece in response to Goldstone’s change of heart, that I had to respond and so I wrote an article that I believe you would enjoy reading about Jew-hatred and criticism of Israel and the line between them that I believe Rosenberg and Goldstone both crossed. In it, I note ways in which criticism of Israel mirrors traditional anti-Judaism.

I believe that most Jews living today have no concept of what Jew-hatred really is. For individuals such as MJ Rosenberg to say what he does about Israel without realizing that he is simply substituting “Israel” and “Israelis” for “Jews” in age old anti-Jewish canards boggles the mind.

Rosenberg accused Israel of not caring whether or not civilians were killed because they were not Jews. The worst Jew haters in history could not have said it better. Just sick.

If you’re interested, take a look at my article.

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 second reason why this development is so important is what it tells about U.S. policy. Remember that the Obama Administration joined the UNHRC based on the explicit argument that it could moderate the radical-dominated group. This strategy has failed.

But so, on a larger-scale, is the concept that President Barack Obama’s “popularity offensive” in which he distanced himself from Israel, lavished devotion on the Palestinian cause, extolled the glories of Islam, and apologized for past U.S. policies would have some beneficial effect.

The policy has done worse than failing it has, predictably, backfired. The question is whether this will be recognized, much less reversed, by the Obama Administration.

Belatedly, the administration appears to be making an effort to change the UNHRC. Here are the statements of the administration’s nominee, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, to represent the US at the council during her Congressional testimony yesterday:

I intend to promote transparency and objectivity in all of the Council’s endeavors, and will work to ensure that greater focus is given to the most serious human rights violators. With strong U.S. leadership, the Human Rights Council can be encouraged to set priorities based on a more objective assessment of the most pressing human rights abuses and gain enhanced credibility as the lead entity for addressing global human rights concerns.

I am well aware that, if confirmed, my work as U.S. representative to the Human Rights Council will be difficult, and at times may be highly contentious. Much work needs to be done to spread a deeper understanding of, and appreciation for, human rights in all regions of our world. If confirmed, I will specifically endeavor to bring balance to the Council’s unconstructive focus on Israel, and to hold all states accountable for human rights abuses occurring in their countries.

and

As a starter I would say that the Obama Administration intended to signal its desire to engage in multilateral organizations by choosing to run for membership of this organization, and, more importantly, to signal the importance of human rights to the United States of America and the focus of human rights in the administrationâ€s foreign policy.

So that was the overarching goal. Without a doubt, this entity has been fixated on Israel. And I would make it a very important goal of mine if confirmed to convey that the Human Rights Council is not the venue for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You sounded like you were a bit concerned about the way I worded the phrase about bias against Israel. Israel is the only country that has a standing item on the agenda at the council. Thatâ€s a problem. We will work to get rid of that.

Since the council was created in 2006, there have been more than 20 resolutions passed on Israel alone. And thatâ€s more than the total number of resolutions on the 191 other member nations in the United Nations combined.

Hillel Neuer is encouraged:

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said he “welcomed the firm U.S. commitment to combat the selectivity and politicization at the council, and the impunity it grants to the worst abusers. The councilâ€s perversion of its founding principles continues to cast a shadow upon the reputation of the United Nations as a whole,” said Neuer.

“We trust that the European Union and other democracies will rally behind the new priority of the U.S. government to eliminate Agenda Item 7 – the permanent singling-out Israel for discriminatory treatment at every council session — and thereby achieve real change in Geneva, allowing victims of violations around the world to finally be heard.”

I hope this isn’t just wishful thinking. After all the EU is implicated in promoting the most damaging anti-Israel NGOs. Few EU countries voted against the Goldstone report. In other words, the UNHRC really seems to be consistent with the EU’s warped values. I hope that Dr. Donohoe does what she says she will, but I don’t know that anyone can change the corrupted culture of the council.

FOX News offers a background of Amb. Donohoe.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Sing it with me, folks:

99 UNHRC demands, 99 UN demands
Take one down and pass it around
98 UNHRC demands

98 UNHRC demands, 98 UN demands
Take one down and pass it around
97 UNHRC demands

97 UNHRC demands, 97 UN demands
Take one down and pass it around
96 UNHRC demands

Or, if you’re into Europop:

99 UN demands
Thrown against the Jewish State
99 UN demands
Think Israel will hesitate

Oh, forget it. I hate Europop, and that song sucked back when it was a hit. Let’s go back to the first one.

96 UNHRC demands, 96 UN demands
Take one down and pass it around
95 UNHRC demands

I think I’ll teach it to my nephew this weekend and see if he’ll teach it to his friends on the schoolbus. He’s in the gifted program. He gets this stuff better than the morons in the UNHRC.

A more serious post on this to follow.