It Still Fails
The new and unimproved UN Human Rights Council still does absolutely nothing but condemn Israel.
I feel like this is the sort of event which creates the cognitive dissonance over Israel. Israel critics note that the American political establishment is reasonably unified in support of Israel, and get annoyed when pro-Israel speakers condemn certain assaults on the Jewish state. Every critique of Israel is anti-Semitic! But the problem is that the folks who are doing the critiquing are institutions like the UNHRC, which is so virulent and so one-sided that there really isn’t any other explanation but anti-Semitism. I think there needs to be a qualitative difference between fair-handed analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (which will of course include criticisms of Israel), and the type of bile being spewed from Geneva. If folks expect me to think their analysis is coming from the former vantage point, I better hear them condemning the latter.
19 Responses to “It Still Fails”
“I feel like this is the sort of event which creates the cognitive dissonance over Israel.”
No, what creates “the cognitive dissonance over Israel” are Israel’s warmongering actions, which can only be defended by peopel who don’t care about the rights of non-jews.
“unimproved”
Correct me if I’m wrong: It was the US’ very own decision not to join this commission, right? So, how do the US think this council will ever improve? That’s just whiny fingerpointing.
Yes, because that completely responded to the analysis I gave.
At this point, I’d settle for “addressed at all.”
Even if one believes that “Israel’s warmongering actions” are the primary cause of the conflict, that doesn’t explain why the UNHRC doesn’t also condemn, say, Sudan, for committing GENOCIDE (remember that?).
“If folks expect me to think their analysis is coming from the former vantage point, I better hear them condemning the latter.”
Still holding….
Correction, you’re wrong: The UNHRC’s membership is set by election.
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
Ah yes, Israeli warmongering. Like their aggressive invasions in 67 and 73 and their deliberate targeting of civilians with suicide bombings. Oh wait….
Look, the reality is that Israel is no more a “warmongering” aggressor than the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors. If the balance of military power between Israel and its enemies were switched do you really think the result would be peaceful coexistence? Or a pogrom like the world has never seen?
Israel is far from blameless for many of it’s actions, but too many, like those at the UN, Israel’s enemies as angelic freedom fighters. The sad fact is that if the Palestinians had turned to nonviolent change they’d probably have much of what they want right now.
“The US State Department announced on Tuesday that for the second year in a row, America will not seek a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.”
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1752
There would have been enough votes from western democracies to get the US in, David. They deliberately didn’t want to.
I checked the news before posting.
“Like their aggressive invasions in 67 and 73″
56 aggressive. 67 ‘preemptive’.
“The sad fact is that if the Palestinians had turned to nonviolent change they’d probably have much of what they want right now.”
They tried this way with Oslo. Israel didn’t stop the illegal settlements.
(snark) Those evil brown Ayrabs are just as bad as those Green Irish. Those Pope hating Orangemen kill civilians and use human shields.
Gray, the reason we didn’t seek the seat is because we wouldn’t have gotten it. It takes a minimum of 96 votes in the GA to approve a seat–even if western democracies would vote for us (and I’m not convinced they would, since we’d be competing with other democracies who are less polarizing), that isn’t enough to top the 96 vote threshold (tragically, I do not believe there are 96 western democracies). The US simply wouldn’t have gotten that many votes. And to be fair, even if we had gotten it, we’d be ineffectual–all we’d do is replace another democratic state b/c of the regional weighting. So our presence or absence would be relatively meaningless.
Oh, and one last thing. In the immediate aftermath of Oslo, Palestinian terror attacks rose. And by rose, I mean “spiked.” From 1967 through 1997, the four most lethal years of Palestinian terror were (in order) 1996, 1994, 1993, and 1995. The Oslo accords were signed in September of 1993. So the Palestinians hardly “tried” peace, in the aftermath of Oslo. They nakedly flouted Oslo’s mandates while actually stepping up terrorist attacks.
But nevertheless, this remains dumb. The UN should not need to be babysat by the US to not be virulently anti-Semitic. Only criticizing Israel while ignoring genocide in Darfur and mass killings in Congo qualifies. All you’re doing is acting as an apologist for it.
“Gray, the reason we didn’t seek the seat is because we wouldn’t have gotten it.”
Thx for the point, David. This sounds convincing, I guess you’re right. Sry, I didn’t get this idea. This wasn’t reported in the news at all, the damn MSM just parroted the ‘official’ explanation. |-(
“From 1967 through 1997, the four most lethal years of Palestinian terror were (in order) 1996, 1994, 1993, and 1995. The Oslo accords were signed in September of 1993. So the Palestinians hardly “triedâ€? peace, in the aftermath of Oslo.”
It’s not been THE Palestinians who didn’t try peace, it’s been extremist groops like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad which opposed the treaty and tried to sabotage it with terror acts. And actually the first Intifada, the widespread uprising against Israeli occupation, that was supported by large parts of the population, ended with Oslo. However, the Oslo agreement gained traction despite the bombing acts. It was the Assasination of Rabin and the weak leadership of Peres that killed it. While Bibi Netanyahu paid lip services tp peace, under his helm illegal settlements in the occupied territories flourished (which was contrary to everything Oslo was trying to accomplish) giving Arafat sincere doubts about Israeli honesty and weakening his power among the Palestinians. This helped more militant, anti-Israel groups like Hamas to gain numbers.
Regarding your numbers, where did you get them? The official statistic of the Israel Ministry of foreign affairs looks different:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terrorism+deaths+in+Israel+-+1920-1999.htm
Pls note that the highest casualties were in ’91, before Oslo, and that the post-Oslo numbers aren’t different from some years in the late 50s, late 60s, and the 70s.
And just for comparison: Israeli human rights group B’tselem claimed that 1479 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis between 1987 and 1997. Violence isn’t a one way street in Israel and Palestine. There isn’t an innocent party in this conflict.
I think we have to separate Israel’s policy decisions from the problems with the Human Rights Commission. IMO both Israel and the Palestinians have dug themselves into a dead end, winner take all position, which keeps their populations at perpetual war and risk.
The Human Rights Commission is another matter. There was an attempt to reform it for a very good reason. It can’t have any credibility if the some of the worst human rights offenders are on the commission issuing judgments on others.
The reform was only minutely successful, and their focus is till severely skewed. The Arab nations vote as a bloc and pretty much control the agenda. Their focus on Israel is disproportionate to the array of human rights violations around the globe.
It is inaccurate to say, however, that criticizing Israel is all that they do.
They do report on situations around the globe.
The larger question concerns the effectiveness of their reports and the effectiveness of the UN in general in bringing about positive change.
Even a narrow issue like cluster bombs gets stuck in arguments and fails to go forward.
My hat is off to those officials who keep on trying and working despite the awesome obstacles.
“IMO both Israel and the Palestinians have dug themselves into a dead end, winner take all position, which keeps their populations at perpetual war and risk.”
I used to share this opinion, but then Israel gave back Gaza. That was a colossal act of good intentions, and it brought nothing in return. It’s the Palestinians who seem to be currently incapable of making peace overtures, not the Israelis.
“56 aggressive. 67 ‘preemptive’.”
Well I most certainly do think the ’67 war was pre-emptive. Egypt, Syria and Jordan had all massed troops on the borders with Israel and were calling for the destruction of Israel on public airwaves. They were hardly smooth about it, and the rhetoric being used was as always pretty hard to misinterpret.
Also, lets not forget the 1948 war of aggression from Israel’s neighbors, once again with the express goal, also loudly and publicly claimed by the Arab League, of wiping out every man, woman and child in Israel.
Brian-
“but then Israel gave back Gaza.”
——
Sometimes it’s not what you do but how you do it. It’s the same as when I criticize Bush for how he frames policies.
The Gaza evcuation was unilateral with little or no consultation with Abbas. A huge opportunity was lost for propping up Abbas as a leader, which is important because he is more promissing than Hamas. Consequently, the evacuation was not seen by Palestinians as a gift but as yet another exercise in ‘we’ll do with you what we want.”
Of course, no one can say what would have happened if things had been handled with more finesse. Unfortuanely, we’ll never find out now.
At any rate, it was another opportunity lost for cooperation, and the opportunities are not infinite in number.
I am very aware of the threats that Israel faces.
I am very aware of the threat of terrorism around the globe.
It is important to keep a cool head in dealing with threats, so that our actions don’t opportunities for improvement are not lost.
the last sentence should be: …so that opportunieis for improvement are not lost.
Sorry.
This latest conduct by the UN is odious, but is no surprise, given how much the UN has degenerated in modern times. (Interestingly, this is parallel to what happened to liberalism in the Western world and you often see the General Assembly in particular engaged in all kinds of nonsense only a radical would love.) The UN is thoroughly filled with the kind of politics it was supposed to rise above and replace (made much worse by those post-1960s leftist politics), and is now predictably anti-Israel, anti-USA, anti-Western. The hatred of Israel (while criminals like terrorists and their state sponsors are defended and even lauded) is evil but sadly is predictable.
> I feel like this is the sort of event which creates the cognitive dissonance over
> Israel.
The dishonest and hypocritical treatment of Israel is transparent to those of us who know and are better. However, a lot of people are confused, not so much by the UN’s antics, as by biased to outright dishonest treatment of Israel by the media as well as by so many left-wing commentators (who would have done Herr Goebbels as well as Herr Himmler proud). If anything, the pathological as well as wrongful attitude and attacks toward Israel are even worse in Europe (where the media are often more liberal than the liberal US media) than in the USA. I’m even seeing false anti-Israel statements here in this thread.
Also,
> IMO both Israel and the Palestinians have dug themselves into a dead end,
> winner take all position
There is no moral equivalence, and Israel has a long, agonizing history of nearly 100% one-way concessions. It does not dissuade the hatred, the desired genocide, the diabolical nature of Israel’s evil enemies; if anything, it whets their appetite and aggression as it is perceived as weakness as well as (every concession being seen as a) victory for Israel’s enemies.