Human Rights Council’s Criticism Of Israel Unjustified
Comments (2)
United Nations (Creative Commons)
A cache of weapons was found on the Mavi Marmara. Financing was subsidized by a Turkish charity said to have ties to terror groups. Insani Yardim Vakfi, or IHH, has aided Islamic Totalitarian organizations including Hamas, and is believed to have ties to global jihadist organizations. The “peace activists” on board the ship, who invoked the massacre of the Jews in Khaibar in their chants, sailed to the region with an intent to do harm and garner media attention for the specific purpose of breaching and ending the blockade. Since all of the other vessels peaceably cooperated with Israeli authorities and docked at Ashkelon to have their cargo inspected and thereafter have it transported by truck to Gaza, it stands to reason that those aboard the Mavi Marmara had an entirely different agenda.
Furthermore, Israel lawfully controls traffic both in and out of Gaza from the Mediterranean and Negev. Foreign humanitarian goods are allowed into the region despite the 15,000 tons of aid subsidized by the Israeli taxpayer that is shipped to Gaza from Israel on a weekly basis. Israel is not the only country in the region to impose a blockade on Hamas-controlled Gaza. Egypt has imposed a similar blockade since 2007, when Hamas took power. Egypt has sealed its border with Gaza and is in the process of erecting a steel wall to keep Islamic terror groups from engaging in terror activities, including smuggling weapons. Blockades and checkpoints are the result of terror - not the cause of it.
The assertion that Israel “reaps rewards” from its relationship with the United Nations can be described as naïve at best. In the late 1960’s, the United Nations began to turn against a nation that they formally recognized two decades prior. Arab states, along with the Soviet Union, became a de-facto majority of Third World states recognized by the United Nations. The United Nation's obsessive condemnation of Israel disregards the very foundation for the organization’s existence. It constitutes a violation of equality principles that are guaranteed by the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also suggests that the United Nations is incapable of carrying out its own mandates.
In its first year of operation, the Human Rights Council failed to acknowledge or condemn human rights violations and atrocities that occur in many of the world’s other countries and far exceed any of Israel’s alleged crimes. The second year of operation was just as dismal, the only glimmer of hope being when the Council “deplored” the sad state in Burma. Unfortunately, the Council also praised Sudan for its “cooperation.” During the Council’s third year of operation, it became evident the only country to be subjected to the kind of intense scrutiny that only examines one side of the issue would be Israel.
Last Monday, the U.N.’s Islamic states once more abused the Human Rights Council stage and criticized Israel, accusing the nation of Israel of cruelty and alleging the Jewish state paints their nation with “blood of victims,” a popular blood libel theme that would be more at home in Nazi Germany.
On June 8, 2010, Syria took the stage at the U.N. Human Rights Council and accused Israeli children of singing songs about sucking blood of Arabs. The statements were not incongruous or inconsistent with other remarks targeting Israel. In June, several representatives of countries at the U.N. Human Rights Council made similar statements. Following the events on May 31st involving the terror-linked flotilla, comments were made at various points alleging an Israeli conspiracy for bloodshed and murderous intent with barely any dissent. Cuba called out Israel’s alleged desire for “bloodshed,” while nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Algeria and Libya made statements likening the Israeli state to “butchers” who committed a “massacre.” Israel was declared guilty by these nations that, according to Freedom House, are dismal failures in the human rights arena. None of the aforementioned nations, with the exception of Israel, are totally free nations. These are the very countries that condemn abroad what they encourage at home; but then, hypocrisy is the lingua franca of most of the member countries of which the Human Rights Council is regularly comprised. Interestingly enough, the United Nations, which should be a transparent organization, did not even report Syria’s blood libel statements in the news and media section for the June 8 meeting. Syria's libelous statements are altogether omitted from the June 8 report on the official site for the United Nations.
Israel is a country no larger than New Jersey. It lacks precious resources and relies on the ingenuity and talent of its citizens. It’s the only free society in the Middle East and is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished goal is her extinction. Israel has free elections, an impartial system of justice with an independent judiciary, upholds women's rights, artists' rights and gay rights. Israel is opposed to capital punishment and prosecutes corrupt politicians, and although many in the West are unaware, Israel is an extremely diverse nation. Indeed, more than half of its Jewish population is comprised of individuals who are of Middle Eastern or North African origin, the majority of whom experienced severe human rights abuses under Pan-Arab regimes where their family members were tortured and massacred during anti-Semitic riots. Israel also has a sizable Arab and Druze population that are accorded full civil liberties.
Criticizing Israel has become a lazy indulgence for so many journalists who simply fail to perform their due diligence and, in so doing, become hypocrites to their own values.
Reach Reporter Reut Cohen here.
Sign up for Neon Tommy's weekly e-mail newsletter.
