UN Rights Concil, Worthless

Those who aren't new to the blog have seen mention of the UN Human Rights council's audacity to do the opposite of their primary role. Now it seems they've taken it further, effectively becoming part of the problem by way of enabling evil and promoting anti-semitism. From The Washington Post (h/t TMV):

Where does the global human rights movement stand in the seventh year of the 21st century? If the first year of the United Nations Human Rights Council is any indication, it's grown sick and cynical -- partly because of the fecklessness and flexible morality of some of the very governments and groups that claim to be most committed to democratic values.

At a session in Geneva last week, the council -- established a year ago in an attempt to reform the U.N. Human Rights Commission -- listened to reports by special envoys appointed by its predecessor condemning the governments of Cuba and Belarus. It then abolished the jobs of both "rapporteurs" in a post-midnight maneuver orchestrated by its chairman, who announced a "consensus" in spite of loud objections by the ambassador from Canada that there was no such accord.

While ending the scrutiny of those dictatorships, the council chose to establish one permanent and special agenda item: the "human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories." In other words, Israel (or "Palestine," in the council's terminology), alone among the nations of the world, will be subjected to continual and open-ended examination. That's in keeping with the record of the council's first year: Eleven resolutions were directed at the Jewish state. None criticized any other government.

Genocide in Sudan, child slavery and religious persecution in China, mass repression in Zimbabwe and Burma, state-sponsored murder in Syria and Russia -- and, for that matter, suicide bombings by Arab terrorist movements -- will not receive systematic attention from the world body charged with monitoring human rights. That is reserved only for Israel, a democratic country that has been guilty of human rights violations but also has been under sustained assault from terrorists and governments openly committed to its extinction.

The old human rights commission, which was disparaged by former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan for casting "a shadow on the United Nations system as a whole," frequently issued unbalanced condemnations of Israel but also typically adopted half a dozen resolutions a year aimed at the worst human rights abusers. For the new council, Israel is the only target. Eighteen of the 19 states dubbed "the worst of the worst" by the monitoring group Freedom House (Israel is not on the list) were ignored by the council in its first year. One mission was dispatched to examine the situation in Darfur. When it returned with a report criticizing the Sudanese government, the council refused to endorse it or accept its recommendations.

The regime of Gen. Omar al-Bashir, which is responsible for at least 200,000 deaths in Darfur, didn't just escape any censure. Sudan was a co-sponsor on behalf of the Arab League of the latest condemnations of Israel, adopted last week.

This record is far darker than Kofi Annan's "shadow." You'd think it would be intolerable to the democratic states that sit on the council. Sadly, it's not. Several of them -- India, South Africa, Indonesia -- have regularly supported the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement in their assaults on Israel and defense of Cuba, Belarus and Sudan. The council's chairman, who rammed through last week's decisions without a vote, is a diplomat from Mexico.

The European Union includes countries holding eight of the council's 47 seats. It has made no serious effort to focus the council's attention on the world's worst human rights violators. According to a report by the independent group UN Watch, the European Union "has for the most part abandoned initiating any country-specific resolutions." At one point before last week's meeting, the European Union threatened to quit the council, effectively killing it. Yet when the meeting ended, Europe's representative, Ambassador Michael Steiner of Germany, said that while the package of procedural decisions singling out Israel "is certainly not ideal . . . we have a basis we can work with."

What about Western human rights groups -- surely they cannot accept such a travesty of human rights advocacy? In fact, they can. While critical of the council, New York-based Human Rights Watch said its procedural decisions "lay a foundation for its future work." Global advocacy director Peggy Hicks told me that the council's focus on Israel was in part appropriate, because of last year's war in Lebanon, and was in part caused by Israel itself, because of its refusal to cooperate with missions the council dispatched. (Sudan also refused to cooperate but was not rebuked.) Hicks said she counted only nine condemnations, not 11.

Never mind how you count them: Is there a point at which a vicious and unfounded campaign to delegitimize one country -- which happens to be populated mostly by Jews -- makes it unconscionable to collaborate with the body that conducts it? "That could happen, but I don't think we're anywhere near there," Hicks said.

That's the human rights movement, seven years into a century that's off to a bad start.

Big Trouble in Little Gaza

The problem in Gaza? Not Israel.

From the New York Post:

ISRAEL'S disengagement from Gaza, completed 22 months ago, has succeeded.

It was a demonstration project of a sort - an experiment in Palestinian self-rule. If the management of Gaza had gone well, there would have been a Palestinian state within three years, tops.

OK, now speak these three words to yourself: a Palestinian state.

Finished? Good. So are the words. They won't be coming out of anybody's mouth again for a very, very long time - at least not in any meaningful way.

Someone asked Benjamin Franklin what America got out of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His reply: "A republic - if you can keep it."

So it was with Gaza in August 2005. The Palestinians got a "homeland, if you can keep it."

What they got instead was hell on earth.

What they got was two brutally murderous gangs, Fatah and Hamas, competing for power by throwing people off the roofs of buildings and slaughtering rivals in front of their wives and children.

What they got was Tony Soprano (Fatah) vs. Phil Leotardo (Hamas). Only this time, Tony got his head smashed in by the SUV.

This isn't a civil war - it's a gang war. And thousands of Palestinian bystanders are going to get shot while these two gangs go to the mattresses.

Ah, the joys of self-rule.

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister who conceived the disengagement plan, had a brilliant insight: Why not let them have it? They want it? It's theirs.

After all, over the course of Israel's 38 years of occupation, fewer than 10,000 Jews actually sought to live in Gaza - and their settlements required tens of thousands of other Israelis to risk their lives protecting them.

The Palestinians spent decades professing their detestation of Israeli occupation and demanding self-rule . . . so Israel gave them their heart's desire.

Gaza is Judenrein - emptied of all Jews, just as Hitler dreamed Germany would be. No Jews live in Gaza. No Jews patrol Gaza. It's Jew-Free-by-the-Sea, with a charming Mediterranean coast worth billions of dollars in tourism and trade.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that the Jews weren't the problem.

The problem is that the Palestinians are the problem: They are drenched in an ideology of blood and murder and suicide.

A new nation must be brought into being, nurtured and built. But Palestinian political culture is a culture of destruction.

And a culture of destruction is, inevitably, a culture of self-destruction.

So: Bye-bye, Palestinian state. See you in a few decades, when Palestinians learn how to do something other than destroy others and themselves.

War with Iran? A Round-up.

Lately, there has certainly been an increase in rumblings regarding Iran's continued nuclear ambitions (to which there is a tiny silver lining). Not the least of which has been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announcement today that Iran's nuclear program "has no brake and no reverse gear" and they're ready "even for war."

As you may have seen yesterday on my off-blog clips list (to the right), "there are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran."

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals
usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert
Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is
believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Still, VP Cheney "renewed Washington's warning to Iran that 'all options' are on the table if the country continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear programs."

In response, Iran's foreign minister says U.S. in no position "to impose another crisis on its tax payers [...] by starting another war in the region.”

Sure enough, though, a new strategy, referred to by White House officials as "The Redirection," is shifting Mid-East priorities and bringing the U.S. in a more open confrontation with Tehran. A "Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush." An attack that could have "political support" by early '08 - which may not be soon enough as already "U.S. special forces and intelligence operatives have been conducting a lot of “very aggressive” activities inside Iran on the border of Iraq."

Israel is locked, loaded, and ready to go - after receiving the OK from Gulf states for overflights, they're seeking an "all clear" from the U.S. to initiate an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. (Though some deny this.)

Meanwhile, the U.N. has claimed that "most U.S. intelligence [regarding Iran's nuclear program...] has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran."

Condi has vowed talks could begin if Iran halts their nuclear program, a program which (as linked earlier) has no brakes. I'd love to believe that Bill Richardson's ideas of diplomatic relations with Iran would prove productive, after all, great leaders have known the importance maintaining discussions with your enemy while still staying sharp militarily. But I have a feeling that both Ahmadinejad and Bush may be in something of a Mexican standoff - neither willing to yield until the other meets some preliminary demands.

Jordan's King Abdullah said this is a final opportunity for Mid-East peace, but the opportunity for a peaceful resolution of this Iranian stalemate may have already passed as this mess is quickly coming to a head.

-
Update (2/26 2:02am): "The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany likely will consider restrictions on trade and arms for Iran when they meet Monday to discuss new ways to pressure Tehran to suspend parts of its nuclear program."