United Nations — VOICES for REASON

At the United Nations this week, the Palestinians will ask for — and possibly get — endorsement for their own independent state. But first, a quick reality check on what a Palestinian state means. This seven-part report from the Middle East Media Research Institute documents the rule of Hamas since it took over Gaza — in a bloody civil war — four years ago. To draw a brief sketch: Hamas has arbitrarily seized private land and bulldozed homes; censored the press; mocked freedom of assembly; killed political opponents (including those accused of “collaboration” with Israel); exploited civilians and private homes as human shields for armaments; imposed sharia law; and colluded in and carried out rocket attacks on Israel. And so the Islamists of Hamas have followed in the footsteps of the rival faction, the Fatah/PLO, which under Yasser Arafat had built up a horrifically repressive dictatorial regime. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose faction nominally has authority over parts of the West Bank, is known to celebrate suicide bombers, even honoring terrorists by naming streets after them.

For Palestinian leaders to demand a state of their own in order to sanctify their tyrannical rule is perverse.

The U.N. is about to pass another round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Is it despite the three earlier rounds of U.N. sanctions that Iran has geared up to produce even more nuclear material — or because of them?

Past sanctions were puny to begin with, then eviscerated by friends of Tehran at the U.N. (Predictably, the regime has sidestepped existing sanctions.) But even if credibly effective sanctions could be imposed — which at the U.N. is fantastical — Iran’s decades of pro-jihadist aggression demand a far more assertive response. Tehran is a belligerent theocracy stained with American blood. Ending the mounting threat from Iran requires a resolute, confident policy on our part, but by pursuing mousy “sanctions” and extending Tehran countless second chances, we’ve appeased the regime.

No wonder Iran’s leaders (credibly) brag of realizing their nuclear goals. Our weakness in the face of this malignant regime empowers it.

Agência BrasilWikiCommons

Since Israel forcibly intercepted ships heading to Gaza with “humanitarian” aid, the choir of condemnation has shrieked in unison — from the UK, and most of the European continent, across the Atlantic to the bowels of the U.N. But putting aside questions on the laws governing international waters, was Israel morally right to prevent the ships from reaching Gaza? Yes–I’d argue it was fully within its rights to enforce the naval blockade on Gaza.

To judge Israel’s actions, it is crucial to recognize the broader context: the Gaza strip is under the control of Hamas, a totalitarian Islamist group, that is at war with Israel. Allowing arms, money, and other forms of aid to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza means allowing a sworn enemy to be sustained and strengthened to fight on. And a state facing that situation is entitled to thwart attempts to aid its enemy.

P.S. A word on the blockade itself. My view is that Israel is entitled to seal Gaza off from the world. Is that the most efficient means of thwarting, let alone minimizing, the threat from Hamas? I doubt it — in part because exceptions are often made for so-called humanitarian supplies. Should Israel act assertively to remove the Islamist group from power and dismantle its infrastructure in the Palestinian territories? That’s a point I’ve argued in other places.

The U.S. is not only a founding member of the U.N. but for a long time has been its largest financial backer. What are we getting for our money? An institution that makes a mockery of protecting rights around the world. Consider this report from veteran U.N. observer Anne Bayefsky, cataloguing just some of the recent perversities of the U.N.’s (notorious) Human Rights Council.

The Council, which meets in Geneva, is the personal playground of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They hold the balance of power by controlling the Asian and African regional groups, which together form a majority at the Council. The Council’s agenda is accordingly fixated on issues of priority to the Islamic bloc— number one, delegitimizing Israel; number two, trumping free speech in the name of Islam; and number three, avoiding any criticism of human-rights violations in their own backyards. None of which has anything to do with protecting human rights.

Later, Bayefsky observes, “The Obama administration lost every time it called for the vote on a resolution at the Council session.” But don’t be misled into thinking that Obama’s diplomats were all that energetic. Read the rest of this entry »

The Goldstone Report on the 2008/09 Gaza war brings to light genuine horrors — not pertaining to Israel’s conduct in the war, but horrors indicative of the U.N.’s basic character.

What events led up to the Gaza war? Perhaps it had something to do with the 10,000+ rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns from Gaza during an eight-year period. But that salient fact is given no weight in the report. The report actually seems to be calculated to absolve Hamas of guilt for its aggression, while smearing Israel for “war crimes” for defending itself. E.g. the report cites an admission by a Hamas official that the Islamist group “created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machines” — but dismisses that admission in concluding that Hamas did not exploit human beings as shields. Facts in the report appear to have been bent into submission to advance a pro-Hamas agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

In its endorsement of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council described Israel’s retaliation as a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population….” The idea that only a “proportionate” response would be appropriate has its roots in Just War Theory, the mainstream view of morality in war. So does the related injunction to avoid injuring civilians — even to the point of risking a mission to do so. It is a measure of the deep entrenchment of Just War Theory, that not only do the accusers accept it unquestioningly, but so does the accused.

Observe that Israel refused to participate in the Goldstone investigation and has vehemently criticized the report, yet its ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told PBS’s NewsHour:

Read the rest of this entry »