What Difference Does it Make?
The vote against Israel in the so-called UN Human Rights Commission was, of course, a travesty. Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States upheld their own honor (our honor) more than Israel's, but it isn't nearly enough to salvage whatever honor the institution had left - which wasn't much.
Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola skipped the vote. France and Britain disappeared as well but then "suggested" the Israeli government investigate the IDF - not knowing or not caring about the multiple investigations the Israeli government has already undertaken. India should have known better. We were sure Nicaragua wouldn't. Why does an abstention by an otherwise fairly benign country - Belgium, Japan, Mexico, Gabon or Slovenia - seem wormier than the outright "yes" vote from Argentina, Chile or Ghana? Isn't it silly to worry about what Saudi Arabia or Cuba considers a human rights violation since the concept is unknown in either place? Isn't it just bizarre for Russia to judge anyone for anything after the vaporization of Grozny?
Tempting as it is to shrug the whole thing away, there are reasons to be concerned about what the vote portends. A JINSA Advisory Board Member noted the following practical possibility:
The UN action on Israel creates a pretext for countries to cut off arms transactions with Israel on account of human rights violations. Most European arms import/export laws have a provision that says, more or less, that they will not sell arms to or buy arms from countries that violate human rights. Interestingly, all those who voted for the UN condemnation of Israel in effect are agreeing that such violations exist and their government accepts that. (Ed. Note: If there are standards, some countries will have to stop selling - not to Israel, but to others. Maybe that's why France and Britain weren't in the room. They don't want to have to care about the nature of the countries to which they sell.)
U.S. law is more restrictive in that it speaks to a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" although what constitutes a "gross violation" or what "internationally recognized human rights" consist of have not been precisely defined. (Ed. Note: Watch out for those in this country who want a precise definition.)
On another level, Hamas's depredations are increasingly the face of warfare. No matter how they voted, countries know Israel took greater care to protect Palestinian civilians used as human shields by Hamas than any other country has taken to protect its enemies' families. If they assimilate the possibility that they, too, may be charged with human rights violations for fighting terrorism, how many would will be willing to do it or to join coalitions? Is that why Kyrgyzstan - an Afghan coalition partner - wasn't in the room? Was abstaining a way to say, "I haven't figured out where I stand yet, but I know I don't want to stand where Israel is standing right now?"
Western countries in particular should be looking at Israel's experience in Gaza - which looks very much like the coalition experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, and India's experience and Sri Lanka's experience - and begin to deal head on with possibility that fighting terrorism at home or abroad will become fodder for war crimes trials in the hallucinatory world of the United Nations, with fallout they cannot predict.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment