An extraordinay reflection on the hypocrisy at work in the UN. No wonder Israel views the investigation about to commence with deep suspicion. HT/Chaim
The Warped Mirror: The UN hypocrites’ council
Posted by Petra Marquardt-Bigman
An investigation initiated by the UN Human Rights Council to examine allegations about war crimes committed during the recent war in Gaza will begin this week, as widely reported. In order to fully appreciate the implications of this endeavor, some other recent news reports should be taken into account. Consider this report from the London Times:
Confidential United Nations documents…record nearly 7,000 civilian deaths in the no-fire zone up to the end of April. UN sources said that the toll then surged, with an average of 1,000 civilians killed each day until May 19…That figure concurs with the estimate made … by Father Amalraj, a Roman Catholic priest who fled the no-fire zone on May 16 and is now interned with 200,000 other survivors in Manik Farm refugee camp. It would take the final toll above 20,000. ‘Higher,’ a UN source told The Times. ‘Keep going’:
I’d call that a Naqba (not a Holocaust).
Don’t suspect for a second that the UN Human Rights Council would ignore this massacre perpetrated by Sri Lankan troops fighting the Tamil Tigers. According to a report in The Guardian,
…the UN human rights council praised its [i.e. the Sri Lankan military's] victory over the Tamil Tigers and refused calls to investigate allegations of war crimes by both sides in the final chapter of a bloody 25-year conflict…. it supported the Sri Lankan government’s decision to provide aid groups only with ‘access as may be appropriate’ to refugee camps.”
Civilians stand behind the barbed-wire perimeter fence of the Manik Farm refugee camp located on the outskirts of northern Sri Lankan town of Vavuniya Tuesday, May 26, 2009. UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon toured Sri Lanka’s largest war refugee camp, located on the outskirts of Vavuniya called Manik Farm and home to 220,000 refugees, on Saturday, pressing for wider humanitarian access to the camps which have become overcrowded since the government declared victory over the Tamil Tiger rebels in a 25-year war [AP]
Admittedly, there is nothing new about the blatant bias of the UN Human Rights Council and indeed other UN bodies. But rarely has this bias been displayed so brazenly, with so much unabashed contempt for human rights, and with such cynical implications: The UN itself believes that more than 20 000 civilians have been killed, and the UN Human Rights Council found it appropriate to “praise” this “victory.”
And no, so far none of this has dominated the front pages of the international news media in big bold letters, because much of the media seems to agree with the UN Human Rights Council: if Israel isn’t involved, it’s not that important. More than 20,000 dead civilians aren’t particularly interesting if there is no way to blame their death on the IDF.
This may strike some readers as a bit bitter and self-centered, typical Jewish solepsism. Hey, all you particularistic Jews, it’s not all about Israel, the IDF, etc.
But then, consider this:
As this stands it represents the “casualty footprint” of two conflicts over the last twenty years. Democratic Republic of Congo, in which over 5 million people have been killed, mostly civilians, and the Israeli-Arab conflict in which under 10,000 people have been killed. Reverse the names and huge circle gives you the media footprint of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the tiny circle gives you the media footprint of the Congo conflict. Add to the mix the heavy moralistic nature of the coverage of Israel — disproportionate response, war crimes, collective punishment — and you have a mix worthy of justifying the most paranoid Jew.
Just in case you wonder if there was any reference to Israel during the council session that was organized by Germany to consider the situation in Sri Lanka — sure there was:
The Syrian delegate said that the convening of the Special Session was clearly interference in the internal affairs of a country. ‘It was also strange that this Special Session had been requested by the very same who normally turned a blind eye to the violations committed by the forces of Israeli occupation in the Occupied Arab Territories,’ he said.”
And there was more on “double standards“:
The Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Organization of the Islamic Conference all gave unreserved support to Sri Lanka and questioned the double standards on human rights.”
Because they adhere to the following principle:
One morning Gen. Victory Rana, aide-de-camp to the King of Nepal and the leader of Nepal’s famed Ghurkas, visited. We breakfasted and talked about terrorism. He said, “To beat terrorists you must be a better thug than the thugs.” There’s the resounding lesson. The paradox for civilized people battling terrorists is that one must set aside reasoning with them or tolerating their disruptions of your society. With no disrespect to the culture emanating from Tamil Nadu in India, I feel that had Sri Lanka snuffed out this enemy without mercy back then, the lives of many, many thousands would have been spared.
To us Westerners such language seems harsh. To the demopaths who have taken over the UN “Human Rights” commissions, it’s what you do when it suits you.
Of course, these groups of countries had voted in favor of condemning and investigating Israel’s conduct in the fighting in Gaza earlier this year.
Because it doesn’t suit them. The question is, why, when it’s so detrimental to everyone including the Palestinian people, do Westerners support this ludicrously transparent and base behavior?
There are arguably some obvious parallels between Israel’s war against Hamas and the Sri Lankan government’s war against the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The LTTE is widely regarded as one of the world’s most brutal terrorist organizations; it was actually the LTTE that pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic; the group also was the first to use suicide belts and to recruit women for suicide attacks. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives in the terror attacks that the group perpetrated and the fighting it provoked, and in the areas controlled by the LTTE, the group behaved ruthlessly toward the population.
The obvious difference between Israel’s war against Hamas and the Sri Lankan government’s war against the LTTE is that the Sri Lankan government had to face a domestic terrorist organization that fought for a separate Tamil state, while Israel faces a foreign terrorist organization that fights for the ultimate goal of abolishing the state of Israel and taking its place. Of course, many of Hamas’s Western apologists will deny that this is the group’s goal, but Hamas is trying regularly to set the record straight. The most recent such attempt is from early May; as news agencies reported:
The Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas will not accept a two-state solution as a means to end the conflict with Israel, the movement’s Damascus-based politburo chief Khaled Maashal said Saturday.”
If anything, a government fighting its own citizens, as the Sri Lankan government did, is expected to show more restraint than a government that has to fight a foreign terrorist organization. However, the UN Human Rights Council decided that it should be the other way round: it described the Sri Lankan war as a purely domestic affair that should be nobody’s business because Sri Lanka had to protect its citizens from the threat posed by a ruthless terrorist organization bent on violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign state.
They’re thinking of themselves, of Saddam Hussein, of the danger to their arbitrary use of power against their civilians. Nothing to do with morality.
As reactions to both the war with Hamas in Gaza and with Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 showed, Israel is widely regarded as having no comparable rights: if terrorist organizations decide to violate the country’s borders by staging raids to kidnap Israeli soldiers, or if hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are condemned to live under the threat of daily rocket barrages, much of the international community and certainly the UN Human Rights Council expects Israel to find means to pacify these terrorist organizations – never mind the fact that these terrorist organizations never tire to emphasize that they won’t be pacified unless Israel ceases to exist.
But whether it is Sri Lanka or Israel, fighting terrorist organizations that can’t be pacified by any reasonable compromises will always endanger civilians, because terrorists everywhere know that hiding among civilians is their best protection. This creates a difficult dilemma for which arguably no good solutions have been found yet. However, there is no doubt that Israel has been trying very hard to minimize civilian casualties; indeed, as macabre a calculation it is, when it comes to the ratio of combatants and civilians killed, there is no army with a better record than the IDF.
The fact that the IDF is also the most maligned army in forums like the UN Human Rights Council only means that civilians who are killed by other armies count for less when it comes to human rights – in other words: a person’s human rights depend on who is seen to violate them.
As the “human rights complex” holds: “If you want to gauge international “human rights” indignation, don’t look to the victim, nor to the intensity of the victimization, look to the perp. If the perp is white, expect loud protests; if the perp is ‘of color’, expect silence.
In this case, we have the “white” human rights community expressing its habitual silent racism (who expects moral behavior from the ‘people of color’?) while the “third world” (including the Muslim world) just openly embraces an aggressive hypocrisy with no attempt to be consistent.
For some good examples of the “white” response to this bizarre situation, see the discussion at: “Sri Lanka and not Israel kills 378 civilians – Reddit doesn’t give a fuck!”
oconostota 256 points 22 days ago[-]
Sri Lanka doesn’t meddle with the US government and drag us into foreign wars the way Israel does.
faintdeception 105 points 22 days ago[-]
That pretty much sums it up, we feel bad for Sri Lanka but we’re not funding the genocide.
I ran into this problem in 2003 talking with students from the anti-war movement. It’s a form of moral narcissism. They didn’t care about the Iraqis suffering from Saddam’s regime, only that “no hair on no child’s head be hurt by weapons paid for with my tax money.” Again, it’s not the victim, nor how bad he suffers. It’s the perp that matters, and white narcissistic moralists want, above all, not to be guilty.
Why be a demopath, when the people you’re fooling don’t cease to be fools even after you’ve dropped your pretensions?