With Iran violently suppressing demonstrators in the streets and Libya using brute force in the face of mass protests, it was reassuring to know that the UN sprang into quick action.
Just as it did after the rigged elections in 2009, Tehran was using arrests, live fire, torture and intimidation to confront those challenging the regime. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council members gathered on Feb. 18 in New York.
The members solemnly deliberated as reports from Libya suggested that hundreds of peaceful protesters were slain by government forces with the help of foreign mercenaries.
There's only one small problem. The UN Security Council met to discuss neither the situation in Iran nor Libya, but, surprise of surprises, Israel.
Meanwhile, the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, charged with monitoring and protecting human rights, was also nowhere to be found when it came to Iran and Libya.
But then again, why should that be shocking?
After all, Libya is currently a member of the 47-nation body. Its foremost aim there is to cast judgment on others, principally Israel, while ensuring that it avoids any serious scrutiny.
And even though Iran tried and failed in its bid for reelection to the council last year, it has its share of defenders there -- fellow members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Non-Aligned Movement, for example. They do their best to shield Tehran from close attention and deflect it instead to the Council's favorite whipping boy, Israel.
By the way, while Iran didn't make it back onto the UN Human Rights Council, it did get itself elected to serve this year on the UN's 45-member Commission on the Status of Women, a body dedicated to "gender equality and advancement of women." Notwithstanding President Ahmadinejad's memorable 2007 claim at Columbia University that Iran's women are "the freest in the world," the notion of Iran sitting on this UN body would be funny if it weren't so tragic and telling.
So why did the Security Council choose to meet on Friday? To discuss Israeli settlement-building policy.
Now let's be clear. Settlement policy is, indeed, highly relevant to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on a final peace accord. In fact, it's one of the central issues.
But that doesn't mean the UN was right to take it up on Friday.
First, the breaking events occurring in Iran, Libya, and elsewhere in the region have global security implications and, surely, merit immediate attention by the UN. They have not gotten it to date.
Second, the settlements are not the alpha and omega of issues central to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While there is a global industry of those asserting that settlements are the one and only matter worth discussing, thereby placing the entire onus for resolution on Israel, the truth lies elsewhere.
Israel has repeatedly indicated a willingness to discuss the future of settlements in the context of direct talks.
Moreover, it suspended settlement building for ten months last year as a sign of good faith, only to be met by nine months of dithering by the Palestinian Authority.
And, as further proof of its sincerity, Israel dismantled the homes of thousands of settlers in fulfillment of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and the 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
Additionally, there are some other, shall we say, not unimportant issues central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Needless to say, they were conveniently overlooked in the Friday deliberations.
How about condemning the missiles being fired this year at Israeli towns and villages from Hamas-controlled Gaza? Their aim, pure and simple, is to kill, maim, and destroy.
How about dealing with the massive arms build-up by Hezbollah, under the very noses of UNIFIL troops deployed in Lebanon, and the blood-curdling threats of Hezbollah's leaders to destroy Israel with its arsenal of missiles, courtesy of Iran and Syria?
Apropos, Iran's export of those missiles is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1747, adopted in 2007, banning Iran's export of any weapons, but that's been inexplicably ignored.
Or how about addressing the continued incitement coming from the Palestinian Authority, such as the lionization of Dalil Mughrabi, the Palestinian terrorist who led an attack in 1978 that slaughtered 37 Israelis, including 12 children? Only last year, the PA named a summer camp after her. Earlier this year, the PA released a television spot highlighting her as a "role model" for Palestinian women. Does this contribute to a culture of peace?
Or how about insisting that the PA, in pursuit of an end to the conflict, recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people? After all, Israel has already agreed to recognize the future country of Palestine as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, thus attempting to create a strong foundation for future coexistence between the two states.
And third, the UN Security Council did not advance the cause of peace in its meeting on Friday. To the contrary, it set it back. Among the 15 member countries, only the United States had the good sense to see this seemingly obvious point, prompting the first exercise of the veto by the Obama administration.
The place to discuss, debate, and decide issues affecting Israelis and Palestinians is in direct, face-to-face talks. There is no other way, at least if the goal is genuine progress.
But the PA decided to do an end-run, using the UN, not for the first time, to circumvent talks.
By doing so, it alienated and embarrassed Washington, which, under President Obama, has shown a determination to make progress on the ground. And it antagonized Israel, which is the essential partner for any durable agreement, raising new questions about the PA's commitment to actually achieving an accord.
And so, while this transparent diversion goes on at the world body, the main show right now is elsewhere. From Tehran to Tripoli, alas, the UN is nowhere to be found.
David Moshman: Jews, Israel and Free Speech: A Response to Rabbi Wolpe
Tim Suttle: Bonhoeffer as our Christian Guide in the Middle East
Having gotten the niceties out of the way let me inveigh lightly against your prejudice in favor of Israel. If the United Nations is a haven for any craven power (united States in point) and/or monetary expenditures it is a cottage for the satisfaction western ego, bigotry and capitalism of the worst sort since the times of which Mr. Dickens wrote.
Neither Iran, nor Iraq nor Afghanistan, nor the United States nor Argentina nor India was particularly renowned for their political acumen when they threw out or off the yoke of British Rule. In your rather comfortable digs you should realize why the usurpers have defiled you although you cannot bring yourself to admit it.
Count Tolstoy reminded us long ago that history is on the side of the people in the long run despite the brilliant and bloody interference of their icons.
Israel (or at least those who hold political power there) would prefer no boundaries to their lust for power and fortune. Do you even grasp what territory Israsel intends to hold if it’s biblically endorsed boundaries were to be allowed? To a large extent they have succeeded despite the deaths of 6 million of European Jewry. Who were those who died? Not one of those who are enshrined in the minds of the common man through the machinations of the powers behind the nation of Israel. They were common, ordinary people whose value was not esteemed worthy of the goal of creating a Jewish state (at least in the minds of the Israelio-fascsts).
If there are any powers who hide behind the United Nations is those enabled by multinational corporations who, with the blessing of people like Koch et cie, and the people who support YOU monetarily either directly or indirectly.
Israel is the worst example of UN interference in the survival of the fittest ever to be put forth. It is a religious Disneyland supported by bilious, incredibly rich people who consider nothing beneath them in order to win some sort of peacock feather for their memorial in history. You’ve done your part. Ka Ching!
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn (Isiah 54,17)
The small problem is that what Harris says is not true, as you can find for yourself if you look at the UN's web pages, blogs and twitter feeds.
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/
the above should read:
And NOT issue simple unofficial verbal disapproval when a microphone is stuck in an UN spokespersona's face.
No...??
Because: How would one "talk about the elephant in the room" if one/one's best buds are responsible for it's creation & the fall out??
No..... Elephants in the room are things some folk will not address.
None of the neo-cons ever do.
They'll skirt, skid, slide, hide behind it, watch it grow, see the World look upon it all in horror but wont ever acknowledge this thing, the elephant, right under their noses and in front of their faces. Some people are willful that way.
the whole world knows this has been the cnard for decades and we dont buy it anymore.. we beleive in a free Israel free from being oppressed and free from oppressing people for land.
Read here what needs to be done:
http://timespost.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/delete-the-un-restart-a-new-and-better-one/
Visit:
http://onedemocraticstate.com
This will help build a greater Israel?
"
Soon enough, David Harris, director of the (Chernick-funded) American Jewish Committee, was demanding that Cordoba's leaders be compelled to reveal their "true attitudes" about Palestinian militant groups before construction on the center was initiated
"
please do read the article....
Dayne