UN Human Rights Council: A Recurring Joke.
The UN Human Rights Council has appointed a special commission to investigate Israel's crimes in the recent conflict and not Hezbollah (and implicitly, as a sovereign Lebanon). With that the council has reverted to its old practice of simply being a cover to some of the most ruthless regimes in this world. Is it a wonder that even Europe, normally on the Arab side, objected to the decision? This will not strengthen Israeli trust in the UN and as a consequence will certainly not lead to any peace and quiet in the area. If there is going to be an investigation, it must be for all sides and not just Israel. But this will not happen. Because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world representing 13 million Jewish people, while the council is comprised of a majority of Muslim Human Rights violators "representing" (if you can actually call that representing, as they oress their constituaents) 1.2 billion Muslims. Balance of Power anyone?
posted by The Middle East News Addict at 4:23 PM
7 Comments:
While I agree that both should be investigated, there are reasons that the investigation of Israel takes priority. Israel is more technologically advanced, and used cluster bombs as well as possibly white phophorus, and killed hundreds of civilians. Hezbollah didn't kill anyine near as many civilians, so it makes sense that an investigation of Israel would be more important than an investigation of Hezbollah, although both did great wrong.
I love your reasoning. We should only sue those that create moire damage. Therefore we should Not prosecute any individual murders because, after all, it is just one guy. If we do apply some judicial principals in this case, then I have yet to have seen any person charged with excessive force on self defense. You are forgetting that this whole fiasco started when Hezbollah crossed the lines (figuretivly and literally). Have you ever heard of a case where self defense victims were accused with the use of excessive force?
No one seems to have disappeared, but I just read his comment and you seem to be twisting his words. He says both should be investigated, just that since Israel killed and destroyed more, the investigation of Israel should take priority (though I don't see any reason why both couldn't be investigated simultaneuously, I'm not really sure about the internal workings of the UN committee). I read something recently that said that a lot of people talk about countries as though they were single entities, which you seem to be doing. Individuals who cause injuries in self-defense don't usually end up harming other random passerbys on the street, and if they did they would certainly be charged. Israel did end up killing hundreds of civilians, and that is what it would be investigated for. No one (not the blogger no one, I mean not anyone) is suggesting that Israel be investigated for killing too many Hezbollah militants.
First of all, the mechanisms of the UN HR commission do not interest me one bit. Israel should not be getting HR violation lessons from some of the worst HR violators in the world who are only there because the majority of the world is Muslim. (if you are Muslim, no offense. If not, you will soon be). You can look it up in the web and see that 70% of Palestinian claims in Israeli supreme court are won by the Palestinians and that in a survey conducted a few years ago, most Palestinians said that if they wanted to model their justice system on any country in the world it would be Israel.
As for crimes etc. by Israel, watch the report released today on Hezbollah by Amnesty International. They too do no longer hold your opinion that only Israel should be investigated. As for self defense, the recent war should only send one message to Lebanon an Hezbollah: If you cannot do the time don't do the crime (time being financial costs, and crime being start the war).
Finally with regards to Lebanon, and considering the Amnesty international report on Hezbollah, do you think Lebanon should be off the hook? if so, then the next day Israelis will form their own armed militia and get their country of the hook. Either you are the sovereign of the country or you are not.
I have several points to make:
I'm not Muslim, but what do you mean I soon will be? Also the majority of the world is not Muslim, about 20% of the world is Muslim.
Second, it is not my opinion that only Israel should be investigated, nor did I say anything that might so much as suggest that. I said both should b investigated.
Again I would like to point out to you that you are making the mistake of viewing nations of individuals as single entities. If Hezbollah attacks Israel, that doesn't give Israel the right to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure and kill civilians, because Hezbollah and Lebanon are not a single entity.
Finally, the fact that Hezbollah operated from within Lebanon does not mean that the Lebanese government (now even weaker) has absolute control over them. Lebanon can't just say "Hezbollah, please don't do that" and have Hezbollah not do whatever they were going to.
By saying "you soon would be (a Muslim)" I meant that if you keep giving more and more ground to Islam "because they are more" you will soon see that their only objective is to make you and others Muslims. At the moment Israel is the main impetus to that as the one who gets all the blows (why do you think the international community has done nothing until Hezbollah got some blows?)
As for who should be investigated, I agree that both but your first post seems to suggest one more than the other. In such an investigation self defense would also be a factor (an assailant cannot claim self defense as he initiated the attack)
With regards to Lebanon's responsibility, Lebanon claims sovereignty for the entire area. One of the key attributes of sovereignty is the monopoly on the use of force. That is why in Israel the movement of Khana Khai was outlawed for conducting terrorist activities against Palestinians. Should they be allowed back into the realm of the legal just so Israel can claim no responsibility? Who do you think should be held responsible if a group of Israelis took weapons and attacked Lebanon without a government decision?
If Seniora's government is Lebanon, reign in on Hezbollah, if Hezbollah is sovereign then their action was an act of war and as such they got what they wished for. There is no grey area here.
Islam's only objective is to make other people Muslim? That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there, almost good enough for Bush to use in one of his "Islamo-Fascist" speeches. Granted, Islam, like almost every other religion on the face of the planet, would like for more people to be part of it. That doesn't mean that its sole purpose is to convert people. Maybe you're confusing Islam's and Christianity's roles in the Crusades?
If a groups of Israelis attacked Lebanon without the approval of the Israeli government, the Israelis who did it would be held responsible, not the Israeli government. Likewise, if a group of Americans called themselves the KKK and killed as many blacks as they could, the KKK would be held responsible and not the US government, and if a crazy guy in Toronto killed a college student, the crazy guy would be held responsible and not the Canadian government, and if Hezbollah militants attacked Israel the Hezbollah militants would be held responsible and not the Lebanese government.
Post a Comment
<< Home