FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

American Hypocrisy at the UN

On June 17, 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution expressing support for equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The United States had pushed for this resolution, and fully supported it.

Much was made of the resolution, with twenty-three nations voting for it, and nineteen opposing it (three abstained). Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said that the resolution “?marks a victory for defenders of human rights.”

While this is, indeed, a great step forward in the long battle for universal human rights, this writer is puzzled by Ms. Rice’s apparent satisfaction at taking a stand for human rights. It was just four short months ago that this same Ms. Rice, in her role as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in occupied Palestine. Would the passage of that resolution not have marked ‘a victory for defenders of human rights’?

When issuing that veto, Ms. Rice said that while the United States agrees about “?the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.” Might she not, on June 17, have vetoed the resolution supporting equal rights, with a statement saying that, while the United States agrees about “the folly of harassing, beating, and killing people based on their sexual orientation, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide GLBT people and heterosexuals”?

Had she vetoed this resolution, with such a patently absurd statement as the one suggested by this writer, she would have been criticized around the world. The U.S. would have resumed the role it held under President George W. Bush as a pariah, a laughing stock, and a nation with no conscience, and no consideration for anyone but the rich, white, male elite.

Yet when that ridiculous statement was made in regard to the veto of legislation that would have gone a long way toward alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people, it was greeted with little more than an international whimper.

In the last fifty years, the U.N. has passed over seventy resolutions critical of Israel, many of them involving the unspeakable oppression of the Palestinian people. Ms. Rice is, at best, na?ve, to think that the ‘core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians’ can possibly be resolved by those two parties alone.

In order for negotiations between any two parties to be successful, each must possess something owned by the other that can only be obtained by surrendering something else.

A quick look at the two parties involved here shows the absolute nonsense of any belief that they can negotiate their own agreement. Israel has the second most powerful military in the world, financed and backed by the most powerful one in the world. Palestine is a third world country. Israel occupies much of Palestine, and freely occupies more Palestinian territory, in violation of international law, whenever it feels like doing so. Palestinians wait hours at checkpoints to go to work or school, checkpoints manned by Israeli soldiers. They also wait hours for emergency medical treatment. Palestine’s borders are controlled by Israel.

The brutal oppression of the Palestinian people is shown in the comparative number of deaths resulting from what often start as acts of civil disobedience by the Palestinians. In the intifada of 1987 ? 1993, Israeli forces killed approximately 1,100 Palestinians, while the Palestinians killed about 164 Israelis. The second intifada, starting in 2000, saw the deaths of about 6,500 Palestinians, and 1,100 Israelis. Commentator Richard Beeker reported on what he saw first hand: “Israel’s hugely superior firepower was deployed indiscriminately against Palestinian civilian areas in the West Bank and Gaza.” (Becker, Richard. Palestine, Israel and the U.S. Empire. PSL Publications, San Francisco, 2009. Page 109.)

What, one might ask, does Israel want from the Palestinians that is must negotiate for?  What do the Palestinians have that Israel cannot simply take from them, with no consequences from the international community? Israel can, and does, simply decide to build more housing, moving in with the necessary equipment, bulldozing the homes of Palestinians and erecting thousands of more homes for Israeli settlers. Any minor disturbance by the Palestinians is put down by the powerful Israeli military, so there is certainly no fear that Israel’s existence is threatened by them.

Let us return to Ms. Rice’s statement. If it is unwise for the U.N. Security Council to work to resolve the conflicts between the Palestinian and Israeli people, who might she suggest make the attempt? Would she prefer the Israeli and Palestinian representatives sit down together, so the Palestinians can surrender everything they have? The Israelis need make no concessions; if they want something from the Palestinians, they simply take it. The amount of land the Palestinians can almost call their own has been reduced drastically over the last several years, and continued Israeli settlement expansion only further reduces it.

Although ineffective in many ways, the U.N. should be the best hope for anything close to a fair settlement, and justice for the people of Palestine. The U.S. Congress, beholden to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest, richest, and most generous-to-members-of-Congress- who-dance-to-its-tune Israeli lobby, cares nothing for human rights when doing so might jeopardize donations to its individual re-elections campaigns.

So despite Ms. Rice’s bizarre comment, which certainly came at the direction of President Obama, the U.N.is the correct vehicle to work toward a resolution of the conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The United States is both famous and infamous for its long history of human rights violations, and/or countenancing the human rights violations of other nations, when doing so serves the corporate bottom line. Political donations from various wealthy lobbies, and vast amounts of oil cause the nation to relegate its pretty talk of human rights to an ignored and neglected sideline. The most tragic and long-term example of that is with the Palestinian people.

Robert Fantina is author of ‘Desertion
and the American Soldier: 1776–2006.

 

 

More articles by:

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).

September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail