International Borders and Humanitarian Crises

Over 500,000 Syrians have been killed during that country’s ongoing civil war. Another 100,000 are missing; 6,000,000 have been forcibly taken from their homes and are given refugee status. These staggering numbers should be common knowledge, but they aren’t.
Syrian’s tragedy should galvanize all human rights activists. But it doesn’t. The ongoing torment of so many civilians, including children, women, and the elderly, should be at the top of the international community’s agenda. But it isn’t.

Why does international law pander to the ultra-left while ignoring ordinary people desperate for help? Syrian Druze communities gathered near the border with Israel and asked that Israel annex their land so they could protect their families. Reasonably, the UN and other international human rights organizations should have rallied to the Druze request.

Unfortunately, no such support has been forthcoming. Yet again, we witness how hate toward Israel dictates policy. Cynical and hypocritical international bodies look the other way and ignore the loss of innocent lives.

And yet Israel faces criticism. The IDF, acting in self-defense throughout the entire military campaign in Syria, hears only condemnation. International media still refer to Israel’s Golan Heights as occupied territory despite the dismantling of the Syrian government.

Critical thinkers must ask themselves: what is the international community’s goal in Syria (and beyond)? Do the Syrians matter? Or should we conclude that the UN and its offshoots are corrupt and useless? Does anyone recall how, during Syria’s bloody civil war, Israel provided medical care and aid to thousands? Instead, the UN wastes time and effort condemning Israel for occupying Arab land over a half-century ago. What’s the takeaway? Are the irrelevant and dubious status quo concerning international borders the most vital human value, or is it even more important than saving human lives or providing hope?
Of course, the UN’s thinking makes no sense. Looking at Middle East history, we learn that the British and the French concocted international borders to align with their post-WW1 interests. This explains why Lebanon and Syria never have been able to achieve stability.

This further explains why those countries engage in constant civil wars.

Many countries have dealt with demographic challenges due to foreign interests. In that light, isn’t the time ripe to take a fresh look at international borders. This is true for Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian population as well. Why should the Hatay Province remain part of Turkey? Why should the Syrian Druze be forced to stay in a new fundamental Islamic regime that will, predictably, decimate them? And why should Gazans have to live under horrendous Hamas rule instead of Egypt?

Current events and facts on the ground force us to question antiquated notions. Justice demands no less.