So Much for Human Rights

“—–denial, non-interference and inaction enabled its continuation—-” [Jacob Dolinger, 2016]

While the quoted language resembles much of what the world has become accustomed to from Elie Wiesel on the Holocaust, in this instance it applies to no less than the disgraceful United Nations. The quote appears in a book review by Alan Baker on “The Case for Closing the UN: International Human Rights – A study in Hypocrisy [2016, publisher Gefen; author Jacob Dolinger.

Alan Baker, the author of the subject Jerusalem Post Op Ed, is a well known Israeli international attorney who previously served as a legal counsel for the Foreign ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada. His impressive resume includes the following:

[a] participation in several sessions of The General Assembly’s legal committee.
[b] seconded to the legal office of the UN, and has since then, after returning to Israel, been involved in the negotiation and drafting of the various peace agreements and related documentation.
[c] presently director of the International Law Program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Jacob Dolinger is a retired professor at the State University of Rio de Janeiro who is a respected author in addition to being a recognized authority on international law.

There are few surprises which emerge from the book for those who have suffered the discomfort of observing the daily activities of the so-called United Nations. Baker entitled his piece, “The Case for Closing the UN is Science Fiction” in that despite concrete arguments in favor of doing so cannot be expected to materialize in the near future.

In some aspects, the book would appear to be an update on Harris Okun Schoenberg’s , “A Mandate for Terror” published in 1989 i.e. 27 years previously. In the foreword to the book, the author recalls the words of French author Albert Camus, “Beyond a certain age, a man becomes responsible for his face.” He then remarks that his book was concerned with the responsibility of the world, as represented in the United Nations, for that unfamiliar face.”

It is useful to compare as sign posts, chapter headings for both. Commencing with the earlier book:

Part 1: The origins of PLO terrorism.
Part 2: Terror made respectable – the PLO conquers the UN.
Part 3: The reign of terror: Licensed to kill, the PLO consolidates its UN position.
Part 4: The further legitimization of terror: The PLO and the UN funding agencies.
Part 5: Justification for terror.
Part 6: Undermining Israel: The other side of the coin.
Part 7: Why terror was legitimized.
Part 8: Conclusions.

The Case for Closing the UN

Chapter 1: The Armenian genocide.
Chapter 2: Hitler’s accomplices before the war.
Chapter 3: Complicity during the war.
Chapter 4: Complicity after the war.
Chapter 5: The Universal Declaration’s Origin and Principle.
Chapter 6: The Misconceived Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Chapter 7: The Ineffectiveness of the UN Organization.
Chapter 8: The modern succession of genocides.
Chapter 9: UN and Europe cowardice.
Chapter 10: The demoralized World Court.
Chapter 11: The UN in the footsteps of Hitler.
Chapter 12: A new World Organization.

It can be readily observed that whereas the first book focuses on a singular terrorist organization, the latter is broader in scope. And yet, there are significant common threads. Israel is the central figure of abuse by the UN, EU, Europe, most Muslim countries and affiliate organizations. The utter failure of the UN, and of the organized international community not to live up the basic visions of its creators appears as a continuum.

Dolinger’s Chapter 11 includes the General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, and the myriad of political resolutions aimed at demonizing Israel by which he concludes that the “UN is nothing more than an accomplice to terrorists.” He opines the inherent discrimination and anti-Semitism of the UN in its actions devoted to singling out, discriminating and delegitimizing the State of Israel.

This episode is covered in Part 6 of Schoenberg’s book where he describes it “defamation as diplomacy”. Also included, is the remarkable response by US Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan where he categorically states that the United States declares “before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.” He speaks of one foreboding fact – a great evil which has beset the world – the abomination of anti-Semitism as “this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow——-has been given the appearance of international sanction.”

Interestingly, Moynihan remarks that Israel “could not become racist unless it ceased to be Zionist.” His lengthy address embraced the perversion of human rights and the flagrant acceptance of lies and the dismissal of truths. Referred to, but not published in the book is Ambassador Herzog’s famous response to the controversial resolution; an emotional and carefully reasoned defense of Israel’s position. It did appear in “Who Stands Accused?”

The Zionism-racism resolution evoked an outpouring of outrage, an example of which is a quotation from the outstanding British author, Paul Johnson, who wrote in The New Statesman, “—the UN Social , Humanitarian and Cultural Committee – a nomenclature so rich in savage irony as to eclipse even a Swift – passed—-a resolution condemning—Zionism—Of course, at the UN facts and realities do not matter. What matters is force, money and physical power.—–Almost without exception, those in the majority came from states notable for racist oppression of every conceivable hue.”

In the public place one finds the voice of a well known novelist, Anne Roiphe, not normally given to authoring political or historical works. Her piece appeared on April 13, 2015 in Tablet, titled, “Is Zionism Racism?” It commences, “I am a person of the left and have been ever since I was a girl and Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers——-”

Roiphe’s work is carefully crafted, complete with established facts and references to relevant history. She says, “Racists are despicable people who think they are superior to and more entitled than others of different groups, different nations, different skin color, different religious beliefs—-”

Her conclusion provides a sound summary. Anne Roiphe argues that Zionism is not racist to speak for itself and the illogic, the unthinking hatred behind that slogan, makes her sick. “It is a lie and a smear hiding behind a proclamation of seeming virtue.” She proclaims that to be against racism is good, but to see it where it is not, to use the word “to attack Jews, is appalling.”

Returning to Jacob Dolinger, he has not limited himself to the malfunctioning and corrupt UN. He draws attention to the international hypocrisy during the 20th century, commencing with the 1915 Armenian genocide in which one-and-a-half million Armenian Christians were murdered by Turks, while the world looked on. Despite limited expressions of sympathy and empathy which were uttered by some Western leaders, no action was initiated to prevent it or to assist the victims.

Noting that this was and still is not universally recognized by the major democracies as a genocide, is indicative of the self-serving hypocrisy of the international community. Considering that even at the present time, there is a desire to keep good relations with Turkey; and a refusal to acknowledge this genocide, is indicative of what Dolinger terms “a crime of silence” by a still hypocritical international community.

Where were the major western leaders when a courageous minority arose against the tyrannical despot Erdogan? Would it not have been a great service to humanity to rid the world of this parasite?

And then there is Assad the Syrian sphinx for whom Obama had a “red line”. Who can comprehend the western powers who offer this maniac solitude. After all, he is only guilty of destroying over 400,000 lives. No doubt, had Hitler survived, he too, would have qualified for “protection” by our shameful leaders.

Why is it that the so-called “Palestinians”, a modern creation, are entitled to sovereignty, but not the Kurds, who are a nation? The Kurds are unquestionably indigenous to the Middle East and are the region’s fourth largest ethnic group. They are primarily located in 4 countries as follows; Turkey 81.6 million, Iran 80.8 million, Iraq 30.6 million and Syria 18 million. They remain one of the world’s largest people without a state! Their extraordinary history is too vast for inclusion in this paper. Perhaps not sufficiently recognized is there impressive efforts and successes in fighting ISSIS. Israel is among the few to openly declare support for the Kurds.

Alan Baker’s conclusion on Dolinger’s aims:
[a] a viable alternative to the UN.
[b] a new world organization that will not be “a hostage to blocs of undemocratic states” and not given to huge violations of human rights.
[c] will not support totalitarian leaders.
[d] will be a buffer to contemporary anti-Semitism.

Undoubtedly it is a worthy program, but would take much effort and many years to realize. Sadly, the opposition cannot be minimized in any way.