UN Human Rights Council

We have joined the UN Human Rights Council, after boycotting the council to protest its actions.

While you would think participating in such a council would be of great interest to the United States, and it is, the problem is that many of the world's worst violators of human rights sit on the council - and they vote to avoid criticism of their own policies.

So rather than exposing human rights violations in the world, the council acts as a protector of the worst abusers.

How can this be? Seats on United Nations organizations are allocated to various regions (such as the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, etc). So if China wants to get on this council to protect itself from criticism, and it does, it lobbies other Asian nations to vote for it - and will offer those nations benefits (money, trade, securing favorable UN vote) important to them. And since many countries of the world don't care about human rights as much as they care about the benefits offered by those seeking a seat on this council, they let them get their way.

And we get a human rights council populated with many of the world's thuggish regimes, such as Russia, China, and Cuba. About the only country they decide to criticize is Israel.

It is for this reason that the United States left a predecessor UN organization on human rights, and why the Bush administration boycotted the current council.

Such qualms don't stop the Obama administration, who would rather "engage" with other nations even if the price is granting America's good name to a terrible organization.

The UN: Jokers' Wild

A recent incident speaks volumes about the ability of the world to take serious steps to thwart Iran and other thuggish regime - ultimately showing how dangerous the UN is to world peace.

The U.S Navy recently intercepted and searched a suspicious Iranian-chartered ship. The search revealed it contained weapons, purportedly bound for Syria but suspected by the Navy to be bound for Hamas.

In either case, UN resolutions prohibit Iran from exporting weapons and allow nations to inspect ships suspected of smuggling them - but do not allow the ships to be seized.

So our Navy let the ship go.

This is the type of "pressure" on Iran we have secured from the UN. It is a joke: if the Navy can't seize the ship, Iran won't stop attempting to arm the terrorists Even worse, it deludes us into thinking UN actions are effective in pressuring Iran when they are not.

This is what happens when the authoritarian and anti-American regimes in Russia and China have veto power over coordinated international action. Along with outrages such as the UN Commission on Human Rights being populated by the worst human rights abusers, giving Russian and China such veto power and creating the false impression of "doing something" generally makes the UN a force for ill in the world.

The Reality of the "Cycle of Violence"

One of the common refrains in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict is to implore the "cycle of violence", which sees the conflict in morally neutral terms where the parties are primarily responding to each other's military actions.

Israel's military efforts are typically in response to multiple attacks by its enemies, such as its current military campaign in response to months of rockets attacks by Hamas into Israel or the 2006 campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah after their capture of Israel soldiers.

On the other hand, the terror groups initiate the use of low-intensity military attacks as a core part of their strategy to weaken Israel's resolve. If they didn't launch such attacks, there wouldn't be the frequent military clashes involving Israel and the terror groups.

And we now have the recurring spectacle of the UN and European Union repeating their refrain and seeking a cease-fire, and in the process trying to prevent Israel from inflicting substantial damage on Hamas.

If Europe, the UN, and others really want to stop the "cycle of violence", then they need to let Israel deliver a truly devastating military blow against Hamas. While that won't guarantee peace, it would begin to change the strategic calculation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and their supporters.

From their warped perspective, the ongoing military struggle against Israel is working: Israel pulled out of Lebanon, pulled out of Gaza, and has offered unprecedented concessions on Palestinian statehood - so why stop now? If the terror groups saw that the international community won't come to its defense anymore when Israel responds militarily, it would over time help produce the perspective needed for lasting peace: the desire of the terrorists, Palestinians, and their supporters to genuinely live in peace with Israel.