aish.com > Israel > Middle East

No Joy In Stockholm

.
May 9, 2009 | by Eytan Kobre

The resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Commission supporting the use of "all available means, including armed struggle" to achieve Palestinian statehood is far from being a garden-variety Israel-bashing move.

Large-scale exterminations of a religious or ethnic group usually don't
"just happen" haphazardly. Long gone are the days in which wild-eyed pagans
would run amok on whims, slaughtering innocents on a moment's notice.
Contemporary annihilation campaigns have tended more to resemble
fund-raising campaigns, requiring a great deal of premeditation and
organization intended to make the horrific thinkable, indeed "acceptable,"
to national, and sometimes world, opinion.

After modern-day mass murder has occurred, sometimes hindsight helps
identify a turning point where the groundwork for legitimizing the
unspeakable had been firmly laid. In the case of the Holocaust, for example,
the passage of the Nuremberg Laws, or perhaps Kristalnacht, can be said to
have played that role.

That some Palestinians and many of their Islamist fellow travelers seek
nothing other than, as "twentieth hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui forthrightly
put it in federal court this week, "the destruction of the Jewish people and
state" is too obvious a point to belabor. But in the current drive of the
jihadists to make that destruction a reality, the conceptual stage necessary
to achieve it was strengthened by a little-noted action taken by some
well-known members of the "community of nations."

On April 15, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, citing Israel's
manifold human rights violations, but with nary a mention of Palestinian
terrorism, passed a resolution supporting the use of "all available means,
including armed struggle" to achieve Palestinian statehood. The two-week
period surrounding that vote was an unusually hectic time for the
Commission. During that short time-span, the group, in quick succession,
voted not to condemn both Zimbabwe and Iran for arbitrary executions and
torture, as well as violence against women and minorities, and only by
razor-thin votes managed to express concern over the human rights situations
in the Sudan and Cuba, respectively. The anti-Israel vote, by contrast, was
40-6, with 7 abstentions.

The resolution actually endorses the use of terrorism to further the Palestinian cause.

Far from being a garden-variety Israel-bashing move of the sort that has
been de rigueur at the U.N. for decades, the resolution is unprecedented in
two respects.

First, it explicitly legitimates -- actually, endorses -- the use of
terrorism to further the Palestinian cause.

There may be some countries that, like Belgium, voted for the resolution because it "could be seen as a call
for peace." To see it that way, one would best stand at a vantage point
somewhere in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland.

But this much is clear: Yasser Arafat certainly reads the Commission's
phrase "by all available means, including armed struggle" as an invitation
to murder and mayhem.

Perhaps more importantly, those who joined the Islamic bloc countries to
vote in favor of blowing up women and children at malls and Seder tables
extended beyond the usual suspects like co-sponsors China, Cuba and Vietnam.
This time, six European Union nations joined them voted that way as well.
The six moral dwarfs by name: Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and
Sweden.

That Austria, which spawned a certain Fuhrer and, decades later, elevated
one of his soldiers to its presidency, would vote this way might not
surprise greatly. Nor ought we be particularly astounded that the folks who
brought us Torquemada and the auto-da-fe -- Spain and Portugal -- would cast
a cold eye against the Jews. As for France, of which Jews have such fond
memories labeled Dreyfus and Vichy and on whose streets les Juifs must now
be as afraid to walk as in the Damascus bazaar, there's no cause for
wonderment in its vote either. But Sweden, proud member of the Scandinavian
peninsula of tolerance and neutrality?!

We need not be overly disheartened, though, over Sweden's action. The
Swedish ambassador reassures us that, in fact, his country supported the
resolution "without joy" but that, to its deep chagrin, "the sponsors did
not want to accept further improvements to the resolution."

Thus, it was with an apparently heavy and conflicted heart that the Swedes
decided to sign on. It may be small comfort for some, but next time, God
forbid, a bomb explodes in Haifa or Hadera, know that somewhere, far off to
the North, are some Swedish diplomats who regard the events "without joy."



Related Posts


🤯 ⇐ That's you after reading our weekly email.

Our weekly email is chock full of interesting and relevant insights into Jewish history, food, philosophy, current events, holidays and more.
Sign up now. Impress your friends with how much you know.
We will never share your email address and you can unsubscribe in a single click.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram