The Human Rights Case for Israel

My post earlier this week on Barack Obama’s snubbing of Benjamin Netanyahu has prompted a livelier comment section usual, but it is meandering all over the place regarding the issues of diplomatic protocol, Zionism, and what position the united states ought to take in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I need to address some issues. It would probably be better to talk about them in a new post than respond in the comments.

First, it does not matter what the issue is or what country the head of state is from, the President of the United States cannot walk out on a world leader, much less a member state of the United Nations and a close ally, because said ally is not in complete compliance with the POTUS’ wishes and leave that head of state with subordinates while he trots off for a social gathering. It is just not done. In that regard, it does not matter which side you want to take in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is irrelevant because Obama’s behavior would be every bit of a national embarrassment if the president of some tiny Pacific island no one has ever heard of had suffered it.

Second, I freely admit I have religious motivations for my Zionism, but that is not the exclusive reason I support Israel. If my Christian beliefs are clouding the issue as most of the comments are claiming, I can discuss this on a human rights level. Just bear in mind I do not consider Christian motivations to support Israel evil even though I think they are enough regardless of any human rights issue.

Finally, I still believe Israel is in the right with regards to human rights. That is a startlingly dangerous statement to make these days when the liberal intelligentsia has turned against Israel. Can anyone fathom why this is when to do so is to ally with the likes of Hamas? Hamas, the organization that uses suicide bombers to kill civilians, use their own civilian as human shields against Israeli defense assaults, as well as advocates the subjugation of women and the execution of homosexuals? Where is the progressiveness in that?

It is no where to be found, but have mercy if progressive organizations are not obsessed with tying Israel’s hands in their struggle against them. Why was the United Nations reluctant to look at the genocide in Rwanda or the continuing slaughter in Darfur but more than happy to waste time andresources investigatig the death of a terrorist and two human shields killed when Israel destroyed a missile battery? I question the honesty of any self-proclaimed progressive who cannot make a case for Israel.

A little history here: Those Muslim groups carryig out violent acts towards Israeli’s are the direct descendants of Nazism. In 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was fouded in Egypt. The Brotherhood’s first major push, the one that established it as a major movement, was to curtail Jewish immigration to Palestine through violence. As the group’s activities became more elaborate, they received funds from the idealogical brothers--the Nazis. No where was the Nazi influence felt more prominently than in Egypt, where the Arab Revolt urged Palestinians to cleanse their land of the Jews. There has not been a point where that has stopped. The Muslim Brotherhood was the ground floor for groups like Hamas and, yes, al Qeada. Where is the logic in supporting them against Israel? Where is the progressive mottivation?

Can you equate Israel’s acts in defending itself from the terrorist acts perpetrated against it? No, I do not think you can. Rockets, surrounded by civilian human shields, are fired from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas in broad daylight when they are the busiest in order to maximize the number of casualties. Israel respnds by destroying the rocket battery, the terrorists who fired it, and unfortunately the human shields that were purposefully placed there as a deterrent. That is a proportional response any way you look at it. Israel would be well within its rights to invade Gaza City and smash every inch of it from which rockets might be fire as well as hunt down every suspected terrorist, but it does not. Why not? Because the Israelis have a moral character they are not given enough credit for possessing.

But the bottom line is one who is motivated by a human rights concern is obligated to take action against the worst first. Several hundred thousand in Rwanda or Darfur is somehow less than Israel defending itself against a handful of terrorists that strap dynamite to their children and have them march into an open air Israeli market full of civilians? There are moral priorities that much of the world has skewered.

Israel is a stable democracy with avenues of relief for huan rights violations. The government can be petioned for grievances, the judicial system listens to complaints, and elected leaders can be voted out. Try that in Iran. Try that with Hamas. It cannot bedone. Neither holds a philosophy we ought to be supporting. Israel does.

So if you want to call the Israeli/Palestinian conflict a human rights matter, fine. But look at it honestly. You cannot in conscience throw your support behind anyone but Israel if you truly care about human rights. While I do not believe Americans have to support the most hardline Likud policy or else, it is difficult not to out of frustration for how little the Palestinians and their supporters, a term I use loosely because Muslims have plwnty of land and petrodollars to relocate their Palestinian brothers or at least improve their living standards, but prefer funding terrorism instead, are willing to budge.

In 1948, their were 400,000 Palestinians when the Jewish state was declared and the Muslim world screamed, ’Genocide!” Now there are over 4 million Palestinians, which goes to show what happens when genocide up to the Jews.