Almost a decade ago, histrionics were running high at the United Nations. After enduring months of a Palestinian terrorist campaign, Israel launched Operation Defense Shield during which Israeli commandoes went door to booby-trapped door in Jenin to root out bomb makers and their factories. During the course of the Jenin operation, Israel lost 23 soldiers, men who would be alive had the Israelis simply bombed the city instead of attempting surgical excision of the terror cells. The world cried foul, and promoted the myth of the Jenin massacre. Here, for example, is the BBC report from the time.
It was against this backdrop that on April 15, 2002, the United Nations Human Rights Commission—which has since been reconstituted as the United Nations Council— and at the time under the leadership of former Irish President Mary Robinson, passed a resolution embracing an earlier General Assembly resolution which declared “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.” France, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden all supported the resolution.
For those who argue that the United Nations Human Rights Commission and its successor Council define humanitarian law, the vote taken against the backdrop of anti-Israel animus created a precedent which blessed any and all terrorism: Hijackings, bus bombings, sniper attacks on civilians all became legal so long as the terrorists justified it in terms of liberation. The Palestinian Authority did just that—citing the resolution to justify a subsequent terrorist attack against Jews in Hebron, but the Basque separatist organization ETA and Tamil Tigers could just as easily justify their bloodshed in the resolution.
As the world marks a decade since the resolution, it remains a dark mark on the United Nations. Terrorists have killed thousands across the globe in the name of “liberation” ever since. Indeed, groups such as al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Taliban both cynically exploit anti-colonialist rhetoric to justify their terrorism. That Robinson and the UN provided an intellectual and legal framework for them to do so is especially shameful.
President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Ambassador Susan Rice make no secret of their desire to promote the United Nations as the moral authority for international relations. Unless they are willing to force the United Nations to correct its moral failings, however, then no Western democrat or liberal should ever take the United Nations for anything more than a regressive club for autocrats and moral failing.
But you forget that our President, Sec of State and UN ambassador agrees with this resolution and its immorality. Mary Robinson was the first person Obama granted the Medal of Freedom once gaining the Office.
In her invaluable, "How the PLO was legitimized," the late Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote: n nNOT long after Khrushchev articulated these distinctions, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted them. Where the Charter permitted force by member states only to defend themselves against attack, GA Resolution 2708 XX (1970) created a new category of "legitimate" force which could be used against member states. This new right was confirmed in subsequent resolutions approving the struggle of "liberation" groups against "colonialism" by "all necessary means at their disposal." n nStep by step the new doctrine was codified in the General Assembly. In 1970, with U.S. and Western support, the General Assembly adopted the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Nations" which further expanded the rights of "peoples" and restricted those of states by providing, inter alia, that "all peoples have the right freely to determine without external influences their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter." n nMoreover: "Every state has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peopIe … of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against resistance to such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter" (emphasis added). n nWith this declaration, the General Assembly, more clearly and unambiguously than ever, took the position not only that "peoples" had rights superior to those of member states, but that states resisting the rights of "peoples" could themselves become a "threat to peace." The General Assembly thus subordinated the principle of the "sovereign inviolability" of states to the struggle of "peoples" against "colonialism" and put important new restrictions on the right of states to selfdefense. nThe resolution passed in 2002 was merely reiterating something that had been passed more than thirty years previously.
Interesting. Essentially sets up a world of tribal conflict. If "Israel" the member state lacks rights against the Palestinians, the "Jews" as a people would in theory have that right (if there were not a double standard against Jews/Israel).