Like Its Failed Predecessor, the UN Human Rights Council Is Interested Only in Slandering Israel

In 2006, the United Nations created its Human Rights Council to replace the disbanded Human Rights Commission, which was little more than a forum for the world’s cruelest despots to condemn the Jewish state. Currently in session in Geneva, the council has demonstrated that it has preserved all the faults of its precursor. Arsen Ostrovsky writes:

[I]nstead of focusing on China’s ethnic cleansing of Uighur Muslims, Iran’s merciless execution of the wrestler Navid Afkar, or Russia’s poisoning of the pro-democracy opposition leader Alexei Navalny, the council will once again focus its attention on the democratic state of Israel with a series of predictable condemnations. . . . The council reserves a spot on its agenda to condemn the Jewish state—the sole country-specific item—whereas human-rights issues in the entire rest of the world are shoved into one solitary agenda item.

In the meantime, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, in her September 14th remarks to the council at the opening of this current session, did not hesitate to condemn Israel for exercising self-defense against Hamas in Gaza.

At the same time, the council’s current membership, which includes Pakistan, Qatar, Libya, slave-trading Mauritania, and Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela, doesn’t inspire confidence in the council’s ability to defend the oppressed and serve as an objective guardian of human rights. . . . [In] this theatre of the, absurd, terrorists, tyrants, dictators, and [their] henchmen sit in judgment of Western democracies, their places on the Human Rights Council guaranteed by sham elections and back-door deals, their impunity sealed by membership in the UN’s top human-rights body.

Read more at Newsweek

More about: Human Rights, UNHRC, United Nations

 

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy