Human rights versus self defense

           Reprinted from the Nagaland Page, June 3, 2010

As regards that most unfortunate of episodes that happened the other day, Israel has acknowledged that the flotilla was attacked in international waters, 65 km from the Gaza coast but it justified it’s actions by way of the Israeli spokeswoman Avital Leibovich quoted as saying "This happened in waters outside Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves". The ships comprising the flotilla arrived from Britain, Ireland, Algeria, Kuwait, Greece and Turkey and were ferrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian relief supplies for Gaza residents who have been reeling under a blockade since the end of Israel's winter war with Hamas in Gaza in 2009. The whole world has condemned this act and clearly it is time for human rights activists and organizations to ponder over the whole concept and issues of human rights. Does Israel have the right to defend itself by denying humanitarian relief supplies for Gaza residents who have been reeling under a blockade since the end of Israel's winter war with Hamas in Gaza in 2009? Where does a country’s defense begins and another country’s human rights end? Why is it that international human rights activists and organizations have not declared any form of blockades, especially those that hamper the free flow of food, medicines and other essential commodities for human survival, as human rights violations? Is politics greater than human survival? What about people affected by blockades, who have no say in political matters simply because they have to eke out a survival from day to day? Do defensive actions like blockades strengthen any political stands? Isn’t throttling of essential commodities’ supply to what is perceived as ‘enemy’ territory amount to another insidious form of conflict, which violates basic human rights of the people caught in the crossfire? Why haven’t the international community, led either by the US or the UN, made blockades a war crime to be tried in the International Court of Justice? Like it or not, the world is plural in terms of races, religions, cultures, etc. but everyone has to live with one another --- under the circumstances, isn’t it high time that the international community put it’s foot down on anyone trying to throttle another’s survival and existence? Surely, liberalization and globalization can be successful only if we uphold the reality and essence of the world’s pluralism? Post-World War II, Israel has had the world’s sympathy but over the decades, it is one country that has systematically violated human rights of the Palestinians and others living in that area yet the world looks the other way. It is no wonder that the agony and the angst of the Palestinians and others in that area are manifesting in the most cataclysmic events today. Looking at what Israel has done to the flotilla ferrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian relief supplies for Gaza residents, it can safely be said that human rights is not a priority for the world and worse still not for democracies like the US, UK and India. Otherwise by now the world could have put down it’s foot by ensuring that Israel makes good the loss incurred to people in the Gaza Strip by imposing the blockade since the end of Israel's winter war with Hamas in Gaza in 2009. What good are condemnations? They are mere words, which have never stopped anyone from violating human rights and committing other crimes against humanity. Any government that cannot put it’s foot down on and end inhumane actions like blockades that starve people on the other side has no moral right to continue governing. Two of the world’s largest democracies, India’s UPA Government and the US’s Obama Administration, can actually change the fate of millions of people whose human rights are regularly violated through what is generally perceived as ‘democratic protest’, as also ‘the right to defend ourselves’, as Israel has claimed recently. The need to re-look at the concept of human rights, as also that of defensive actions cannot be over-emphasized in a world that is plural but is becoming increasingly intolerant and belligerent. Human life is too precious to be dictated and controlled, worse still snuffed out, by political calculations and considerations or even the thirst for political dominance. Imagine the human catastrophe when these are accompanied by rapid racism!