Human Rights, Mentality, Morality of the Westerners: A Reappraisal

In recent times, we heard too much of human rights, morality , first class mentality and all these standards that human should be at promoted by those westerners. They render anyone not up following the guideline they set up as inhumane, of low morality and most commonly, '3rd class' mentality. But on what grounds do these westerners had when they uphold all these fabrications up to their own desire? And most importantly, do they actually obey and do everything up to their own level?
The westerners view Islamic law as being evil and inhumane, for they say it confine a human's desire. But they are okay with disgusting behaviors of a drunk person, ripping of another person's life through interest rates and having kids without fathers. It is ridiculous, and yet they have not much problems as they do with upholding human rights and morality. What kind of justice is all that? Unfortunately for us, these westerners are in a position of power for now, and we are best to try and rise, and perhaps get all these nonsense corrected.
The UN, as we all been told, champions the cause of human rights and justice. However, one fine example can be drawn, which involved some millions, of a direct violations of their own charter, in order to fulfill the interest of certain selfish bastards. When the Zionist claimed the land of Palestine, their claim was on the basis that the Jew once were the rulers of land. The thing was, it was the Canaanite and the Phillistine people were there first, and the Israelites were the once who took the land by force, murdering the original inhabitant and driving them out. They rule the land for some time, not very long, before being driven or killed. Then Muslims and Christians ruled, and the Muslims were in power for about 1300 years. During that time, most inhabitants were descendant of the people of Canaanite and Phillistine, therefore they are the rightful people of the Land.
Now returning to our main point, when the Zionist claimed the Land based on the mentioned reason, the westerners helped them, with all things such as the Balfour Declaration, British Mandate and the UN partition plan. All these political instruments are illegal in international law on many grounds, most importantly because of the interference of sovereignty of the Palestinian. The Balfour declaration and the British Mandate were bad enough, but the UN partition plan were the worst chapter of human civilization. They basically give the ownership rights of land owned by Palestinian ( by own I mean literally, the land titled under Palestinians) to those Jews to establish Israel. The vote was 33 - 13 in favor of the partition plan, with all 13 Arab nations opposing and all those westerners favored the plan. We all know about the Jewish lobby, but a crime of this scale, it must be an insult even to the people in the UN. It basically displace people out of their own land, and such action were sponsored by nations of the world. And they all have the guts to tell people to uphold human rights. I must say the UN had failed earlier on, and we shouldn't waste our integrity respecting and obeying such organization.
We have seen hypocracy of a grand scale, and it is still happening up to this day. I urge all to forget all the crap of first world mentality and western standard of human rights. We are to uphold the laws that has been blessed to us by our religion, the one with perfect structure and in harmony in all aspect of our life. Muslim was able to achieve glory by our selves, and surely we can do it again.

"Prosper-Thy-Neighbor"

I am now working on my final paper for comparative foreign policy class. In the paper, I shall be analyzing some policies deemed "foreign" employed my the Gov of Malaysia during the Asian 1997 economic crisis. In particular, I am investigating "Prosper-Thy-Neighbor" policies advocated by Tun Mahathir. There are some interesting conclusion, though I am not sure of its correctness, which I am all to be blamed.

My main result of this investigation is that "Prosper-Thy-Neighbor" policies between high performance ASEAN countries and low performance ones induce a Nash equilibrium.

This result is obtained by applying simple game theory to the issue that I am analyzing.

I am thinking of devising a more general proposition, but I have some idea on how it may sound.

Generalization of the first proposition: Implementation of "Prosper-Thy-Neighbor" policies in an asymmetric game will induce a Nash equilibrium.

I am still working on the paper and hopefully I get the math right.