Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2012
What U.N. Recognition of Palestine Really Means
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on National Review Online.
To comprehend what went down at the U.N. on Thursday when the Palestinians were given “non-member observer state status” by a vote of 138 for, 9 against, and 41 abstentions, consider these statements made in New York over the course of the day:
• Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, U.N. “Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” event; (statement delivered by Foreign Minister Riad Malki, New York, Thursday morning: “Israel’s admission to the United Nations in 1949 was accompanied by two conditions: Israel’s commitment to . . . the return of Palestine refugees to their homes…”
• President Abbas, General Assembly, New York, Thursday afternoon: “The Palestinian people . . . miraculously recovered from the ashes of Al-Nakba of 1948 which was intended to extinguish their being. . . . Israeli occupation is . . . an apartheid system . . . which institutionalizes the plague of racism.”
• Palestinian ambassador Riyad Mansour, opening of a Palestinian U.N. exhibit, New York, Thursday evening: “Today we have legislated a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.”
So the real deal is this. Israel’s legitimacy is not recognized by the Palestinian leadership. It is conditional and it is conditioned upon alleged prerequisites (of a right of return and the end of a Jewish state) that have not, and will not, be met.
The Palestinian narrative is a fiction. It is deliberately crafted to mirror that of the Jewish people, beginning with the biggest lie of all — that the catastrophe of the creation of the state of Israel is equivalent to the Holocaust.
Israel is alleged to be akin to apartheid South Africa, so that its legitimacy is continually in jeopardy. After all, the South African regime had to be destroyed by lethal politics.
And the whole point of the exercise was to legislate — that is, impose — results on Israel on Palestinian terms. Negotiations are a joke. The U.N. will do Palestinians’ “negotiation” for them.
No wonder the outcome was met by the loud applause of a room full of the representatives of dictators and thugs (the majority of U.N. members are not full democracies), and NGO/“civil society” hacks who had been brought in by the U.N. Division for Palestinian Rights. (A letter of Division Director Wolfgang Grieger states that he had personally reserved at least 100 spots in the gallery.) Sitting in the gallery myself, I noticed that during Abbas’s lengthy speech the outbursts of clapping across the gallery would commence before the translation of Arabic sentences into other languages had finished. It was an exercise in what one might call Benghazi-style spontaneity.
The only question that remains, therefore, is this. Now that decades of Palestinian intransigence and belligerence have been richly rewarded by the U.N. majority, how soon will Palestinians start targeting and harming Israeli Jews with impunity again? .
So once again, as in World War ll, based on the fact that all European countries did not have the guts to vote (apart from the Czech republic) , Israel and the Jews are being cast into the wind.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Palestinian application for UN membership in a topsy turvy world
By Maurice Ostroff October 14, 2011
It is strange that no query was raised at the UN when Mr. Abbas who has been prevented from visiting Gaza since the Hamas takeover, claimed that he was speaking on behalf of the PLO which he described as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people including Gazans
This claim is sharply contradicted by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter which states that because the PLO has adopted the idea of a secular state it will not be fully accepted until it adopts Islam
In this topsy turvy world, notorious human rights abusers like Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and Gadafi's Libya have been members of the Human rights Council. And now, the UN is seriously considering admitting as a member, an entity of which Hamas, which has been defined as a terrorist organization by the USA and the EU, would be a major component.
In his eloquent address to the UN on September 23, 2011 Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), president of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) called for an independent state in all the land occupied by Israel in 1967 including Gaza. But anyone with elementary knowledge of Middle East affairs must query his authority to speak in the name of Hamas-ruled Gaza or indeed on behalf of Hamas members anywhere including in the West Bank.
It is strange that no query was raised at the UN when Mr. Abbas who has been prevented from visiting Gaza since the Hamas takeover, claimed that he was speaking on behalf of the PLO which he described as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people including Gazans
This claim is sharply contradicted by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter which states that because the PLO has adopted the idea of a secular state it will not be fully accepted until it adopts Islam.
According to an Al Jazeera report, Alaa al-Rifati, minister of economy in Gaza said that Hamas has not endorsed the PLO bid for statehood because they see it as a Fatah-led initiative and Ahmed Yousef, the deputy foreign minister in Gaza told Al Jazeera, Because nobody consulted us, we, Hamas, do not take this issue seriously."
In the circumstances the UN must clarify whether it is competent to impose PLO rule over an unwilling Gaza.
Conditions for membership
The Palestinian application for UN membership cannot be properly considered until several basic constitutional issues are resolved. For example, article 5 of the UN Charter specifically requires that the admission to membership will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, not vice-versa as being considered at present.
Since article 4 of the UN Charter states that membership is open to peace-loving states, the question arises as to whether the fractured PLO-Hamas entity can be classified as a state, peace-loving or otherwise. And since Hamas-ruled Gaza comprises a substantial component of the Palestinian entity, the peace-loving requirement is very definitely ruled out by article 13 of the Hamas charter which unambiguously declares, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
In fact the PLO is also disqualified as a peace-loving entity by article 9 of its charter which declares bluntly that the armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy.
Contrary to Mr. Abbas statement to the UN that the PLO and the Palestinian people have renounced violence and condemn terrorism, incitement and glorification of terrorism continue to infect Palestinian society. Children continue to be taught to hate from the earliest age. See for example this clip and this
On March 9, 2011, Abu Mazen's advisor Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel and a few days later some inspired young Palestinians did exactly that.
Recently a town square in Ramallah was named after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis were killed and 71 wounded It is hardly surprising that brutal terror attacks are motivated by children attending schools named after terrorists and by popular soccer tournaments that are named after terrorists,
Refugees
Mr. Abbas call for a solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194 is strange in view of the fact that all six Arab countries then represented at the UN voted against it.
According to an article in the China Worker by Aysha Zaki, of the Committee for a Workers International, many refugees, who remain suspended in Lebanon without passports, democratic rights of participation in Lebanese society, entitlement to purchase or inherit property, and banned from working in more than 30 professions, fear the statehood bid, at best, carries no weight for their plight and, at worst, places resolution 194 in jeopardy
Since Resolution 194 is a General Assembly resolution it is not binding, and only serves as advisory statements whereas resolution 242 is a biding Security Council resolution that is accepted by Israel and is the basis of the majority of negotiations.
Much has been written about the implications of resolution 242 and if we are to avoid the distortions introduced by propagandists, obviously, the most reliable source from whom to seek clarification are the persons who drafted it. In drafting the resolution, both British Ambassador to the UN in 1967, Lord Caradon, and American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, deliberately omitted a demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."Click here for more details
According to the article in the China worker, quoted above some Palestinians conclude that the UN bid for statehood is not in the interests of the Palestinian people, while others believe that it can be a step towards uniting the Palestinian people after a period of internal divisions.
It is strange that no query was raised at the UN when Mr. Abbas who has been prevented from visiting Gaza since the Hamas takeover, claimed that he was speaking on behalf of the PLO which he described as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people including Gazans
This claim is sharply contradicted by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter which states that because the PLO has adopted the idea of a secular state it will not be fully accepted until it adopts Islam
In this topsy turvy world, notorious human rights abusers like Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and Gadafi's Libya have been members of the Human rights Council. And now, the UN is seriously considering admitting as a member, an entity of which Hamas, which has been defined as a terrorist organization by the USA and the EU, would be a major component.
In his eloquent address to the UN on September 23, 2011 Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), president of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) called for an independent state in all the land occupied by Israel in 1967 including Gaza. But anyone with elementary knowledge of Middle East affairs must query his authority to speak in the name of Hamas-ruled Gaza or indeed on behalf of Hamas members anywhere including in the West Bank.
It is strange that no query was raised at the UN when Mr. Abbas who has been prevented from visiting Gaza since the Hamas takeover, claimed that he was speaking on behalf of the PLO which he described as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people including Gazans
This claim is sharply contradicted by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter which states that because the PLO has adopted the idea of a secular state it will not be fully accepted until it adopts Islam.
According to an Al Jazeera report, Alaa al-Rifati, minister of economy in Gaza said that Hamas has not endorsed the PLO bid for statehood because they see it as a Fatah-led initiative and Ahmed Yousef, the deputy foreign minister in Gaza told Al Jazeera, Because nobody consulted us, we, Hamas, do not take this issue seriously."
In the circumstances the UN must clarify whether it is competent to impose PLO rule over an unwilling Gaza.
Conditions for membership
The Palestinian application for UN membership cannot be properly considered until several basic constitutional issues are resolved. For example, article 5 of the UN Charter specifically requires that the admission to membership will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, not vice-versa as being considered at present.
Since article 4 of the UN Charter states that membership is open to peace-loving states, the question arises as to whether the fractured PLO-Hamas entity can be classified as a state, peace-loving or otherwise. And since Hamas-ruled Gaza comprises a substantial component of the Palestinian entity, the peace-loving requirement is very definitely ruled out by article 13 of the Hamas charter which unambiguously declares, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
In fact the PLO is also disqualified as a peace-loving entity by article 9 of its charter which declares bluntly that the armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy.
Contrary to Mr. Abbas statement to the UN that the PLO and the Palestinian people have renounced violence and condemn terrorism, incitement and glorification of terrorism continue to infect Palestinian society. Children continue to be taught to hate from the earliest age. See for example this clip and this
On March 9, 2011, Abu Mazen's advisor Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel and a few days later some inspired young Palestinians did exactly that.
Recently a town square in Ramallah was named after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis were killed and 71 wounded It is hardly surprising that brutal terror attacks are motivated by children attending schools named after terrorists and by popular soccer tournaments that are named after terrorists,
Refugees
Mr. Abbas call for a solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194 is strange in view of the fact that all six Arab countries then represented at the UN voted against it.
According to an article in the China Worker by Aysha Zaki, of the Committee for a Workers International, many refugees, who remain suspended in Lebanon without passports, democratic rights of participation in Lebanese society, entitlement to purchase or inherit property, and banned from working in more than 30 professions, fear the statehood bid, at best, carries no weight for their plight and, at worst, places resolution 194 in jeopardy
Since Resolution 194 is a General Assembly resolution it is not binding, and only serves as advisory statements whereas resolution 242 is a biding Security Council resolution that is accepted by Israel and is the basis of the majority of negotiations.
Much has been written about the implications of resolution 242 and if we are to avoid the distortions introduced by propagandists, obviously, the most reliable source from whom to seek clarification are the persons who drafted it. In drafting the resolution, both British Ambassador to the UN in 1967, Lord Caradon, and American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, deliberately omitted a demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."Click here for more details
According to the article in the China worker, quoted above some Palestinians conclude that the UN bid for statehood is not in the interests of the Palestinian people, while others believe that it can be a step towards uniting the Palestinian people after a period of internal divisions.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The dangers in premature recognition of a “Palestinian state”
In addition to the on-going flotilla stories, the attempt by the Palestinians to avoid negotiations with Israel will take another turn in September at the UN.
Whilst any supporter of Israel will give a thousnad reasons why the Palestinians are wrong in this attempt, it is interesting to note that many Arab sources are also saying the same thing.
One example of this is an article by a Kuwaiti journalist published recently and I attach the translation below by Abdallah al-Hadlaq, 22nd June 2011
(Translated from Arabic newspaper “Al Watan” in Kuwait)
http://alwatan.kuwait.tt/ArticleDetails.aspx?Id=120302&YearQuarter=20112 Original Arabic article
International agreements dealing with peace in the Middle East must be respected
The Palestinian side is flaunting UNSC Resolutions 242, 338 and 1850 and the Road Map to Peace, all of which call for agreed solutions for disputes to be reached by direct talks, rejecting unilateral acts that undermine internationally accepted parameters for reaching peace, and defining basic principles for bilateral peace-making.
The Palestinians strive to obtain premature recognition for a “Palestinian State” this September despite the danger of derailing the peace talks, which is implicit in a unilateral declaration.
International agreements dealing with peace in the Middle East must be respected.
Israel indeed upholds them, as well as the principle of direct negotiations as being the only way to solve the dispute, while the Palestinians have long since abandoned direct peace talks, and now act unilaterally, trying to impose a fait accompli on Israel, using international pressure.
The Palestinians want to realize their dream of obtaining international legitimacy (which should be based on finding the agreed solution so necessary for peace) through the forcible imposition of an international diktat on Israel . A unilateral declaration will not conclude the conflict but only make matters worse, making it more intense instead of ending it. The Palestinians seem to have lost their keen interest in negotiation aimed at a reaching a deal, and now only want to act unilaterally in ways that will never solve key problems in the current impasse - which can only be tackled through direct talks between the parties concerned. Continued Palestinian obstinacy just complicates the conflict.
As the Palestinians press on unilaterally for premature recognition of their ”State”, they ignore Israel’s right to exist peacefully as the state of the Jewish people, recognized and living within its borders. The division of the Palestinians themselves between the Palestinian Authority that controls only parts of the West Bank, and the terrorist Hamas movement (loyal to the Persians of Iran) that holds the Gaza Strip negates legal criteria for the establishment of a state in form and character. Added to which, the Palestinian Authority has no authority over the Gaza Strip (which as noted is dominated by Hamas), the recent conciliation agreement between the warring factions notwithstanding.
Premature recognition of a Palestinian State means recognition of a terrorist entity - because Hamas openly intends to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. Hamas rejects the terms of the international community for its own recognition that would make Hamas into a legal and accepted player in the region. These terms are: recognizing the right of Israel to exist, acceptance of existing international agreements, and an end to violence.
We must not forget that the international community still defines Hamas as a terrorist organization which is banned in Europe and the USA. How then can a terrorist body become the model for a Palestinian state?
Israel has for a long time made strategic concessions for peace, proving her desire for peaceful negotiations. She gave up Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, and withdrew from Gaza and South Lebanon. But the response she earned in the latter cases of Gaza and South Lebanon was a hail of rockets and barrages of artillery. Her towns and villages in the north and south of the country were attacked and many civilians were killed.
That should serve to warn of the dangers she faces from the terrorists of Hizballah and Hamas, and underlines the need for peace through solutions that will answer the needs and interests of all parties to the conflict.
Clearly, a premature recognition of a Palestinian state will negate the negotiating process and shatter the lofty idea of a modus vivendi attained through dialogue.
All those who hope for real peace in the region must reject these reckless unilateral Palestinian moves that block the negotiation process. The Palestinians must be made to understand that the only way to a permanent peace treaty will be through direct talks.
Whilst any supporter of Israel will give a thousnad reasons why the Palestinians are wrong in this attempt, it is interesting to note that many Arab sources are also saying the same thing.
One example of this is an article by a Kuwaiti journalist published recently and I attach the translation below by Abdallah al-Hadlaq, 22nd June 2011
(Translated from Arabic newspaper “Al Watan” in Kuwait)
http://alwatan.kuwait.tt/ArticleDetails.aspx?Id=120302&YearQuarter=20112 Original Arabic article
International agreements dealing with peace in the Middle East must be respected
The Palestinian side is flaunting UNSC Resolutions 242, 338 and 1850 and the Road Map to Peace, all of which call for agreed solutions for disputes to be reached by direct talks, rejecting unilateral acts that undermine internationally accepted parameters for reaching peace, and defining basic principles for bilateral peace-making.
The Palestinians strive to obtain premature recognition for a “Palestinian State” this September despite the danger of derailing the peace talks, which is implicit in a unilateral declaration.
International agreements dealing with peace in the Middle East must be respected.
Israel indeed upholds them, as well as the principle of direct negotiations as being the only way to solve the dispute, while the Palestinians have long since abandoned direct peace talks, and now act unilaterally, trying to impose a fait accompli on Israel, using international pressure.
The Palestinians want to realize their dream of obtaining international legitimacy (which should be based on finding the agreed solution so necessary for peace) through the forcible imposition of an international diktat on Israel . A unilateral declaration will not conclude the conflict but only make matters worse, making it more intense instead of ending it. The Palestinians seem to have lost their keen interest in negotiation aimed at a reaching a deal, and now only want to act unilaterally in ways that will never solve key problems in the current impasse - which can only be tackled through direct talks between the parties concerned. Continued Palestinian obstinacy just complicates the conflict.
As the Palestinians press on unilaterally for premature recognition of their ”State”, they ignore Israel’s right to exist peacefully as the state of the Jewish people, recognized and living within its borders. The division of the Palestinians themselves between the Palestinian Authority that controls only parts of the West Bank, and the terrorist Hamas movement (loyal to the Persians of Iran) that holds the Gaza Strip negates legal criteria for the establishment of a state in form and character. Added to which, the Palestinian Authority has no authority over the Gaza Strip (which as noted is dominated by Hamas), the recent conciliation agreement between the warring factions notwithstanding.
Premature recognition of a Palestinian State means recognition of a terrorist entity - because Hamas openly intends to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. Hamas rejects the terms of the international community for its own recognition that would make Hamas into a legal and accepted player in the region. These terms are: recognizing the right of Israel to exist, acceptance of existing international agreements, and an end to violence.
We must not forget that the international community still defines Hamas as a terrorist organization which is banned in Europe and the USA. How then can a terrorist body become the model for a Palestinian state?
Israel has for a long time made strategic concessions for peace, proving her desire for peaceful negotiations. She gave up Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, and withdrew from Gaza and South Lebanon. But the response she earned in the latter cases of Gaza and South Lebanon was a hail of rockets and barrages of artillery. Her towns and villages in the north and south of the country were attacked and many civilians were killed.
That should serve to warn of the dangers she faces from the terrorists of Hizballah and Hamas, and underlines the need for peace through solutions that will answer the needs and interests of all parties to the conflict.
Clearly, a premature recognition of a Palestinian state will negate the negotiating process and shatter the lofty idea of a modus vivendi attained through dialogue.
All those who hope for real peace in the region must reject these reckless unilateral Palestinian moves that block the negotiation process. The Palestinians must be made to understand that the only way to a permanent peace treaty will be through direct talks.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A Snapshot of Today’s United Nations
I believe that the review below highlights the hypocracy of the UN in its dealings with all countries in the Middle East and the constant "bashing" of Israel to the exclusion of all other countries.
A Snapshot of Today’s United Nations, United...in bashing Israel.
February 22, 2011 - by Anne Bayefsky
Here are some vital statistics on the current crisis in the Arab and Muslim world and the role not being played by the “global leader,” the United Nations.
The UN Security Council job description (The Charter of the United Nations)
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace…
a) Number of UN Security Council presidential statements or resolutions on the current atrocities perpetrated by Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
b) Number of meetings called by the Security Council to discuss and consider a possible resolution or presidential statement on any of these countries. ZERO
*****
The UN Human Rights Council job description (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251)
The General Assembly
(1) Decides to establish the Human Rights Council…
(2) Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;
(3) Decides also that the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon…
(10) Decides further that the Council…shall be able to hold special sessions, when needed…
a) Number of special sessions called by the Human Rights Council to draw attention to, discuss, consider a possible resolution or decision on the current atrocities perpetrated by Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
b) Number of resolutions or decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council about the lack of democracy and brutality of the governments of Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
*****
Membership Qualifications for the United Nations Human Rights Council
– its lead human rights body(General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251)
8. Decides that…when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights…
9. Decides also that members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights…
Current Members of the UN Human Rights Council
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Egypt just concluded a three-year term in 2010.
*****
On the other hand,
a) Number of Special Sessions on country situations called by the Human Rights Council on Israel 50% (6 of 12)
Number of Resolutions and Decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council critical of the human rights record of specific states directed at Israel 50% (41 of 83)
A Snapshot of Today’s United Nations, United...in bashing Israel.
February 22, 2011 - by Anne Bayefsky
Here are some vital statistics on the current crisis in the Arab and Muslim world and the role not being played by the “global leader,” the United Nations.
The UN Security Council job description (The Charter of the United Nations)
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace…
a) Number of UN Security Council presidential statements or resolutions on the current atrocities perpetrated by Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
b) Number of meetings called by the Security Council to discuss and consider a possible resolution or presidential statement on any of these countries. ZERO
*****
The UN Human Rights Council job description (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251)
The General Assembly
(1) Decides to establish the Human Rights Council…
(2) Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;
(3) Decides also that the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon…
(10) Decides further that the Council…shall be able to hold special sessions, when needed…
a) Number of special sessions called by the Human Rights Council to draw attention to, discuss, consider a possible resolution or decision on the current atrocities perpetrated by Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
b) Number of resolutions or decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council about the lack of democracy and brutality of the governments of Arab and Muslim dictators in Iran, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. ZERO
*****
Membership Qualifications for the United Nations Human Rights Council
– its lead human rights body(General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251)
8. Decides that…when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights…
9. Decides also that members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights…
Current Members of the UN Human Rights Council
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Egypt just concluded a three-year term in 2010.
*****
On the other hand,
a) Number of Special Sessions on country situations called by the Human Rights Council on Israel 50% (6 of 12)
Number of Resolutions and Decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council critical of the human rights record of specific states directed at Israel 50% (41 of 83)
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Even Judge Goldstone can support Israel??!!
Most Israelis are suspicious of the UN Human Rights Council and its disproportionate focus on Israel. A good friend of mine wrote an op-ed in the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/judge_goldstone_contradicts_th.html which debates this problem. In this article he draws some small comfort for support from non other than Richard Goldstone.
Israel has for years complained about the extreme bias of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) which has issued 35 resolutions condemning Israel since 2006 and only 15 against all other countries in the same period. At a press conference in Jerusalem on February 11, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay denied reports that the HRC unfairly targets Israel.
But Ms. Pillay's views are sharply contradicted by none other than Judge Richard Goldstone who headed the UN Mission to Gaza that produced the controversial Goldstone Report.
During a recent panel discussion on "Civilians in War Zones" at Stanford University, Judge Goldstone mentioned that Ms. Pillay had requested the HRC to establish a Mission to investigate crimes likely to have been committed during the conflict in Sri Lanka and it is indeed notable that he courageously stated publicly that "to their shame" a majority of HRC members refused to do so.
Judge Goldstone's bold statement that punishing war crimes should be "on the basis of the equality of all nations before the law" is encouraging in view of the disproportionate focus on every little wart in Israel while ignoring real gross violations of human rights elsewhere. He said that this indefensible action by the HRC:
"fueled the long-standing and repeated complaints by Israel that the Human Rights Council and the UN in general are biased against it. They repeatedly rush to pass condemnatory resolutions in the face of alleged violations of human rights law by Israel but fail to take similar action in the face of even more serious violations by other States. Until the Gaza Report they failed to condemn the firing of rockets and mortars at Israeli civilian centers."
Israel has for years complained about the extreme bias of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) which has issued 35 resolutions condemning Israel since 2006 and only 15 against all other countries in the same period. At a press conference in Jerusalem on February 11, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay denied reports that the HRC unfairly targets Israel.
But Ms. Pillay's views are sharply contradicted by none other than Judge Richard Goldstone who headed the UN Mission to Gaza that produced the controversial Goldstone Report.
During a recent panel discussion on "Civilians in War Zones" at Stanford University, Judge Goldstone mentioned that Ms. Pillay had requested the HRC to establish a Mission to investigate crimes likely to have been committed during the conflict in Sri Lanka and it is indeed notable that he courageously stated publicly that "to their shame" a majority of HRC members refused to do so.
Judge Goldstone's bold statement that punishing war crimes should be "on the basis of the equality of all nations before the law" is encouraging in view of the disproportionate focus on every little wart in Israel while ignoring real gross violations of human rights elsewhere. He said that this indefensible action by the HRC:
"fueled the long-standing and repeated complaints by Israel that the Human Rights Council and the UN in general are biased against it. They repeatedly rush to pass condemnatory resolutions in the face of alleged violations of human rights law by Israel but fail to take similar action in the face of even more serious violations by other States. Until the Gaza Report they failed to condemn the firing of rockets and mortars at Israeli civilian centers."
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Israel: A Normal Country
I feel that I must reprint this article from last weeks Wall Street Journal. What a change from the constant barrage of hostility and deligitimisation. What a change from the repetition of polemics that have no basis in fact.
The following statement has been signed by Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo:
Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country. Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception. In fact, Israel is the only Western democracy whose existence has been questioned by force, and whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions.
The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean provided yet another occasion for Israel's detractors to renew their frenzied campaign. It was so even before the facts of that tragic incident had come to light. Eyes were blind to the reasons why Israel had to respond to the Gaza flotilla's clear provocation.
Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative. Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. We are an eclectic group, coming from different countries and holding different opinions on a range of issues. It goes without saying that we do not speak for the State of Israel and we do not defend every course of action that it decides upon. We are united, however, by the following beliefs, principles and aims:
First, Israel is a normal, Western democracy and should be treated as such. Its parliamentary system, legal traditions, education and scientific research facilities, and cultural achievements are as fundamental to it as to any other Western society. Indeed, in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader.
Second, attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values. The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. It also arose out of an unbroken Jewish connection to the land that stretches back thousands of years. Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust. Instead, it derives legitimacy from international law and from the same right to self-determination claimed by all nations.
Third, as a fully legitimate member of the international community, Israel's basic right to self-defense should not be questioned. Nor should it be forgotten that Israel faces unique security threats—from terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and from an Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone Report on the recent war in Gaza, for example, ignore the security challenges that Israel faces. All democracies should oppose such campaigns, which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the U.N. itself.
Fourth, we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle against Islamism and terror. Israel stands on the front line of that fight as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous. Appeasement failed in the 1930s and it will fail today.
Fifth, attempts by people of good faith to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians are always to be supported. But outsiders should beware of attempting to impose their own solutions. Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them.
Sixth, we must be alive to the dangers that the campaign against Israel poses in reawakening anti-Semitism. Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem.
The Friends of Israel Initiative has come together to encourage men and women of goodwill to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state, and to relocate those attitudes inside the best of Western traditions rather than the worst. We urge them to recognize that it is in our own best interests that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and many of the world's other liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all.
Mr. Aznar is a former prime minister of Spain. Mr. Trimble is a former first minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Toledo is a former president of Peru. Mr. Pera is a former president of the Italian Senate. Mr. Roberts is a British historian. Ms. Nirenstein is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Agostinelli is managing director of the Rhône Group. Mr. Bustelo is a former minister of industry in Spain.
The following statement has been signed by Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo:
Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country. Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception. In fact, Israel is the only Western democracy whose existence has been questioned by force, and whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions.
The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean provided yet another occasion for Israel's detractors to renew their frenzied campaign. It was so even before the facts of that tragic incident had come to light. Eyes were blind to the reasons why Israel had to respond to the Gaza flotilla's clear provocation.
Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative. Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. We are an eclectic group, coming from different countries and holding different opinions on a range of issues. It goes without saying that we do not speak for the State of Israel and we do not defend every course of action that it decides upon. We are united, however, by the following beliefs, principles and aims:
First, Israel is a normal, Western democracy and should be treated as such. Its parliamentary system, legal traditions, education and scientific research facilities, and cultural achievements are as fundamental to it as to any other Western society. Indeed, in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader.
Second, attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values. The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. It also arose out of an unbroken Jewish connection to the land that stretches back thousands of years. Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust. Instead, it derives legitimacy from international law and from the same right to self-determination claimed by all nations.
Third, as a fully legitimate member of the international community, Israel's basic right to self-defense should not be questioned. Nor should it be forgotten that Israel faces unique security threats—from terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and from an Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone Report on the recent war in Gaza, for example, ignore the security challenges that Israel faces. All democracies should oppose such campaigns, which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the U.N. itself.
Fourth, we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle against Islamism and terror. Israel stands on the front line of that fight as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous. Appeasement failed in the 1930s and it will fail today.
Fifth, attempts by people of good faith to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians are always to be supported. But outsiders should beware of attempting to impose their own solutions. Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them.
Sixth, we must be alive to the dangers that the campaign against Israel poses in reawakening anti-Semitism. Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem.
The Friends of Israel Initiative has come together to encourage men and women of goodwill to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state, and to relocate those attitudes inside the best of Western traditions rather than the worst. We urge them to recognize that it is in our own best interests that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and many of the world's other liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all.
Mr. Aznar is a former prime minister of Spain. Mr. Trimble is a former first minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Toledo is a former president of Peru. Mr. Pera is a former president of the Italian Senate. Mr. Roberts is a British historian. Ms. Nirenstein is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Agostinelli is managing director of the Rhône Group. Mr. Bustelo is a former minister of industry in Spain.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
UM Schmum
Such do many Israelis describe the United Nations which is held in low esteem by the average man in the street.
The overwhelming majority of Muslim countries are able to vote that black is white in almost every case.
The latest UN report of the Goldstone Mission is yet another example of assumed guilt irrespective of the facts on the ground.
Israel's government did not feel able to cooperate with the Fact Finding Mission because its mandate was clearly one-sided and ignored the thousands of Hamas missile attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary. Both the mandate of the Mission, the members of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organization and disregarded the deliberate Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as cover for launching terrorist attacks.
The unbalanced nature of the resolution establishing the Mission was the reason that so many States on the Council, including all member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan, did not support it, and why many distinguished individuals, including former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, refused invitations to head the Mission.
Notwithstanding its reservations, Israel has undertaken to read the Report carefully - as it does with all reports prepared by international and national organizations. Israel is committed to acting fully in accordance with international law and to examining any allegations of wrongdoing by its own forces. To date, the IDF has opened investigations into over 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during the Gaza Operation. While most of these investigations were closed because the allegations were found baseless, 23 criminal investigations were opened and are still pending.
There are so many distortions of what actually happened that Israel’s foreign ministry has launched a special website (http://www.mfa.gov.il/GAZAFACTS)which provides factual information addressing the legal and political context of the conflict in Gaza, the issue of Gaza war crimes, the issue of human rights and the investigations into the Israeli military conduct during combat.
The website discusses various issues relating to the Israeli military operation undertaken by the Israel Defense Force (IDF), better known as "Operation Cast Lead" or "The Gaza Operation" in December 2008-January 2009.
The overwhelming majority of Muslim countries are able to vote that black is white in almost every case.
The latest UN report of the Goldstone Mission is yet another example of assumed guilt irrespective of the facts on the ground.
Israel's government did not feel able to cooperate with the Fact Finding Mission because its mandate was clearly one-sided and ignored the thousands of Hamas missile attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary. Both the mandate of the Mission, the members of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organization and disregarded the deliberate Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as cover for launching terrorist attacks.
The unbalanced nature of the resolution establishing the Mission was the reason that so many States on the Council, including all member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan, did not support it, and why many distinguished individuals, including former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, refused invitations to head the Mission.
Notwithstanding its reservations, Israel has undertaken to read the Report carefully - as it does with all reports prepared by international and national organizations. Israel is committed to acting fully in accordance with international law and to examining any allegations of wrongdoing by its own forces. To date, the IDF has opened investigations into over 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during the Gaza Operation. While most of these investigations were closed because the allegations were found baseless, 23 criminal investigations were opened and are still pending.
There are so many distortions of what actually happened that Israel’s foreign ministry has launched a special website (http://www.mfa.gov.il/GAZAFACTS)which provides factual information addressing the legal and political context of the conflict in Gaza, the issue of Gaza war crimes, the issue of human rights and the investigations into the Israeli military conduct during combat.
The website discusses various issues relating to the Israeli military operation undertaken by the Israel Defense Force (IDF), better known as "Operation Cast Lead" or "The Gaza Operation" in December 2008-January 2009.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Sheikh Jarrah was a Jewish Neighbourhood
The recent protests in Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem against the eviction of two Palestinian families from a house has brought international condemnation of Israel has come from a variety of sources, including the UN. But the events in Sheikh Jarrah are part of a larger history that the international community never seems to take into account. So reports Seth Frantzman, see link at the end of the blog
What is today called Sheikh Jarrah in the 19th century included two Jewish neighborhoods known as Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadiq. Sheikh Jarrah was primarily a Jewish neighborhood from 1876 onwards and remained so up until 1948.
ACCORDING TO research carried out by Prof. Ruth Kark of the Hebrew University the Jewish housing developments were bordered by villas constructed by Jerusalem's leading Arab families that began building in Sheikh Jarrah in the 1870s. By 1918 the total number of Muslim houses in the neighborhood had grown to thirty.
In December of 1947 fighting broke out between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem. Initially the leading Muslim families asked Arab fighters from outside the city to leave their neighborhood, and the Jews there, in peace. By March 1948, however, Arabs from a unit called "al Shabab" [The Youth] invaded the neighborhood and set the Jewish synagogues and houses on fire, causing the residents to flee.
Sheikh Jarrah was not the only Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem destroyed in the war. Silwan, where Yemenite Jews had settled in 1882 was also taken over along with the Old city's Jewish quarter which was razed.
After 1948 East Jerusalem passed into Jordanian control and in this period the city's Christian population declined from around 30,000 before 1948 to some 11,000 in 1967.
THE UN was involved in settling Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem. The disputed houses in Sheikh Jarrah were actually handed over to the Hannoun and Gawi families in 1956 under the auspices of UNWRA. The Jewish community which actually owned the properties was not consulted. Neither was the Jewish community consulted when graves on the Mount of Olives were destroyed beginning in 1956.
Many of the disputes about East Jerusalem have their origins in what happened between 1948 and 1967, a period so often ignored by historians, governments and activists. The UN was NEVER given authority to resettle Palestinians in Jewish property, yet this is what they did. Before condemning Israel, the UN should first apologize for their theft of Jewish property without compensation. The Jewish properties in question might well have been left in ruins, like part of Nahalat Shimon and the grave of Simon the Just was. In fact none of the rampant destruction of Jewish sites in Jerusalem was condemned by the UN during the period of Jordanian rule.
Had the international community cared then as much as it does now perhaps the disputes would not have come about. If people understood more about the period of Jordanian rule one might better understand the actual history of the city, rather than focusing merely on Israeli actions and Palestinian victimization.
For more on this read http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145166123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
What is today called Sheikh Jarrah in the 19th century included two Jewish neighborhoods known as Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadiq. Sheikh Jarrah was primarily a Jewish neighborhood from 1876 onwards and remained so up until 1948.
ACCORDING TO research carried out by Prof. Ruth Kark of the Hebrew University the Jewish housing developments were bordered by villas constructed by Jerusalem's leading Arab families that began building in Sheikh Jarrah in the 1870s. By 1918 the total number of Muslim houses in the neighborhood had grown to thirty.
In December of 1947 fighting broke out between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem. Initially the leading Muslim families asked Arab fighters from outside the city to leave their neighborhood, and the Jews there, in peace. By March 1948, however, Arabs from a unit called "al Shabab" [The Youth] invaded the neighborhood and set the Jewish synagogues and houses on fire, causing the residents to flee.
Sheikh Jarrah was not the only Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem destroyed in the war. Silwan, where Yemenite Jews had settled in 1882 was also taken over along with the Old city's Jewish quarter which was razed.
After 1948 East Jerusalem passed into Jordanian control and in this period the city's Christian population declined from around 30,000 before 1948 to some 11,000 in 1967.
THE UN was involved in settling Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem. The disputed houses in Sheikh Jarrah were actually handed over to the Hannoun and Gawi families in 1956 under the auspices of UNWRA. The Jewish community which actually owned the properties was not consulted. Neither was the Jewish community consulted when graves on the Mount of Olives were destroyed beginning in 1956.
Many of the disputes about East Jerusalem have their origins in what happened between 1948 and 1967, a period so often ignored by historians, governments and activists. The UN was NEVER given authority to resettle Palestinians in Jewish property, yet this is what they did. Before condemning Israel, the UN should first apologize for their theft of Jewish property without compensation. The Jewish properties in question might well have been left in ruins, like part of Nahalat Shimon and the grave of Simon the Just was. In fact none of the rampant destruction of Jewish sites in Jerusalem was condemned by the UN during the period of Jordanian rule.
Had the international community cared then as much as it does now perhaps the disputes would not have come about. If people understood more about the period of Jordanian rule one might better understand the actual history of the city, rather than focusing merely on Israeli actions and Palestinian victimization.
For more on this read http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145166123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Insanity at the UN conference
Following the conclusion of the Iranian President’s speech, members of the World Union of Jewish Students, human rights groups, Students Against Racism, Prof. Alan Dershowitz , Nobel Laureate Ellie Wiesel, and American actor John Voight held a second silent protest outside of Ahmadinejad’s press conference, while others read aloud the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In a move of comic tradegy,UN officials approached the group telling them “you cannot read that here”.
An Iranian group began heckling the protest with cries of “end the Holocaust in Gaza”. The group protsting Ahmadinejad responded with a chant, “no to racism, yes to human rights”.
This resulted in those protesting Ahmadinejad’s racism having their United Nations accreditation removed for the remainder of the conference,whilst security staff entirely ignored the antics of the Iranians responsible for the provocation.
Both Alan Dershowitz and Ellie Wiesel sought access to the press conference and were denied, the former having lost his accrediation to the conference according to some reports. That evening a moving Holocaust memorial ceremony was addressed by Wiesel, Irwin Cotler, and church leaders.
The world has really gone mad!!!
In a move of comic tradegy,UN officials approached the group telling them “you cannot read that here”.
An Iranian group began heckling the protest with cries of “end the Holocaust in Gaza”. The group protsting Ahmadinejad responded with a chant, “no to racism, yes to human rights”.
This resulted in those protesting Ahmadinejad’s racism having their United Nations accreditation removed for the remainder of the conference,whilst security staff entirely ignored the antics of the Iranians responsible for the provocation.
Both Alan Dershowitz and Ellie Wiesel sought access to the press conference and were denied, the former having lost his accrediation to the conference according to some reports. That evening a moving Holocaust memorial ceremony was addressed by Wiesel, Irwin Cotler, and church leaders.
The world has really gone mad!!!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
USA Changing its Direction? Good or Bad
News coming out of New York is reporting that the United States will seek to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, reversing its policy of shunning the council and prompting concern among some Jewish groups.
On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced it would participate in May elections for a seat on the 47-member council, "with the goal of working to make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights." The Bush administration had withheld U.S. membership from the Geneva-based council for its failure to confront human rights abusers and its singling out of Israel for condemnation.
"The United States helped to found the United Nations and retains a vital stake in advancing that organization's genuine commitment to the human rights values that we share with other member nations," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement announcing the decision.
"Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the Council to be balanced and credible," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said. "The U.S. is seeking election to the Council because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights. We hope to work in partnership with many countries to achieve a more effective Council."
Since its creation in 2006 to replace the widely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the council has passed 32 resolutions; 26 have been critical of Israel, according to UN Watch.
Now who is kidding who? With more than half of the council’s members falling short of basic democracy standards, according to Freedom House, a democracy watchdog group and in the past two years the council moved to eliminate its country-specific special experts investigating human rights abuses in Darfur, Congo, Cuba, Belarus and Liberia, just what do the Americans expect?
The executive director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, said he welcomes the U.S. decision, "but only if it’s to vigorously push back against the world’s worst abusers." He added, "The council is worse than ever before, pathologically obsessed with scapegoating Israel, while turning a blind eye to millions of human rights victims around the world.”
On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced it would participate in May elections for a seat on the 47-member council, "with the goal of working to make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights." The Bush administration had withheld U.S. membership from the Geneva-based council for its failure to confront human rights abusers and its singling out of Israel for condemnation.
"The United States helped to found the United Nations and retains a vital stake in advancing that organization's genuine commitment to the human rights values that we share with other member nations," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement announcing the decision.
"Those who suffer from abuse and oppression around the world, as well as those who dedicate their lives to advancing human rights, need the Council to be balanced and credible," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said. "The U.S. is seeking election to the Council because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights. We hope to work in partnership with many countries to achieve a more effective Council."
Since its creation in 2006 to replace the widely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the council has passed 32 resolutions; 26 have been critical of Israel, according to UN Watch.
Now who is kidding who? With more than half of the council’s members falling short of basic democracy standards, according to Freedom House, a democracy watchdog group and in the past two years the council moved to eliminate its country-specific special experts investigating human rights abuses in Darfur, Congo, Cuba, Belarus and Liberia, just what do the Americans expect?
The executive director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, said he welcomes the U.S. decision, "but only if it’s to vigorously push back against the world’s worst abusers." He added, "The council is worse than ever before, pathologically obsessed with scapegoating Israel, while turning a blind eye to millions of human rights victims around the world.”
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Rhetoric, like the Weather, is Hot
We are heading for another heatwave by the end of the week with temeratures here in Haifa heading for 37C (100F). The Palestinians in Gaza are suffering again at the hands of their leaders as the supply of electricity is the latest subject of conflict between Fatah and Hamas, while the European Union has frozen payments due to Hamas syphoning off some of the money for its own agenda. Meanwhile, some 600,000 citizens have little or no electricity.
Also a "hot" subject is the renewal of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, following the second Lebanon war last year.
Has it helped? I feel like most of my friends, very sceptical. Without getting into the siscussion of who won or lost, the fact is, that this resolution, like so many others has been only partially implemented, and the vital provisions have been left unattended :
1) South Lebanon was not demilitarized and Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations remained and were not disarmed
2) Iran and Syria continue replenishing Hezbollah's arsenal and rehabilitating its military force
3) The arms embargo has not been effectively enforced and weapons are steadily smuggled into Lebanon from Syria
4) No significant progress has been made in the issue of the abducted IDF soldiers.
Further, Hizbullah is buying up large tracts of land owned by Christians and other non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defenses in preparation for a new war with Israel. The forested wadis, or valleys, north of the Litani River make ideal terrain for Hizbullah's brand of guerrilla warfare and, just 10 miles from the border, are within rocket range of Israeli cities.
"Christians and Druze are selling land and moving out, while the Shia are moving in. There is an extraordinary demographic shift taking place," said Edmund Rizk, a former Christian MP for the area. Wealthy Shia businessman Ali Tajeddine, who made his fortune trading diamonds in Sierra Leone, is said to be using Iranian funds to buy land from destitute villagers at up to four times the going rate.
Critics fear a grand scheme to create a strip of Shia-controlled land connecting southern Lebanon to Hizbullah's other power center in the Bekaa Valley. "It is part of Hizbullah's plan to create a state within a state," said Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader. He also pointed to the four-lane road being built to connect the Hizbullah stronghold of Nabatiye in the south to the western Bekaa. Banners openly proclaim the source of the road's funding: "510 km of new roads paid for by the Iranian Organization for Sharing in the Building of Lebanon."
Yes, there is cause for concern not just here in the north but throughout the whole country
Also a "hot" subject is the renewal of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, following the second Lebanon war last year.
Has it helped? I feel like most of my friends, very sceptical. Without getting into the siscussion of who won or lost, the fact is, that this resolution, like so many others has been only partially implemented, and the vital provisions have been left unattended :
1) South Lebanon was not demilitarized and Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations remained and were not disarmed
2) Iran and Syria continue replenishing Hezbollah's arsenal and rehabilitating its military force
3) The arms embargo has not been effectively enforced and weapons are steadily smuggled into Lebanon from Syria
4) No significant progress has been made in the issue of the abducted IDF soldiers.
Further, Hizbullah is buying up large tracts of land owned by Christians and other non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defenses in preparation for a new war with Israel. The forested wadis, or valleys, north of the Litani River make ideal terrain for Hizbullah's brand of guerrilla warfare and, just 10 miles from the border, are within rocket range of Israeli cities.
"Christians and Druze are selling land and moving out, while the Shia are moving in. There is an extraordinary demographic shift taking place," said Edmund Rizk, a former Christian MP for the area. Wealthy Shia businessman Ali Tajeddine, who made his fortune trading diamonds in Sierra Leone, is said to be using Iranian funds to buy land from destitute villagers at up to four times the going rate.
Critics fear a grand scheme to create a strip of Shia-controlled land connecting southern Lebanon to Hizbullah's other power center in the Bekaa Valley. "It is part of Hizbullah's plan to create a state within a state," said Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader. He also pointed to the four-lane road being built to connect the Hizbullah stronghold of Nabatiye in the south to the western Bekaa. Banners openly proclaim the source of the road's funding: "510 km of new roads paid for by the Iranian Organization for Sharing in the Building of Lebanon."
Yes, there is cause for concern not just here in the north but throughout the whole country
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The united nations of Israel
We spent this weekend celebrating the bar mitzvah (http://www.jewfaq.org/barmitz.htm) of twins of friends of ours at a village some 20 miles east of Haifa. Since there were no hotels in the village, all the guests were accomodated in various homes in the village.
In the first of many coincidences, our hostess turned out to be the daughter of friends of ours here in Haifa. But the coincidences didn't finish there. As the sabbath of celebrations went on, we met a family from New Zealand, visiting specifically for this event who knew friends of ours living there.
Another family had connections to the town in the UK where we first settled after our marriage. Yet another family, the husband from Finland and the wife from the UK lived in the same community as our our son and daughter in law. And so the weekend went on; this one studied with one of our in laws, another knew friends in the UK and so on.
The united nations of Israel amply demonstrated its versatility with perfomances by the guests of the traditional New Zealand dance, the HAKA http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/features/haka-feature/haka.cfm , Irish songs, hebrew verse, exhibition of juggling by the twins etc., etc.
The proceedings finished with an inspired demonstration of fire twirling by one of the younger guests and everyone returned home with a great feeling of having taken part in something special.
In the first of many coincidences, our hostess turned out to be the daughter of friends of ours here in Haifa. But the coincidences didn't finish there. As the sabbath of celebrations went on, we met a family from New Zealand, visiting specifically for this event who knew friends of ours living there.
Another family had connections to the town in the UK where we first settled after our marriage. Yet another family, the husband from Finland and the wife from the UK lived in the same community as our our son and daughter in law. And so the weekend went on; this one studied with one of our in laws, another knew friends in the UK and so on.
The united nations of Israel amply demonstrated its versatility with perfomances by the guests of the traditional New Zealand dance, the HAKA http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/features/haka-feature/haka.cfm , Irish songs, hebrew verse, exhibition of juggling by the twins etc., etc.
The proceedings finished with an inspired demonstration of fire twirling by one of the younger guests and everyone returned home with a great feeling of having taken part in something special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)