Must see: Colonel Richard Kemp on Operation Protective Edge
Invited by UN Watch, Col. Kemp, former commander of British forces in
Afghanistan, speaks on self-defense and war crimes. Tel Aviv, Aug. 3,
2014. Co-sponsors: Tel Aviv Int'l Salon and StandWithUS.
Video: Hillel Neuer destroys PLO's Diana Buttu and 'human rights watch's Bill van Eswald
Al Jazeera tries to silence UN Watch's Hillel Neuer, but even a bit of
truth managed to throw ex-PLO lawyer Diana Buttu & Human Rights
Watch's Bill van Esveld on the defensive.
Video: Hillel Neuer speaks out at the 'human rights council's emergency session on Gaza
Dictatorships attempt to silence UN Watch's Hillel Neuer at the July 23,
2014 UNHRC emergency session on Gaza. Interruptions came from Iran,
Syria, Egypt, the "State of Palestine," Cuba and Venezuela. The U.S.
and Canada defended Neuer's right to speak.
'Human Rights' Watch comments on teenagers' kidnapping
A 'Human Rights' Watch spokesperson had the following comment on the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers by 'Palestinian' terrorists (Hat Tip: Mrs. Carl).
To ensure the proper response to the kidnapping by Palestinians of
three Israeli teenagers last week, Human Rights Watch has hired a team
of crickets, which will chirp at regular intervals to highlight the lack
of condemnation emanating from the organization.
HRW is among the quickest to denounce alleged Israeli violations of
Palestinian rights, often parroting Palestinian activists’ accusations
without thorough investigation. To avoid the impression that the
organization’s one-sidedness stems from incompetence or negligence, HRW
specifically engaged a troupe of the musical insects to stress that it
had a consistent approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that
the anti-Israel bias is not haphazard.
“It would be unprofessional of us to waffle on where we stand
vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine,” said the organization’s executive
director Kenneth Roth. “We made a strategic decision long ago that when
it comes to those two entities, we must always consider a given case
through the same lens: how can it be interpreted to depict Israel as
immoral and unworthy of continued existence?” The crickets, he said, had
experience filling the silence on other issues, notably the persecution
of Christians in Palestinian areas, of homosexuals throughout the
Muslim Middle East, and of antisemitism in Europe.
“Chirp,” said the crickets.
Hillel Neuer explains why Roth has hired the crickets: They do a better job of commenting than Roth does.
After repeated appeals from
Twitter users for HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth to end his
silence on the abductions, Roth finally responded with this
carefully-constructed tweet:
Attending school at illegal settlement doesn't legitimize apparent kidnapping of #Israel teens. They should be freed http://t.co/EO1jeWh8Ht
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) June 14, 2014
But why would Roth even bother to mention that the youths — two of them aged 16 — studied in an “illegal settlement”?
In all of history, was there ever a case where
the head of a human rights group issued a statement concerning innocent
hostages — while they were still in the hands of kidnappers
— which deliberately connected them to an “illegal” act, let alone
devoting half the text to it?
Although Roth appears to insist that this fact
“doesn’t legitimize” their kidnapping, the only possible reason he
mentioned it was to equivocate his appeal, which amounted to nothing
more than “they should be freed.”
HRW’s standard procedure is to call out actions as violations of international law.
Indeed, in other like cases, HRW has issued lengthy press releases and reports condemning the abductions of civilians as a war crime, citing chapter and verse of the Geneva Conventions.
Yet here not only does Roth’s tweet
exceptionally fail to invoke the law against the perpetrators of
the kidnapping, but he instead invokes the law against the victims — for attending school at an “illegal” settlement.
Ireland is reportedly blocking efforts inside the European Union to
formally blacklist Hezbollah as a terror organization. Britain recently
initiated procedures to add the Iran-backed terror group to the E.U.
blacklist, after Bulgarian officials linked Hezbollah to the July 2012
Burgas bombing that killed six civilians and a Cypriot court convicted a
confessed Hezbollah member on terrorism-related charges. The U.S. has
repeatedly called upon the E.U. to follow its example and ban the group,
which has established deep roots on the Continent.
Even as Hezbollah's reach is seen in South America and Syria the European Union refuses to sanction the terror group operating within its borders.
But when it comes to Israel, the world is more intent on preparring a
final solution. In the farcically named UN Human Rights Council, 67
nations and organizations heartily approved the report of asylum
escapee, Richard Falk, condemning Israel. In a just world someone like
Falk would issue his statements from behind the walls of an institution,
but in the topsy-turvey world of the UN he is a respected "Special
Rapporteur." Naturally, in this venue he received support from even the world's worst rights abusers. Look at how they piled on.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, speakers
condemned Israel’s persistent refusal to cooperate with the Special
Rapporteur and expressed concerns at the persistence of settlement
activities and human rights violations, including restrictions on
movement, arrests and harassment of Palestinians, and the particular
effects on children. They highlighted the need to put an end to impunity
for human rights violations. Speakers regretted the deterioration of
the situation in Gaza due to the ongoing blockade and the loss of
civilian lives. Some delegations echoed the proposal of the Special
Rapporteur to investigate the activities of businesses connected with
Israeli settlement activity. Others complained about the unbalanced
mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the presence of political
considerations in his report. Mr. Falk was accused of being
anti-Semitic.
Speaking in the discussion were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation, the European Union, Mauritania, Egypt, South
Africa, Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, Indonesia, Iceland, Jordan,
Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, Iraq,
Qatar, Cuba, Ecuador, Angola, Venezuela, Kuwait, Chile, Morocco,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Syria, Algeria, Turkey,
Iran, Maldives, Zimbabwe, the United Nations Children’s Fund and
Malaysia.
No, you didn't misread. Syria - whose government has killed more than
80,000 over the past two years - and its patron, Iran (of the laughably
named "non-aligned movement) sit in judgment of Israel in this venue. In
the asylum that is the UN, this is hardly remarkable.
There were, however two speeches that weren't anti-Israel and were, instead, indictments of the "human rights" establishment.
Mr. Falk, in the first page of your report, you attack my NGO and ask
this Council to launch an investigation in order to shut us down.
Does your report allege a crime? No, you simply object to our words. We
are the only watchdog at the UN, and we report what you say. In
reprisal, you now seek to muzzle our voice, to avoid being held
accountable.
The real issue is whether your work, conducted under the banner of human
rights, actually exonerates and exculpates the perpetrators of
terrorism.
.@tomfriedman Earlier, Joseph was falsely accused; as Israel is now. Funny that you left that part out.
— David Gerstman (@soccerdhg) June 5, 2013
But I missed a major goof.
And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its
forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability
beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of
East Jerusalem.
Oh, and don't forget Friedman's other "if-then" fallacy here - that the
world would allow Israel to keep the Jordan Valley as a buffer if only
it would offer the Palestinian Arabs a state. Wasn't that already
offered and rejected?
The bolded phrase contradicts all of the Palestinian statements made
about Israel keeping any soldiers in the West Bank. In point of fact,
the Palestinians absolutely begrudge Israel a force on the Jordan.
Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.
Friedman loves to pose as someone who understands simple truths that
those in power (especially in Israel) fail to appreciate. But here he
shows that he hasn't been paying attention to the past twenty years of
the peace process. Maybe in 1993 an Israeli presence in the Jordan
Valley was an accommodation would have made. It is no longer.
3) Soccer news
Despite efforts of anti-Israel activists to prevent it, Israel hosted
this year's UEFA (European soccer's governing body) under 21
championship. Israel did not advance in the tournament. However, the
Israeli team did win its final match in Jerusalem against England. Ofir Krieff, of the Israeli team, scored the game winning goal.
To score in the capital city, in my home town, in front of my home fans,
is a fantastic feeling. We did a really good job. The credit goes to
the team and not to me even though I scored. It's all thanks to the
great work of the staff and the players.
I think that we had a really good tournament overall. To win four points
against these kind of teams is a big achievement. We had some criticism
and it wasn't always right. This team has a lot of potential and we
proved it today against England which is nothing to take for granted.
When I scored I just thought that we had finally got the win after this
hard work. The credit goes to Guy [Luzon]. It was highly important to
finish with a good taste because of him and I'm happy that we gave him
this goodbye present. "I wanted to run over to him but afterwards I saw
nothing because everybody was all over me".
This is a 20-year-old, after all, from a world far removed from the one
he now inhabits as a professional footballer. Defender Twatha is from a
Bedouin family, born and brought up in Jisr az-Zarqa, a coastal town in
the north of Israel which did not even have a football pitch when he was
growing up.
"We have only 13,000 people in Jisr," the left-back explained to
UEFA.com. "Jisr is a very poor town and when I was young there was no
football there – not even a football field. I'm the youngest in my
family. My eldest brother studies medicine in Italy. My other brother
does the same but in Germany. My sister finished nursing school in
Jordan. My father is the school principal and my mum is also a teacher.
I'm the only one to have gone into professional sport."
That he ended up playing UEFA Champions League football for Maccabi
Haifa FC aged just 17 was the result, he says, of a serendipitous moment
seven years earlier – namely, a random phone call from a family friend.
"I tried gymnastics, tennis, karate, but only in the fifth grade did I
start playing football. I had some luck because I was in the car with my
dad one day when a friend of his saw a newspaper ad about a football
school and phoned him about it. I interrupted the call and told him I
wanted to go. Just a year later I moved to Maccabi Haifa."
It was here on the wooded slopes of Latrun on Tuesday that Saeb Erekat,
the chief Palestinian negotiator, chose to mark the anniversary of the
outbreak of the 1967 war and to call for an end of Israeli occupation.
“I am sure many of you are asking why is Saeb Erekat bringing you to
this point,” Mr. Erekat said to a group of diplomats and reporters as he
stood against a backdrop of green fields, a reservoir and an Israeli
settlement of red-roofed houses in the valley below.
“It is not because I want to demarcate the maps or finalize the
negotiations,” he said, referring to the intensive efforts of Secretary
of State John Kerry to get the Israelis and Palestinians to return to
peace talks. “I just want to stand here and say, ‘It is 46 years later.’
”
Control of Latrun was critical for control of the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and at the time, Arab forces had been poised to to attack Irael's narrow coastal corridor. Much as Erekat obfuscates the issue, control of Latrun was essential for Israel's survival.
The New York Times continues.
If nothing else, Mr. Erekat’s selection of Latrun spoke to the great
distance between Palestinians and Israelis. Many Israelis consider
Latrun to be an integral part of Israel. Drivers heading to either Tel
Aviv or Jerusalem speed across the unmarked armistice lines along the
main highway, slicing through several miles of West Bank territory and
designated stretches of buffer zone, oblivious to the area’s fraught
history.
The reporter tells us the obvious, but leaves out something else that is
obvious. The Palestinians once again are seeking to "move the
goalposts." Erekat's press conference was apparently the first move in a
new campaign.
The 'Palestinians' have responded to US Secretary of State John FN
Kerry's pressure on Israel for concessions... by seeking even more
concessions. The 'Palestinians' are now seeking two of Israel's biggest
tourist attractions: Mini Israel and the Latrun tank museum. In fact,
they're seeking the whole area around Latrun...
A favored Palestinian official gives a press conference and a reporter
for the New York Times dutifully records his statements without
explaining what he is doing. She simply writes, "here's one more
Palestinian that needs to be addressed by Israel," and not "the
Palestinians keep changing their demands."
Jonathan Tobin comments:
Erekat’s candor is in a sense quite commendable. Latrun is a potent
symbol of the nature of the Israel that existed in those halcyon days
before the obstacle to peace was the presence of Jews in the West Bank
and in which a small state with indefensible borders and a capital that
could be isolated with ease stood on the precipice of destruction as
Arab armies began to mass on its borders. Erekat was sending a clear
message to Israelis that if they thought the PA would ever accept the
fact that the world had irrevocably changed in those 46 years they could
just keep dreaming.
As Erekat well knows there now exists a broad consensus within Israel
about the desirable nature of a two-state solution. That consensus
includes Prime Minister Netanyahu and most of the members of his
government. Indeed, even the Israeli right knows that if the
Palestinians ever offered a complete end to the conflict and recognized
the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn
they would find the majority ready to make painful territorial
sacrifices. But by laying down a marker on Latrun—a place that no
Israeli in his right mind would ever consider leaving—Erekat was making
it clear their real priority was not peace but an effort to merely
continue the conflict on more advantageous terms.
Indeed, reminding Israelis of the Israel that existed from 1949 to 1967
is not exactly the way to reassure his ostensible peace partners of the
PA’s good intentions. But of course what else can you expect of a peace
negotiator that has boycotted peace talks for the past four and a half
years?
Israel begged Jordan not to join the war. King Hussein convinced of
Egypt's early success against Israel joined in seeking to cut Israel in
half. western Jerusalem was bombarded. Israel did not decide "we will
dispossess the Palestinians" and seek war. War was forced on them and
they fought to survive. Erekat wishes for the world to forget that.
If the Six Day War hadn't happened... Would there be a Palestinian Arab state today on the West Bank and Gaza?
Perhaps that's something that Erekat ought to consider. If Jordan hadn't
attacked Israel in 1967, would he now be an international celebrity for
promoting Palestinian nationhood?
The rest of the New York Times article is a lament about how both sides
are being unreasonable and how this mutual stubbornness will sink Jonh Kerry's peace plan.
When it's one side that refused to negotiate and then changes the
parameters of negotiations isn't that the side that is uninterested in
peace?
UN 'human rights council' holds moment of silence for Hugo Chavez
Given that they lowered all of the UN flags and held a moment of silence at the General Assembly for North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, no one should really be surprised that the UN's 'human rights council' held a moment of silence on Wednesday for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. But UN Watch's Hillel Neuer is plenty upset about it anyway.
"Protocol did not require today's ceremony," said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, "and the world body must not forget that its founding purpose is to defend basic human rights. Sadly, that message is at serious risk of being blurred today."
"Now should be a time for the UN to show solidarity with the victims -- like Judge Maria Afiuni who was jailed and raped for the crime of releasing a political prisoner arbitrarily detained by Chavez -- and not with the perpetrators."
"Instead of praising an autocrat who persecuted his country's independent judges, journalists, human rights activists and students -- and who vocally supported mass murderers, tyrants and terrorists in Syria, Libya, and Iran -- the U.N. should be apologizing for having just elected the Chavez regime to its human rights council, and it should begin to call for accountability, reform and an end to impunity in Venezuela," said Neuer.
The UN is incurable. It's long past time for them to go.
Deja vu all over again at the 'Human Rights Council'
Guess who wants Muammar Gadhafi's seat at the United Nations 'Human Rights Council'? Yes, of course, the star of Vogue, that great 'humanitarian,' Bashar al-Assad (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch reported Wednesday that Syria has announced it will compete for a seat in the council during the upcoming elections scheduled to take place on May 20.
UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer criticized the move, calling it "an outrage." Neuer noted that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi "was just ousted by the UN on grounds that a government which brutalizes its own people doesn't belong on the world's highest human rights body.
"Well, the Assad regime runs a notorious police state that denies the Syrian people the right to free speech and freedom of assembly, jails journalists and tortures dissidents. It sponsors some of the world's most vicious terrorist groups and has assassinated numerous journalists and opponents in Lebanon. The UN and the cause of human rights will be severely damaged if Syria's Assad regime wins a seat," he added.
Hillel, Hillel.... One man's terrorist is another man's... freedom fighter.... N'est ce pas?
UN Watch's Hillel Neuer confronts UN rights chief on Libya
Hillel Neuer of UN Watch confronts UN 'Human Rights' chief Navi Pillay on Libya. You just know this is going to be entertaining.
The head of the London School of Economics has resigned over his ties to the Qaddafi regime. Rock stars Beyonce, Nelly Furtado and Mariah Carey have expressed remorse for their paid peformances at Qaddafi family parties. Former Egyptian minister of culture Gaber Asfour renounced his 2010 “Gaddafi International Award for Literature.” Only at the UN, however, is no one yet willing to take any responsibility for their institutional embrace of the Qaddafi regime. In the plenary of the UN Human Rights Council yesterday, UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer urged U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay to begin the soul-searching; she refused to respond. See video above and text below.
24 human rights organizations have called on the United States and the European Union to confront the slaughter going on in Libya in the United Nations Security Council and 'Human Rights' Council, where, incredibly, Libya is a member and has sat in judgment on Israel for the last five years.
Signatories include the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy and Physicians for Human Rights, the Geneva-based UN Watch, and 21 other groups from Switzerland, India, Liberia, Italy, Nigeria, Germany, Sudan, Venezuela, Somalia, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
The letter asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by Libya against its own people are “particularly odious” actions that amount to war crimes, requiring member states to take action through the Security Council under the responsibility to protect doctrine.
The appeal also calls for an emergency session of the Human Rights Council, in which Libya’s membership on that body would be suspended, and an international inquiry team dispatched to he country.
“The muted response of the US and the EU to the Libyan atrocities is not only a let-down to the many Libyans risking their lives for freedom, but a shirking of their obligations, as members of the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, to protect peace and human rights, and to prevent war crimes,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, and an international lawyer who represents Libyan torture victims.
“Baroness Ashton’s call today for Libyan forces to exercise ‘restraint’ is entirely inappropriate. We’re dealing with the deliberate murder and massacre of hundreds of peaceful protesters. By signaling diplomatic caution in the face of a bloodbath – instead of urgency and action — the EU is failing the victims. It’s time for basic human rights to come before oil,” said Neuer.
“The EU should also urge the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross to send urgently-needed medical supplies into Libya, particularly for hospitals in Benghazi. Ashton should attempt to visit Libya after her trip to Cairo tomorrow.” Exiled Libyans in Cairo and members of Egypt’s Doctors Syndicate have sent urgent medical supplies to Libya, but the international community needs to step in, said Neuer.
As you may recall, Neuer represented the Bulgarian nurses and 'Palestinian' doctor who were tortured by the Libyans for 'spreading AIDS' (video of their testimony to the 'Human Rights Council' at that last link).
Video: UN Watch's Hillel Neuer testifies before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Last week, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer testified before the US House Committee of Foreign Affairs regarding human rights protections at the United Nations 'Human Rights Council.' It's called "the State of Human Rights at the United Nations," and it is devastating.
Let's go to the videotape.
The full version of the written testimony was entered into the Congressional record and is available here.
Here's guessing that the Republican House will not fund the United States' membership in the 'Human Rights Council' anymore.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) is hoping to kill the funding for the United Nations 'Human Rights Council.' But that's not all Ros-Lehtinen wants to do to the UN.
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's how the Republicans hope to reform the UN - or at least get the US to pay less of its bill.
One of the biggest reasons for the morass is also one of the most obvious. As Schaefer put it, “the bulk of the U.N. member states simply do not pay enough to the U.N. for waste, or corruption to trouble them.” The combined payments levied on 128 of 192 U.N. members “totals less than 1 percent of the regular budget and less than one-third of 1 percent of the peacekeeping budget,” he told the committee, even though they have enough votes to approve the budget and block U.S. attempts at reform.
So Byzantine has the U.N. become, in fact, that Schaefer says no-one in Washington really knows how much the U.S. spends on it. The U.N.’s biennial “regular” budget has more than doubled in the past decade from $2.49 billion to$$5.16 billion, Schaefer said, and the U.S. pays 22 percent of that.
But the peacekeeping budget has jumped higher and faster, from $1.7 billion in 2000-2001 to $7.2 billion in 2010-2011, and the U.S. pays 27 percent of that. Moreover, new missions could yet be added in Cote d’Ivoire or Somalia.
Then there are so-called “voluntary” funds where the U.S. contributions to a variety of sprawling U.N. funds, programs and agencies have also risen fast: according to sources cited by Schaefer, reaching $3.5 billion last year. (There are also independent funds, in such areas as climate change, that U.N. agencies also spend and manage.)
To combat the wasteful sprawl, Schaefer suggested that “Congress should not be shy in suggesting budget cuts.” Among other things, he proposed reinstating a long abandoned U.S. policy of pushing for “zero growth” for the U.N. regular budget, but also suggested pruning a variety of U.N. organizations, like a flock of U.N. regional economic commissions, that could be financed by their regional members.
Seemingly eternal U.N. mandated activities—there are more than 9,000 mandates in all—should also be chopped, he said.
Could that last line include UNRWA? Hmmm.
UN Watch's Hillel Neuer testified in front of the House Committee regarding the UN 'Human Rights' Council. This is from the first link again.
The same see-no-evil philosophy applies to the U.N.’s 47-member Human Rights Council, according to Hillel Neuer, head of a Geneva-based non-governmental watchdog, Human Rights Watch. With a handful of exceptions, he told the committee, “the council has systematically turned a blind eye to the world’s worst human rights violations. The council has failed the victims who are most in need of international attention.”
There have been no Human Rights Council resolutions against China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe, he declared, Nor has there been any against Iran “even as it massacred its own citizens while the council was in session.” Moreover, he testified, “no resolution has even been proposed regarding these gross violators.”
Israel, on the other hand, gets plenty of attention. In all, Neuer testified, the council has adopted 35 resolutions condemning alleged human rights abuses in Israel, and “a little over a dozen against the rest of the world combined.”
Some of the council’s special sessions have even been used to legitimize violations, he said. One example Neuer cited: a special session on Sri Lanka, after the alleged government massacre of 20,000 people, ended, he said, in a draft resolution that praised the Sri Lanka government for “promotion and protection of all human rights.”
The Human Rights Council’s favored experts also came in for scorn. One of them, Richard Falk, who has a permanent mandate to report on Israel’s alleged transgressions, is known as a 9/11 “denier” who has called for investigations of the U.S. governments role in the terrorist attacks. On the eve of the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon suddenly declared that Falk’s 9/11 remarks were “preposterous,” and “an affront to the memory” of the victims.
The Human Rights Council’s record is supposed to be reviewed by U.N. members this year, on the fifth anniversary of its founding. Neuer’s judgment is already in. He told the committee, “according to the U.N.’s own standards, the promises of the council’s founding resolution—improved membership, action for victims, an end to politicization and selectivity—have not been kept.”
Pigs fly: Ban Ki Moon condemns Falk's 9/11 trootherism
It's been a while since I've been able to bring this one out.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has has a letter written to UN Watch director Hillel Neuer in which he condemns the 9/11 trootherism of the 'Human Rights Council's Special Middle East Rapporteur, Richard Falk.
Dear Mr. Neuer,
In response to your letter to the Secretary-General dated 20 January 2011 on the subject of a recent biog post by Mr. Richard Falk, the Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967:
You are aware, no doubt, that the Special Rapporteurs and other independent experts who represent the Human Rights Council are appointed by the Council, not by the Secretary-General. Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide.
That said, I feel very strongly that these representatives, however eminent they may be in their fields, have a clear responsibility to uphold the high standards of the United Nations and the Council.
You specifically refer to Mr. Falk's allegations of an "apparent cover-up" related to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The Secretary-General condemns these remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous- and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.
I don't suppose there would be any point in pointing out to Ban that Falk regularly compares Israel to Nazis. Ban may well agree with that comparison.
Hillel Neuer: UN obsession with Israel harms the 'peace process'
Interviewed by Russian TV's Paula Slier, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer slams the U.N.'s Human Rights Council for ignoring violations worldwide, electing Qaddafi as a member, and scapegoating Israel. He said the biased approach harmed the peace process, failed to help Palestinians on the ground, and encouraged extremists. All in a day's work for the UN, where the goal is not to help the 'Palestinians' but to destroy Israel.
Let's go to the videotape.
When the history of this era is written, it will be interesting to see how much in money and resources was spent trying to destroy Israel.
Interview: Hillel Neuer blasts Saudi Arabia's selection to UN Women's Rights Agency
Here's UN Watch's Hillel Neuer blasting the election of Saudi Arabia to the UN's new women's rights agency. This interview was broadcast on Canadian radio on Saturday.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
