Their greatest strategic asset is the knowledge that, however
outrageous their behavior, large segments of the press and political
class (especially in Europe), and the “human rights” and international
communities led by the United Nations will effectively side with them,
directing their wrath primarily at Israel, and protecting them from
total defeat, so that they can proclaim victory from the ruin and
devastation they authored.
Hamas knows that, despite the consistent evidence of their mendacity,
their fabrications will be widely disseminated as facts by news and
human rights groups. These lies inflict enormous damage on Israel even
when the truth later emerges. Any honest observer appreciates that the
Israel Defense Forces exert greater efforts to minimize civilian
casualties than any army in history, and actually have a
civilian-to-fighter casualty ratio that is relatively low for modern
warfare (despite the fact that Hamas designs its chosen battlefield
specifically to maximize civilian damage).
But Hamas knows that the press will gleefully play the body-count game,
as though its infographics speak to causation or moral culpability.
They also know that every conflagration they provoke causes the world’s
oldest hatred to bubble up again, more virulently each time.
These are the carcinogens that feed this cancer and fan the flames of
violence in the region. When Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch
(HRW), arguably the world’s most powerful human rights organization,
tweets that, “Tunnels used to attack or capture soldiers isn't [a human
rights violation],” Hamas is encouraged to dig more tunnels.
When MP David Ward says that he would fire a rocket if he lived in
Gaza, Hamas is urged to fire more rockets.When Business Secretary Vince
Cable decides to suspend UK arms export licences to Israel when Hamas
violates cease-fires and Israel retaliates, Hamas is incentivized to
violate cease-fires.
When Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa director
declares it, “abhorrent that Israeli forces are . . . blatantly
violating the laws of war" (based solely on interviews with Gaza
residents), when the United Nations Human Rights Commission orders yet
another lopsided anti-Israel “fact-finding” mission, and its High
Commissioner Navi Pillay offers platitudes of moral equivalence accusing
“both sides” of “indiscriminate killing of civilians,” when
empty-headed celebrities blabber incoherently about Israeli “massacres”
and “genocide,” then Hamas knows that its diabolical tactics are
working.
The blood of those Palestinian children (and Israel’s children) is on
the hands of those who irresponsibly, even if unwittingly, give Hamas
such support, hope and inspiration.
On Friday, I reported that United Nations 'human rights commissioner' Navi Pillay slammed the United States and Israel for not supplying Iron Dome to Hamas. Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke - one of only eight Representatives to vote against funding Iron Dome - apparently agrees with her.
Before the House vote on Friday, a tweeter who believes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians urged
O’Rourke to “vote no” on the grounds that funding the Iron Dome means
“funding atrocities.” Although the tweet does not explicitly state that
the Iron Dome is an atrocity, it is clearly implied:
@RepBetoORourke Vote no on any funding to the Iron Dome or to Israel. Stop funding atrocities.
— Mosh Miller (@Mosh_Lives) August 1, 2014
That got a RT from O’Rourke, which he quietly deleted 36 minutes later. Here’s that screencap again:
Yeah, I know, retweets aren't necessarily endorsements, but....
Among the UN’s long bill of particulars against the beleaguered Jewish state comes the almost unbelievable accusation that Israel’s refusal to share its Iron Dome ballistic missile defense shield with the "governing authority" of Gaza – i.e. Hamas, the terror group created to pursue the extermination of the Jewish state and now waging a terrorist war against it – constitutes a war crime against the civilians of Gaza.
The UN chairwoman criticized the U.S. for helping fund Israel's Iron Dome system which has saved countless Israeli and Palestinian lives. "No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling," she said.
Just because Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately aimed at Israeli civilian population centers without provocation and fires them from within its own population centers does not “absolve” Israel from its own legal violations, Pillay told reporters Thursday.
Had Navi Pillay and the 'human rights council' been around in 1945, she would have condemned the United States for not sharing the atomic bomb with Germany and Japan.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has not ordered a ground invasion due to international pressure and due to the fact that he understands that he would be sending at least some IDF soldiers to their deaths. We all understand that. But there's more to it than that. Elliott Abrams writes that Netanyahu has not ordered a ground invasion because of the warped moral calculation it would cause with respect to casualty numbers.
For one thing, Netanyahu knows he would be sending some Israeli
soldiers to their deaths. But he also knows that in the sick math of the
Gaza war, Israel would be blamed for “disproportionate” killing.
What that means is simple: too many Palestinians would die, and “not
enough” Israelis–in the view of much of “world opinion.” You would read
that calculation in the New York Times and see it on the BBC.
In “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008, about 1000-1400 Palestinians died, and
13 Israelis. In “Operation Pillar of Defense” in 2012 it was something
like 150 to 6. As of now, in the current conflict there are no Israeli
deaths and about 100 Palestinian deaths. Here’s how Time Magazine started its story:
The death toll among Palestinians scrambling under a relentless Israeli air assault in the Gaza Strip passed 80 Thursday and edged close to 100 Friday,
including at least 14 children….Meanwhile, the barrage of rockets Gaza
militants launched toward Israeli cities failed to produce a significant
casualty on the third day of Israel’s offensive Thursday….The Israeli
military said it destroyed more buildings in the first 36 hours of the
current campaign than in all of Pillar of Defense. More people are dying
too: the 80 fatalities reported so far is, once again, more than half
the reported death toll from the longer bombing two years earlier.
Time then discussed exactly this phenomenon: when what
“world opinion” sees as “too many” Palestinians dying and the balance is
“too great” in Israel’s favor–that is, too many Palestinians and not
enough Israelis being killed–the calls for a cease-fire will escalate.
Moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas will be the order of the
day–except for those who elevate Hamas, since after all it is killing
fewer people!
...
Remember this: in the Second World War, the United States suffered
416,000 combat deaths, or about 0.32 percent of the population. Germany
suffered 4-5 million combat deaths, or about 5 percent of the
population. The death ratio was 10 to 1. Did that make the war unjust?
Does that mean the United States inflicted “disproportionate” numbers of
casualties? Unfortunately the Israelis know “world opinion” will never
be on their side in these arguments. Let’s just hope the United States
is.
UPDATE: UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has already proved this analysis right, even before an Israeli ground incursion. She said this today:
For its part, the Government of Israel must take all
possible measures to ensure full respect for the principles of
distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack, during the
conduct of hostilities, as required by international humanitarian law.
In all circumstances, they must avoid targeting civilians. However, we
have received deeply disturbing reports that many of the civilian
casualties, including of children, occurred as a result of strikes on
homes. Such reports raise serious doubt about whether the Israeli
strikes have been in accordance with international humanitarian law and
international human rights law.
So, she is already accusing Israel of breaking international
humanitarian law and human rights law. Perhaps since Goldstone has
retired, she is filling in.
You have to wonder what the outcome of World War II would have been had the World been as 'moral' as it is today.
And so called 'high commissioner of human rights' Navi Pillay has had nothing to say about Wednesday's terror attack in Bulgaria. Nothing at all. This is from United Nations Watch:
• A U.N. spokesperson said that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack "in the strongest possible terms." In fact, however, the U.N. chief's choice of terms was weak in comparison to his statement two weeks ago on the bombing of churches in Kenya. In that case, Mr. Ban rightly spoke of "terrorist" attacks, "reprehensible and criminal," saying the perpetrators "must be held to account." Yet today he referred only to the deadly "bombing" of Israelis -- noticeably declining to describe it as an act of terrorism -- and he made no call for holding the perpetrators to account. UN Watch today urged Mr. Ban to clarify his position and to truly use the strongest possible terms to condemn today's terrorist attack.
• U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has remained silent on today's attack. By contrast, hours after the Gaza Flotilla incident of 2010, Ms. Pillay expresed her "shock" and condemned Israel. The top story on her office website instead criticizes Western states for how they combat terrorism, with America accused of having "dangerous" laws that violate due process. Supported by a Facebook campaign now going viral, UN Watch called on the High Commissioner to speak out for victims of terrorism, condemn today's gruesome murders in Bulgaria, and instruct her staff to investigate the perpetrators and hold them fully accountable for the crimes.
The entire United Nations establishment - and especially its so-called 'human rights' establishment - is beyond salvation. It must be dismantled and its rotten anti-Semitic core has to be dumped on the garbage heap of history. It's long past time.
Today, at the United Nations, the Obama administration is turning its back on Israel. For the very first time, the U.N. Security Council has invited the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to “brief” the Council specifically on the subject of Israel and the commissioner’s list of trumped-up sins. Though the U.S. is a veto-holding power, the extraordinary move has full American approval, despite the fact that the global soapbox will be handed to Navi Pillay, a notorious anti-Israel partisan.
Moreover, the American-backed action exposes President Obama’s profound weakness on the international stage. It turns out that the deal to sponsor an Israel-bashing session at the highest levels was a trade-off for having the high commissioner brief the Council on the subject of Syria.
The Security Council has not acted on Syria since an April 21, 2012, resolution, which sent unarmed observers over to watch the bloodshed. France wanted a high commissioner briefing on Syria to generate more noise. Council member Pakistan said no, unless Israel was on the chopping block, too. The Russians also said no, unless Libya was on the table. Russia seeks to use the mess in that country to obstruct stronger measures on Syria.
At this point in the diplomatic game, the Obama administration could have insisted that Israel not be sacrificed as the quid pro quo for paying due attention to the Syrian carnage. Instead, they caved, agreeing to a spectacle which casts Syria and Israel as moral equals.
Team Obama’s only caveat? The Syrian briefing should be in the morning and the Israel briefing should be in the afternoon so that the briefings — by the same person — can be labeled “two” meetings and the trade-off will be less visible. Obama’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice can then run to the cameras before the afternoon session and claim the Council’s consideration of Syria was a “success.”
In the last post, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt asked what Romney means by 'doing the opposite' of Obama on Israel. Here's one place where Romney ought to say it loud and clear. He won't sacrifice Israel at the UN to appease the likes of Pakistan. He'll withdraw from the 'human rights council' altogether. He'll make the likes of Navi Pillay persona non grata in the United States. And he'll withdraw from the UN too unless it gets its act together.
The United Nations 'human rights council' opened its latest round of meetings this week, and 'human rights commissioner Navi Pillay focused the council on that serial human rights violator... Canada?
The only human rights issue Pillay described as “alarming” were “moves to restrict freedom of assembly,” and the only alarming instance she could summon up were restrictions in Quebec. The only issue about which she said she was “disappointed” was the law in Quebec. And the only specific concern she had with the violation of “freedom of association” anywhere the world over was in Quebec.
Does Pillay not get it or does she not want to get it? Anne Bayefsky explains.
Perhaps most troubling about Pillay’s action was the total failure of the UN’s top human rights expert to acknowledge the essential distinction between democracies and non-democracies. The Quebec law has been challenged in a court system characterized by an independent judiciary that will ultimately determine its legality. Though the difference between the Canadas and the Syrias of this world could not be more basic, a twisted concept of even-handedness drives UN outcomes.
The 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council opened a 3-week session yesterday. According to the official schedule, next week on June 27th the council will hold a 90-minute debate on Syria, possibly featuring Kofi Annan. The following week, on July 2nd, the council will feature an entire day on alleged violations in the "Occupied Palestinan Territory (OPT)," featuring Richard Falk, the council expert on Palestine who was condemned last year by Ban Ki-Moon for promoting 9/11 conspiracies. UN Watch will take the floor several times during the session to speak up for victims of the world's most abusive regimes, and to hold the U.N. acountable to the principles of its charter.
Hopefully, one of the first actions of a Romney administration's foreign policy will be to withdraw from and defund the 'human rights council.' In fact, if they do that with the entire United Nations, that would be even better.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called again for the Security Council to refer Syria to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and for world powers to help implement Kofi Annan's peace plan to end the violence.
In a speech read out on her behalf to an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council, she cited allegations that the Syrian military unleashed a barrage of heavy weapons on the town of Houla a week ago and that shabbiha groups killed dozens of the 106 victims, including women and children.
"These acts may amount to crimes against humanity and other international crimes and may be indicative of a pattern of widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations that have been perpetrated with impunity," she said.
Pillay, a former war crimes judge, added: "I reiterate that those who order, assist or fail to stop attacks on civilians are individually criminally liable for their actions."
The Human Rights Council was set to call on Friday for a full UN inquiry into the massacre after putting initial blame on government bombardment and gunmen loyal to President Bashar Assad, diplomats said.
It is the 47-member forum's fourth special session on Syria in a year, raising pressure on his increasingly isolated government.
But Syria's ambassador, Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui, accused 600-800 "terrorists" using Israel-made weapons of carrying out the slaughter in Houla so as to "ignite sectarian strife".
A Syrian investigation was underway to identify the perpetrators and instigators of the killings, he said, adding: "We will submit their confessions to the whole world."
I guess if you torture someone enough, you can get them to confess to anything. OJ Simpson must be envious. Assad will find the 'real killers.' What could go wrong?
UN concerned about 'forcible transfer' of 'Palestinian' terrorists
I don't know how many of you noticed the comments of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and 'Human Rights' Commissioner Navi Pillay on Gilad Shalit's release, but they got some play on Israel Television this evening, because they are quite ludicrous.
The United Nations voiced concern on Tuesday that some of the Palestinian detainees released in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit may have not have been given any choice on where to go, which could constitute an illegal forced transfer.
The office of Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, welcomed the release but cited reports that some of the Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank may be released to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip or abroad.
Under international humanitarian law, it is illegal to forcibly transfer war detainees or deport them to another country against their will. [The terrorists are not war detainees. They violate every prescription of the Geneva conventions that defines an army. CiJ].
Israeli soldier Shalit returned home to a national outpouring of joy on Tuesday after five years in captivity, and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners exchanged for him were greeted with kisses from Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip.
“It was with a sense of great relief that we have received news of the agreement to exchange prisoners. We do however have concerns regarding reports that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank may be released to the Gaza Strip or abroad,” Pillay’s spokesman Rupert Colville told Reuters in response to a query.
“If in some cases this has been without the free and informed consent of the concerned individuals, this may constitute forced transfer or deportation under international law,” he added. “We are not sure to what extent they consented to this.”
Most of the prisoners were returned to the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas, an Islamist group that is classified as a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States. It was not immediately clear whether some of those transferred to Gaza were loyal to Fatah, a rival Palestinian faction ruling the West Bank and led by President Mahmoud Abbas.
Many of the prisoners were convicted of deadly attacks.
...
Over the past few days, the International Committee of the Red Cross conducted confidential interviews with all 477 Palestinian detainees being released from Israeli detention centers in this first phase of the swap, an ICRC spokesman said. [When are they interviewing Shalit? Oops - they didn't even ask. CiJ]
“ICRC delegates interviewed each detainee in private prior to his or her release to verify that they accepted their release,” ICRC spokesman Marcal Izard told Reuters in Geneva.
But, speaking in what he said were general terms, he added: “Returning people to places other than their habitual places of residence is in contradiction to international humanitarian law. [Their habitual place of residence is an Israeli jail and they were welcome to stay there. CiJ]
“Choosing between staying in detention or being released to a place other than the detainee’s habitual place of residence cannot be considered as a genuine expression of free will.”
Once the detainees were released by Israel, the independent humanitarian agency facilitated their transport on ICRC buses — from the Kerem Shalom crossing into the Gaza Strip via Egypt, and into Ramallah in the West Bank, he said.
“We did the transportation for humanitarian purposes,” he said. “The ICRC role was limited to facilitating the movement of all the detainees.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that he expected the Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange to boost prospects for the wider peace process.
“With this release, it will have a far-reaching positive impact to the stalled Middle East peace process,” Ban told Reuters at the end of a three-day trip to Switzerland.
“I am very encouraged by the prisoner exchange today after many many years of negotiation. The United Nations has been calling for (an end to) the unacceptable detention of Gilad Shalit and also the release of all Palestinians whose human rights have been abused all the time.” [What a load of horse manure. They live in luxurious conditions compared to Shalit or to any prisoner in the Arab world. CiJ]
Colville said that the UN human rights office had “continuing concerns about the thousands of Palestinians still detained or imprisoned by Israel.”
It encouraged Israel to comply fully with its international legal obligations in relation to all such detainees, “including with respect to their conditions and treatment during detention and the location of their imprisonment.”
The terrorists could have opted to stay in jail. And in fact, two of the women refused to go to Gaza at the last minute (one of them, unsurprisingly, was Amina M0na) and alternative arrangements were made for them.
These comments were treated with utter contempt even by Israel's Leftist media.
At the end of the article, there is a Red Cross statement about how they are sorry that their 'repeated requests' to meet with Shalit were turned down. Funny, I never heard about any 'repeated requests.' Did you?
Anne Bayefsky explains some of the duplicitous, disgraceful doubletalk that is being used to induce will western tools like Fwance to sign on to the Durban III declaration.
For instance, the new declaration is called “United against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Except that, given how racism has been defined, the General Assembly is not united on the subject. It expresses much heartfelt concern for the “victims of racism” – except those words are the product of intense lobbying by Islamic states because the Durban Declaration says Palestinians are “victims” of Israeli racism. There is a harmless looking reference to “intolerance including its new forms and manifestations.” It was inserted because of the OIC/G-77 demanded the declaration cover Islamophobia and defamation of religion. As Egypt’s representative to the Human Rights Council back in March, “the denigration of religions is wrongly justified on the ground of the right to freedom of expression.”
The U.N. gamesmanship at work here is a form of art. Russia has been suggesting language for the new declaration that would denigrate free speech and place restrictions on the media. The OIC states, keen on denigrating Israel above all, have stepped in to propose a “middle ground” that purports to “give up” anti-free speech provisions in exchange for including cloaked Israel-bashing provisions. Belgium, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland are seemingly anxious to sign on. And the French are delighted that the U.N.-speak has become convoluted enough for them to sign, too. And all the negotiators are careful simply to refer to the Israel-problem as the “sensitive” issue.
Try as they might, however, the sensitivity isn’t going away. The very mandate of Durban III, set out by a 2010 General Assembly resolution, is to “commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration…on the theme of victims of racism.” And the new declaration that will be adopted is “aimed at mobilizing political will… for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration…” A commemoration of a global anti-Semitic outburst.
Most “sensitive” is whether Durban III will “reaffirm” the Durban Declaration and its anti-Israel mantra. Reaffirming the Durban Declaration is supposed to be a redline for France and New Zealand. So Mexico suggested to enthusiastic negotiators on Tuesday the following concoction: “Recall that the aim of this commemoration is to mobilize political will…for the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration…and reaffirm our commitment in this regard.”
Get the difference? France will now justify its participation in Durban III by claiming that the Durban Declaration is only “recalled” and not “reaffirmed.” Except the commitment that has been reaffirmed is to the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration. And France quickly reassured the OIC/G-77 that the language satisfies their need to reaffirm the Declaration. Ireland called the solution “elegant” – which is one way of describing diplomatic deception.
Bayefsky also lists the countries that opposed convening Durban III but still plan on attending.
It’s time for the countries that refused to endorse the convening of Durban III only eight months ago, and have not left already, to do so immediately—Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom…
I'm surprised to see Bulgaria (I thought they would boycott) and Sweden (I thought they would just go for it) on that list. And I'm surprised not to see Greece and Cyprus (our supposed new friends) on either list.
Anne Bayefsky reports that the United Nations' chief 'human rights officer,' Navi Pillay, is doing all she can to make sure that September's Durban III conference is unyieldingly anti-Israel.
For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city's mayor asked her to "rescue the name of Durban," given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.
Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states - Israel. It calls Palestinians "victims" of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an "outcome document" that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed "mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word 'reaffirm' carries those paragraphs into this document."
While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the "anti-racism" crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II - which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.
Pillay's enthusiasm for the Durban "anti-racism" agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having "made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law." After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, "I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone's report and its recommendations." Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.
...
It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an "important event . . . to combat discrimination." Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.
Each day that they continue to belong to the 'human rights council' headed by Pillay is an eternal stain upon western democracies.
Pigs fly: Navi Pillay admits Falk's cartoon was racist
Remember the anti-Semitic cartoon that Richard Falk posted on his blog?
Well, UN 'human rights' chief Navi Pillay has admitted that the cartoon is anti-Semitic, but of course that doesn't mean she calls for Falk's resignation.
Pillay - the United Nations High Commissioner For Human Rights - stated in a letter to UN Watch, the organization which first brought the issue to public attention, that the cartoon was indeed anti-Semitic and added, “I utterly deplore and condemn anti-Semitism, as I do any form of incitement to hatred and racial discrimination.”
She acknowledged “the anti-Semitic and objectionable nature of the cartoon,” but also noted “Mr. Falk's series of public apologies,” and did not call on Falk to resign, saying only that she welcomed the fact that he had swiftly removed the image from his website.
Not enough says Hillel Neuer.
UN Watch director Hillel Neuer welcomed Pillay’s comments but called on her to urge Falk to resign in light of “Mr. Falk’s other insulting statements, including his recent blog post calling Mr. Ban Ki-moon a ‘shameless secretary-general,’ and his repeated utterances about US complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
This is the first time Pillay has commented on Falk who has made a series of controversial remarks in the past. Until now, Pillay’s office has insisted that UN special rapporteurs do not fall under the mandate of her office, and she has therefore refused to discuss the issues surrounding the controversial posting and its current representative.
I guess the Obama administration is having a huge impact on the workings of the 'human rights council.'
Richard Falk posts cartoon of bloodthirsty dog wearing kipa on his blog
9/11 'truther' Richard Falk is the United Nations' 'Human Rights Council's permanent investigator of Israeli violations. Falk recently posted on his blog a cartoon featuring a bloodthirsty dog wearing a kipa (skullcap) of the type worn by Jews on its head. The cartoon incites hatred against Jews and Americans. UN Watch is demanding action from UN 'human rights' chief Navi Pillay, who has made anti-racism her primary focus. In January, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned Falk for using his blog to propagate the 9/11 conspiracy theory. US Ambassador Susan Rice said he should be fired. However, Ms. Pillay declined to speak out. Falk has also been barred from entering Israel, which he has compared to Nazis.
UN Watch has written the following letter to Navi Pillay, demanding that action be taken against Falk.
Ms. Navi Pillay UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10
July 6, 2011
Dear Madam High Commissioner,
We write to convey our grave concern over the publication of an overtly anti-Semitic cartoon by Richard Falk, an expert of the UN Human Rights Council. We urge you—as the highest moral authority of the UN human rights system—to condemn Mr. Falk’s actions, which constitute incitement to hatred and racial discrimination as defined under Articles 1 and 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Mr. Falk published the attached cartoon in his blog post of June 29. As you can see, it depicts a dog urinating on a woman symbolizing justice, and devouring a dead body with blood and bones spewing out of its mouth. The dog is shown in a garment marked “USA” and wearing a Kipa, the Jewish religious head covering, which is marked by a Star of David. The cartoon is manifestly anti-Semitic and, before a worldwide Internet audience, incites hatred against Jews as well as against Americans.
We are aware that mandate-holders are answerable only to the Council, and that Mr. Falk and his supporters will claim that the cartoon was published in his “personal capacity.” As you know, however, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in identical circumstances, unequivocally ruled that Mr. Falk has “a clear responsibility to uphold the high standards of the United Nations and the Council.” Accordingly, the Secretary-General twice condemned Mr. Falk for having propagated the 9/11 conspiracy theory and insulting the memory of the 3,000 victims of that attack. Likewise, in 2005, your predecessor, High Commissioner Louise Arbour did not hesitate to condemn expert Jean Ziegler for what she described as his “inflammatory” and “highly irresponsible” remarks.
For the UN human rights system to be credible in the fight against racism, its own representatives must not be allowed to incite hatred and racial discrimination with impunity. We urge you to speak out.
Sincerely,
Hillel C. Neuer Executive Director
Don't hold your breath waiting for Pillay to do something. Just another UN embarrassment.
UPDATE 1:06 AM
Falk has denied posting the cartoon to his blog, but has not deleted it from his image data base. You can see a screen capture of the original post here.
For your further entertainment, here's Falk's twitter feed: Could this finally be the end of Richard Falk's career at the 'human rights council'?
Last Wednesday, I reported that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay had expressed concern that Osama Bin Laden's 'human rights' may have been viollated when he was liquidated by US Navy SEALS, and demanded that the US turn over details of what happened. Anne Bayefsky reports that it's getting worse.
On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”
The suggestion from these two U.N. authority-figures that America is criminally at fault for killing Bin Laden if their terms have not been satisfied is both offensive and legally false.
Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.
In the minds of those at the U.N, however, the life-and-death struggle to defend freedom from Islamic terrorists is occurring in a vacuum. They insist that the applicable legal regime is international human rights law which considers the single individual and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, requires due process and condemns anything else as “extrajudicial” killing. Their response to the laws of warfare is: “what war?”
It gets worse - wait until you see what the UN Security Council issued as a 'Presidential statement' last Monday. Read the whole thing.
Remember how Obama subjected the US to that disgraceful show in the 'Human Rights Council' in which the United States' human rights record was subject to criticism by the likes of Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia? I wonder if - to set an example for Omar al-Bashir of course - Obama is willing to place himself in the dock at the International Criminal Court in the Hague for ordering Osama Bin Laden killed. Wouldn't that be rich?
And by the way, given that the Goldstone Commission insisted that Israel put individual soldiers on trial, does this mean that Obama is going to put the hero SEALS from the Navy on trial for killing Bin Laden?
Ruh roh. The UN's grand pooba of 'human rights' is asking for details about the Bin Laden liquidation. She's apparently suspicious that the terrorist's 'human rights' were violated.
The United Nations' top human rights official called on the United States on Tuesday to give the U.N. details about Osama bin Laden's killing and said that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.
...
"This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law," she said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.
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.
How Navi Pillay is resucitating the Goldstone Report
Navi Pillay is the United Nations 'High Commissioner for Human Rights.' In an email on Monday, Anne Bayefsky sent me a lengthy expose of how Pillay has colluded with Richard Goldstone, Christian Tomuschat, Param Cumaraswamy, Mary McGowan Davis and others of her former colleagues from courts in South Africa and Rwanda, to demonize Israel, advance their own careers and enrich their own pockets. It's a complex web that is way too long to post, and I urge you to read the whole thing. You will be astounded at how openly and brazenly corrupt the UN is. Here's the bottom line:
So this is how the U.N. works. A High Commissioner with a clear bias, shared by the U.N.’s most unscrupulous set of state actors, contrives to create a series of committees to forward her agenda. The job descriptions are liberally sprinkled with the word “independent.” But, in fact, she ensures that individuals who are anything but “independent” fill the positions. They are either indebted to her or to each other. They share her biases or are tied to those who do. And in the face of criticism, they manufacture and give each other awards. Those with bruised reputations depart, only to be replaced by other reliable friends.
It is hard to know which of these many steps is more deplorable than the next. In the name of “independence” and “accountability,” the U.N.’s top human rights official is busy promoting a vicious campaign to demonize one U.N. member state and throwing the rules about impartiality and fairness out the window.
Commissioner Navi Pillay and her appointments, Lennert Aspegren and Mary McGowan Davis, are the wrong people to take any leadership role in demanding accountability from others.
But don't worry - none of this will get the Obama administration to quit the 'Human Rights Council.' After all, the US already had its 'review.' What could go wrong?
A brief excerpt from Jennifer Rubin's excellent post on why 'International Human Rights Day,' which took place on Friday, ought to be an occasion for mourning.
One of the more egregious examples in the report demonstrates the link between European governments and Palestinian groups, which under the banner of "human rights" launch daily assaults on Israeli sovereignty. A press release from NGO Monitor announcing the new monograph described how the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) filed arrest warrants "in multiple countries against Israeli officials, primarily for 'war crimes' over the 2002 targeted killing of Hamas terrorist Salah Shehade'." The money for this, roughly $400,000, was provided in 2005 by the Dutch affiliate of Oxfam, which diverted European Union grant money for the "Abolition of the Death Penalty Project," a project supposedly intended to abolish the death penalty "in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, applied by the Palestinian National Authority via judicial death sentences and via extrajudicial executions." The money was actually used by PCHR to strategize with attorneys on its "war crimes" lawsuits.
This past week, Navi Pillay, the UN 'High Commissioner' for Human Rights, declined to attendthe Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, which took place on Friday, just like the Chinese wanted (the winner of the prize is imprisoned in China). If the recipient had been from Hamas, you can bet she would have attended.
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
