No, the US was not supposed to participate in the 'human rights council' hearing
In an earlier post, I quoted a Reuters report that claimed that the United States had abandoned Israel to the tender loving care of the United Nations 'human rights council.'
As you can see from the statement above, that report was not quite correct. The US, as a matter of principle, boycotts Item 7 on every 'human rights council' meeting agenda, because that is the permanent items for excoriating Israel. If you can't read the image above, you can find the statement here.
The Europeans, on the other hand, according to my sources, violated an agreement with Israel by commenting on Item 7. The Europeans have a deal with Israel that if Israel submits to the Universal Periodic Review, the Europeans will boycott Item 7.
Of course, a much more principled stance for both the US and Europe would be to leave the 'human rights council' altogether. But that will have to await new elections in the US.
It's come to this: Egypt urges American restraint in Ferguson, Missouri
In light of the farce that was the United States' 'universal periodic review' at the 'human rights council,' I don't suppose we should be too surprised that the government of Egypt feels that it is able to give 'advice' to the United States regarding the current tensions in Ferguson, Missouri.
Egypt on Tuesday urged U.S. authorities to exercise restraint in dealing
with racially charged demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri - echoing
language Washington used to caution Egypt as it cracked down on Islamist
protesters last year.
It is unusual for Egypt to criticize such a major donor, and it was
not immediately clear why the government would have taken such a step.
...
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry's statement on the unrest
in Ferguson read similarly to one issued by U.S. President Barack
Obama's administration in July 2013, when the White House "urged
security forces to exercise maximum restraint and caution" in dealing
with demonstrations by Mursi supporters.
The ministry added it was "closely following the escalation of
protests" in Ferguson, unleashed by the fatal shooting of an unarmed
black teenager by a white policeman on Aug. 9.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would know how to find his cheek with his tongue. So maybe he really means it?
In any event, the fact that the modern-day equivalent of the Mouse that Roared feels able to criticize the United States for actions anywhere outside of Egypt speaks volumes about just how poorly regarded the United States is under Obama.
And you were wondering why the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda feel at liberty to do whatever the heck they please?
Just when you thought the Binyamin Netanyahu had run out of stupid things to do when he backed the release of more 'Palestinian' terrorists. Netanyahu has now decided that Israel is going to show up for its 'universal periodic review' at the 'human rights council.' You know - the one we skipped last year. This is from the first link.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made the decision to begin the
reestablishment of ties with the council with less than 48 hours to go
before Israel’s scheduled appearance for its Universal Periodic Review,
according to Israeli sources.
Israel had initially failed to appear for its UPR in January and had been granted a number of extensions since then.
Tuesday’s prescheduled hearing was considered to be its last chance to participate in the process.
An Israeli delegation is leaving for Geneva to appear at the UNHRC for the review, the source said.
All
UN member states, including those with poor human rights records such
as Iran and Syria, have participated in the first round of UPRs.
Had Israel decided not to appear at the hearing, it would have become the first country to boycott the procedures.
Western countries were concerned that such a boycott by Israel could undermine the entire UPR process.
So why did Israel do this?
In negotiations with the UN and Western countries about its return,
Israel focused on two central points. The first was Agenda Item 7, which
mandates that member states debate Israeli human rights violations in
the Palestinian territories at each session.
The second point was a
request to be included in the group of UN Western nations that meets in
Geneva. While it is part of that group in New York, it has not been
included in the Geneva group, making it the only country excluded from
regional groupings.
Israel expects that in the next few months it
will be formally included in the group of Western nations that meets in
Geneva, according to the source.
The issue of Agenda Item 7 is
still under debate, but until the matter is resolved, Western countries
have agreed not to address the council with that item, the source said.
Only when both issues have been resolved will Israel consider that full ties have been reestablished.
“The acquittal of the murderer of the teenage African
American once again clearly demonstrated the unwritten, but systematic
racial discrimination against racial, religious and ethnic minorities in
the US society,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Abbas Araqchi
said.
He noted that the court ruling has also seriously put under question the
fairness of the judicial process in the United States.
“Several months on since a probe was launched (into the murder), the
public opinion in the US and across the world expect transparency, an
accurate and fair judicial investigation into the case, with due regard
to human rights principles for American citizens and a ban on
discrimination against minorities in the country,” Araqchi added.
(Araqchi, by the way, was appointed just two months ago and has been quite vocal and aggressive since his appointment.)
As Adam Kredo writes, though, it's more than a little ironic that Iran is pronouncing judgment on the American justice system.
Iran’s calls for justice came as a surprise to U.S.
observers, who pointed out that the Iranian regime is notorious for
beating opposition members, arresting journalists, stoning women to
death, and publicly executing homosexual teenagers.
According to a group called Iran Human Rights, executions in Iran have been spiking since the June 14 presidential election. The group bases its count on the regimes' announced executions and observes:
One possibility might be that during elections the
authorities have to give more space to the public in order to encourage
people’s participation in the elections. Additionally, during elections
international journalists visit Iran one week before and after
elections. However, in the weeks prior to and after the elections the
number of executions reaches a peak.
2) "You used to ride on your chrome horse with your diplomat"
The New York Times has been tracking John Kerry's efforts to restart
Palestinian/Israeli negotiation. First the paper reported in Kerry Achieves Deal to Revive Mideast Talks:
“The representatives of two proud peoples today have decided
that the difficult road ahead is worth traveling and that the daunting
challenges that we face are worth tackling,” Mr. Kerry said in Amman,
the Jordanian capital, on Friday night before flying back to Washington.
“They have courageously recognized that in order for Israelis and
Palestinians to live together side by side in peace and security, they
must begin by sitting at the table together in direct talks.” There was
no indication that either the Israelis or the Palestinians had
compromised on core issues — such as ending Israeli settlement activity
in the West Bank or conceding the right of return of Palestinian
refugees — that have sunk previous negotiations. Rather, this round of
diplomacy was focused on getting distrusting adversaries to sit in the
same room. But after years of stalemate in which the prospects of
creating side-by-side Israeli and Palestinian states seemed to fade,
even as a goal of American and regional diplomacy, the resumption of a
process of talks counts as progress, some analysts said.
Netanyahu pledges referendum following Kerry breakthrough on talks: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Net... http://t.co/2cpHlZkNMq BICOM
— Jewish Community (@JComm_NewsFeeds) July 22, 2013
One of three main Palestinian demands for resuming talks has
been the release of about a hundred Palestinians who have been jailed
since before the signing of the Oslo peace accords in 1993. The other
demands are using the 1967 prewar borders as the basis for negotiations,
and freezing Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
The Americans had been working on ways to resolve the border and
settlement issues with a formula in which they would make a declaration
about the 1967 border and about Israel being a Jewish state. A Western
official said Saturday, “There are no terms of reference or any other
agreements that the ’67 lines will be the basis for negotiation.”
Frustrated by the lack of a guarantee regarding the 1967 borders, the
Palestinians on Friday pushed further on prisoners, an issue with
profound emotional resonance on both sides. Palestinians consider the
men in Israel’s jails, particularly those serving since before Oslo,
prisoners of war. Israelis call them terrorists. Some have been
convicted of multiple murders, and the families of their victims have
already made passionate public appeals against the release.
Again, even though it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate, the reporting
blames Israel for its hesitance to make concessions ahead of
negotiations. Of course releasing convicted terrorists is a risky move,
often leading to more terror. The release of a thousand terrorists to
secure the freedom of Gilad Shalit nearly two years ago was no exception.
The risk of releasing prisoners with "blood on their hands," is
compounded by the fact that the Palestinian Authority, rather than
criticizing the terrorists, praises them instead and absolves them of
any wrongdoing.
Why should the Palestinians be "frustrated" by not knowing the outcome
of negotiations? Isn't that what the point of negotiations is? The
Palestinians don't want negotiations, they want guarantees delivered by
the international community. But if Mahmoud Abbas can't even keep a Prime Minister to govern by his side, how can he be expected to rule an entire country? How can be expected to keep his commitments?
The main ambition of Martin Indyk in life is to prove that Dennis Ross has been always wrong.
— Aharon Meytahl (@ameytahl) July 22, 2013
So Kerry did it. By George he did it! Negotiations will
resume forthwith. Now watch the naysayers declare there'll never be an
agreement.
— Martin Indyk (@Martin_Indyk) July 19, 2013
But with the negotiations due to start in the next week or
so, and Mr. Kerry intent on assuming his broader responsibilities as
secretary of state, he has begun to assemble a team that would manage
what one senior State Department official said is expected to be “a
rocky and up-and-down process.”
Channel 2 News in Israel reported that Mr. Kerry had told the Israeli
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the president of the Palestinian
Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, that Mr. Indyk was his choice; the channel
said both leaders expressed approval. ...
Mr. Indyk was sent again to Israel as ambassador in 2000, to work with
Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister, on an ambitious bid for a peace
deal, but that effort failed, and the second Palestinian intifada
erupted.
Given that the US allows its justice system to be judged by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, and a host of other human rights violators as part of the Universal Periodic Review process at the United Nations 'human rights council,' is it really in a position to complain when Iran judges its record solo? It's the US subjecting itself to the UPR that gives Iran the credibility to make any comments.
Even the (Israeli) Left agrees: UN 'human rights council' beyond the pale
Nachman Shai made a name for himself as the IDF spokesperson during the first Gulf War in 1991, warning Israelis to go cower in their 'sealed rooms' while Iraq attacked Israel with SCUD missiles. Shai recently switched from being a Kadima MK to being a Labor party MK, which means he is clearly now part of the Left. Haaretz, Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' newspaper, published this op-ed by Shai in Sunday's editions. Note that even the Israeli Left recognizes that the United Nations' 'human rights council' is beyond the pale. Take that, New York Slimes. This is from the first link.
I mention my party affiliation because I want it to be very clear
that this ought not be, and for the most part is not, a partisan issue
within Israel. While the Netanyahu government has made many foreign
policy errors, and in my view helped weaken our position and deepen our
international isolation, the UNHRC is quite another matter. The UN Human
Rights Council represents the very depths to which an unrepresentative,
undemocratic international body can sink.
Kofi Annan said in 2005 that
the “credibility deficit” of the Council’s predecessor, the Commission
on Human Rights, was “cast[ing] a shadow on the reputation of the United
Nations system as a whole.” I wholeheartedly agree, and would
characterize its latest incarnation in much the same way.
Although having been reconstituted and renamed only six years ago
because of the total illegitimacy of its predecessor, the Council
immediately relapsed into its old ways. Despite changes to the structure
and governing rules of the Council, it is a body that privileges and
grants immunity to the worst human rights violators on Earth. For
example, only last week, it voted in Sudan - Sudan! - as its vice
president. UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer called this “like naming Jack the Ripper to head a women’s shelter.”
Because of UNHRC processes, the “universal periodic review” essentially
acts as a rubber stamp on the behavior of the very worst human rights
violators. China, North Korea, and countless other nations whose human
rights records make Colonel Gaddafi look like Mother Theresa, routinely
get a pass from the Council. Syria, which is estimated to have murdered
over 60,000 people over the past couple of years, rarely finds itself in
the Council’s spotlight.
But if an alien descended from the heavens and looked in on the UNHRC’s
agenda, they would immediately conclude that one country above all
others is the most grotesque human rights violator of all time. And it’s
not Syria, Iran, North Korea or even the Council’s venerable vice
president, Sudan.
It is Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy, that is the only
country in the world that the UNHRC deems worthy of a standing agenda
item. Perhaps even more incredibly, almost 40 per cent of all UNHRC
resolutions condemning a specific country have been directed against the
Jewish state.
...
There are appropriate times and occasions for engagement with
international bodies, and there are also times for saying, “Enough!”
This is one of those times. Israel quite rightly will not engage in a
process that is effectively a rubber stamp for the Sudans of this world.
And we will not engage in discussions about a report calling,
outrageously, for sanctions against our country, by a body whose vice
president is the representative from Sudan.
I would say that if the Obama administration or the New York Times think there's any support in Israel for engaging with the 'human rights council,' reading Dr. Shai ought to convince them otherwise.
1) The ICC can only act when the home state refuses to investigate
crimes; that is not the case for any Israeli acts in Gaza or the
territories.
2) ICC has never prosecuted a case referred by a country against
nationals of a non-member state. Such an action would terrify US
officials and permanently sour American relations with the Court, as it
would expose U.S. military and civilian officials to liability for U.S.
armed action anywhere in the world, and particularly for the
controversial drone strikes program of President Obama.
3) The ICC has never even considered taking a case that does not involve
killing and personal violence; a settlements suit would be far outside
the kind of things they've dealt with in the past.
4) The relevant actions would have to be on the territory of Palestine,
which is a problem since they do not have defined territory, and most of
what the op-ed talks about precedes their nominal statehood, so that
would be out of bounds.
5) The ICC would also have jurisdiction over all Palestinian war crimes.
Bisharat, who is a professor of law, is very much an activist in service
of a cause. Another professor of law, William Jacobson, showed that Bisharat is a poseur, who uses a false family history to justify his campaign against Israel.
Yet much of Bisharat’s family narrative is exaggerated, at a minimum.
I previously documented Bisharat’s claim that his father was forced to
abandon an art show at a Jewish-owned art gallery due to his father
having spoken up for Palestinian rights. That claim, made by Bisharat
long after both his father and the gallery owner had died, leaving no
witnesses, was disputed by people affiliated with the gallery.
Bisharat regularly and for decades has played upon his family history as
forming his narrative of Israel’s lack of legitimacy, and his call for a
single state encompassing what now is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
...
Jacobson has critiqued Bisharat and his views othertimes too.
Today, the Times takes another angle to use international law as a cudgel with which to beat Israel, an editorial, titled Israel Ducks on Human Rights.
In May, Israel said it planned to stop participating because the
council was a “political tool” for those who wanted to “bash and
demonize” Israel. The council, whose 47 members are elected by the
United Nations General Assembly, is clearly not without faults. More
than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work
in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and
Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the
council’s biannual meetings.
But two paragraphs later, the editors tells that "universal standards" in human rights are important!
Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries
by universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By
opting out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same
scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an
opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also
undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states
with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe
— to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington
to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.
It would be one thing for the New York Times to acknowledge that the
Human Rights Council is flawed and that Israel should submit to its
authority, if the flaws were not relevant to Israel's standing. But one
of the flaws that the Times itself acknowledged is the council's
obsession with Israel, meaning that Israel will not be judged by the
"universal standards" it claims to champion.
Israel Matzav outlines the degree to which the editorial downplays the rather substantial flaws of the Human Rights Council.
The Times' willful blindness to what the 'council' is and what it
represents is beyond appalling. The 'council' has nothing to do with the
protection of human rights (note - without the scare quotes this time)
and everything to do with promoting the use of 'human rights' as a means
of bashing Israel as was decided at the Durban I conference in 2001.
That is why the 'council' has had nothing to say while 60,000 Syrians
have been murdered by the Assad regime in the last two years, and that
is why the 'council' had nothing to say about the green revolution in
Iran in 2009 (behavior in which the Obama administration was
unfortunately and shamefully complicit).
There is no reason for countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe to
skip their universal periodic reviews because, unlike Israel, which is
the only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the world in
which Arab Christians and Muslims have human rights, countries like
North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe will benefit from the automatic pass of
the Organization of Islamic Countries at the Council.
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against humanity
in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of foreign
affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council chamber. And
then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working for the human
rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we commend Syria on its
efforts taken to maintain security and stability.” The Iranians said:
“we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria to promote and
protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Algeria,
Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
In fact, just using the name "human rights" in an organization's title
does nothing to ensure that it supports human rights. That appears to be
the operating assumption of the New York Times.
Of course it's entirely possible that there's no reason to assume that
the editors of the Times are naive. On successive days they've published
an op-ed filled with bogus legal jargon written by a known anti-Israel
activist and an editorial lacking in logical coherence. The only reason
to publish both, short of editorial malfeasance, is that the New York
Times is leading a campaign to "bash and demonize" Israel.
And again: Israel under attack at 'human rights council' and in the New York Times
A special commission of the United Nations' 'human rights council' - the 6th in the last 6.5 years to deal with Israel - is to release a report late Thursday morning regarding the effects of the Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria on the 'human rights' of the 'Palestinians' who also live in Judea and Samaria. Because Israel did not cooperate with the commission (and does notcooperate with the 'council'), and did not allow its members to enter 'Area C,' which is where the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria lives, or anyplace within the 1949 armistice lines, I am violating one of my own blogging rules by doing a post regarding the fact that the report is being released rather than waiting for the report itself. Of course, the question that needs to be asked is why the Government of Israel chose to let the commission into Areas A and B (where 'Palestinians' live) given that we control their borders....
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that the best way to
address the issue of settlements was through a negotiated peace process,
but that the Palestinians have refused to talk directly with Israel.
“The
question of settlements, as everyone knows, is one of the core issues
between Israel and the Palestinians. It will not find any solution
outside the framework of negotiations,” he said.
If the council wants to contribute to human rights, it should do its utmost to enable the resumption of peace talk, he said.
“Publishing a one-sided and biased report will only add insult to injury, and confusion to the distortion,” he said.
The
three-member panel on the fact-finding mission, Christine Chanet of
France, Asma Jahangir of Pakistan and Unity Dow of Botswana, plan to
hold a press conference in Geneva on Thursday to discuss their report.
The Human Rights Council is set to debate the report on March 18.
The council hasn’t always been an effective human rights champion. But
its record, including naming human rights rapporteurs for Iran and Sudan
and supporting gay and lesbian rights, has improved since President
Obama, reversing policy of the George W. Bush administration, had the
United States join the council in 2009.
Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries by
universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By opting
out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same
scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an
opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also
undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states
with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe
— to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington
to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.
If the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hoped to avoid
criticism by this move, it failed. Fortunately, there is still a chance
to make the right decision. In an extraordinary move, the council agreed
to give Israel until November to reverse course. Any new governing
coalition that emerges from Israel’s recent elections should realize
that there’s a cost to standing apart.
The Times' willful blindness to what the 'council' is and what it represents is beyond appalling. The 'council' has nothing to do with the protection of human rights (note - without the scare quotes this time) and everything to do with promoting the use of 'human rights' as a means of bashing Israel as was decided at the Durban I conference in 2001. That is why the 'council' has had nothing to say while 60,000 Syrians have been murdered by the Assad regime in the last two years, and that is why the 'council' had nothing to say about the green revolution in Iran in 2009 (behavior in which the Obama administration was unfortunately and shamefully complicit). .
There is no reason for countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe to skip their universal periodic reviews because, unlike Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the world in which Arab Christians and Muslims have human rights, countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe will benefit from the automatic pass of the Organization of Islamic Countries at the Council. For example, look at this description of Syria's last universal periodic review by Anne Bayefsky:
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against
humanity in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of
foreign affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council
chamber. And then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working
for the human rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we
commend Syria on its efforts taken to maintain security and stability.”
The Iranians said: “we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria
to promote and protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Algeria, Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four
days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At
the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
The next and final stage of
the UPR took place in Geneva on March 15, 2012 – by which time there
were 11,000 dead. On that occasion, the Council formally adopted the
so-called “outcome” of the UPR – a report containing no findings and no
decision to take action. It was gaveled through without comment from
the President with these words: “May I now propose that the Council
adopts the decision on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of
Syria?” I see no objection.”
There are now over 60,000 dead in Syria.
And the Times is 'worried' that Israel not showing up will lead North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe not to show up? Why?
The Torah warns us that the Jewish people are not counted among the nations of the world (Numbers 23:9). Historically the Jewish people have been willing to be isolated, and have been willing to stand apart when it was the right and moral thing to do, but we have never been willing to do the wrong thing just because the world wants us to do the wrong thing. Having our 'human rights' record reviewed by a hostile 'council' in which our friends are automatically outvoted is destructive and not constructive. Contrary to the Times' claim, the standards applied are not universal, as can be seen from Ms. Bayefsky's summary of the Syrian review above.
Taking a moral stand against the outrageous behavior of the 'human rights council' is the right and moral thing to do, even if the self-proclaimed protectors of morality at the New York Times cannot see it. We can only hope and pray that any new government that takes charge in Israel between now and November will not see fit to debase itself or the Jewish people in the immoral slime of the 'human rights council.'
In the face of Israel's absolute refusal to show up for its universal periodic review, the United Nations 'human rights council' decided to save face by 'postponing' the review to 'no later than November 2013.'
The council called on Israel to cooperate with the council on the UPR.
It asked its President Remigiusz Henczel to encouraged Israel’s
participation in the human rights review.
Henczel said that postponement served “as a precedent to be applied
in all similar circumstances of non-cooperation in the future.”
He warned, however, that if Israel failed to participate by the set deadline, the council would weight steps against it.
So what's going to change in the next ten months? Will the UN suddenly become a fair place that's not biased against Israel? Are they suddenly going to give up their anti-Semitism? Is Israel going to be allowed to join a regional grouping so that it can exercise the prerogatives of UN membership like every other country in the world? Is the 'human rights council' going to stop being a rubber stamp for an anti-Israel agenda? Is the permanent agenda item against Israel going to be removed?
Of course, the answer to every one of those questions is "no." The council was royally embarrassed on Tuesday and deservedly so. What they are hoping is that the new Israeli government will reverse course. Don't hold your breath. It won't happen. It was David Ben Gurion, a man of the Left, who first referred to the UN as Oom Shmoom, long before there was a 'human rights council.'
If you want to be amused by OIC reactions to the postponement, read the whole thing.
Here's what it was like on Tuesday at the 'human rights council.'
Let's go to the videotape.
The council chairman looks like a little kid whose toy was just taken away, doesn't he?
Israel tells the UN's 'human rights council' to buzz off, Hussein Obama criticizes Israel
Israel had the junk to do what no other country among the 193 members of the United Nations dared to do: Israel did not show up for its universal periodic review by the Muslim-controlled 'human rights council.' And the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has criticized Israel for doing so.
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against
humanity in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of
foreign affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council
chamber. And then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working
for the human rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we
commend Syria on its efforts taken to maintain security and stability.”
The Iranians said: “we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria
to promote and protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Algeria, Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four
days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At
the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
The next and final stage of
the UPR took place in Geneva on March 15, 2012 – by which time there
were 11,000 dead. On that occasion, the Council formally adopted the
so-called “outcome” of the UPR – a report containing no findings and no
decision to take action. It was gaveled through without comment from
the President with these words: “May I now propose that the Council
adopts the decision on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of
Syria?” I see no objection.”
There are now over 60,000 dead in Syria.
And
yet, incredibly, the enormous pressure now descending on Israel to play
by these rules has been mounted for the sake of the credibility of the
UPR. It is the Jewish state that poses the threat to the UN’s house of
cards.
This is what modern anti-Semitism in the
world of international affairs is really all about. Israel’s
willingness to expose the lack of universal application of standards,
its refusal to play with a stacked deck, its stubborn insistence that it
will not go quietly into that good night, is itself an affront – a
violation of the rules of a club from which Jews have been excluded
throughout history.
The discrimination against
Israel by the UN human rights system is not hard to find. The UN Human
Rights Council has a permanent agenda of 10 items, one reserved for
condemning Israel and one for considering all other 192 UN members.
Almost 40 percent of all Council resolutions condemning specific
countries have been directed at Israel alone. There have been more
special sessions on Israel than any other country. Israel is the only UN
state excluded from full membership in any of the UN’s regional groups,
where key negotiations and information-sharing occurs.
The
official UN document entitled “summary of stakeholder submissions,”
which is intended to drive Israel’s UPR, includes allegations from NGOs
that object to “the Jewish character of the state,” and demand that
“five million Palestinians” should “return” to Israel to seal the deal.
...
If President Obama and his new administration were really serious
about leadership, they could have easily been telling their colleagues
on the Council to change the rules, because true equality cannot be
built on the inequality of the few. Because the discrimination and
demonization of the Jewish state and the Jewish people is not an
isolatable flaw, but subverts the very foundation of human rights and
the United Nations. Because the road to hell is paved with the cries of
the insignificant, the marginal and the irrelevant.
But
instead, through their UN Ambassador in Geneva, Eileen Donahoe,
American diplomats publicly beseeched Israel last week to make nice.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said on Monday that Israel will not show up on Tuesday for its 'universal periodic review at the United Nations' so-called 'human rights council.' Israel has been boycotting the council since March 2012 when it appointed a 'special commission' to 'investigate' Israel's 'human rights violations' in Judea and Samaria. The council is due to debate that commission's report on March 16. Israel is not cooperating with the commission.
“For the time being, there is no
change in our policy to withhold all contacts and cooperation with the UNHRC,”
said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. “As the UPR is an UNHRC
activity, we are not planning on taking part in it.”
On January 10,
Israel’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Eviatar Manor called UNHRC President
Remigiusz Henczel and asked for a postponement.
It was the first contact
between Israel and the council since last March. Henczel asked the ambassador to
submit a formal request.
The problem was made public two weeks
ago, when Israel was absent from a meeting in which three states were
chosen by lottery to
oversee its UPR.
Behind the scenes, a number of countries – including the
United States – have pushed Israel to participate in the process, fearing
Israel’s non-participation would set a precedent for other countries to boycott
it.
...
Council spokesman Rolando Gomez said he hoped Israel would
choose to participate in Tuesday’s proceedings, which move forward
regardless.
“Regarding Israel’s scheduled UPR for tomorrow, the way
things are looking now there are two scenarios,” he said. “The first is that a
delegation from Israel shows up at the council meeting and undergoes their
universal periodic review. The second is that they do not turn up, and the
council decides on a course of action,” he said. He did not specify what that
action could be.
The US Ambassador to the UNHRC Eileen Chamberlain
Donahoe said last week that the council had a strong bias against Israel that
had not gone away.
Still, she said, “We have encouraged Israel to come to
the UPR, to tell its story, to present its own narrative of its human rights
situation. We think it is a good opportunity to do that.”
It's about time that a western democracy called out the farce of the 'human rights council.' Since the United States under Obama has insisted on castrating its foreign policy, Israel is apparently the only country with the junk to stand up to the biased council. I will be very proud of this country if it doesn't show up, and very disappointed if it does.
One of Iran’s official press agencies
published photos showing the public amputation of a thief's fingers on
Wednesday. These show a man getting his finger chopped off with a
machine resembling a rotary saw.
WARNING: These images may shock viewers.
We contacted many of our Observers in Iran to ask them about this
machine. Some of them had heard about it before, but many discovered its
existence through these morbid photographs, which were reportedly taken
on Thursday. According to the INSA press agency, the man shown getting
his finger cut off was charged with robbery and adultery by a court in
the southwestern city of Shiraz. He was also accused of being at the
head of a criminal organisation. On top of losing one of his fingers, he
was sentenced to three years in prison and 99 whip lashes.
No independent witnesses were able to recount the circumstances
under which this amputation took place. Four photos of the scene
published by the press agency were widely relayed on social media
networks. Strangely enough, the man’s face did not betray any signs of
suffering in the photos, though it is possible that he might have been
drugged.
How humane! I'm sure Iran will be praised by the United Nations 'human rights council' when this topic comes up at their universal periodic review. What could go wrong?
The United States has appealed to Israel not to put the UN 'human rights council' in a bad spot by refusing to show up for Israel's Universal Period Review (UPR) next week. Thankfully, Israel has rejected that appeal. Well, sort of.
"They (Israeli officials) signalled that they want it postponed. It
is very unlikely they will participate on the 29th," US human rights
ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe told reporters in Geneva.
"I'm fairly optimistic we will find a solution that does not undermine universality or cooperation. That is my hope."
Israel's
last review was in December 2008, when it attended. A boycott would be
unprecedented and diplomats fear other countries might follow suit to
avoid scrutiny of their human rights records.
Israel suspended
relations with the council last May because of what it called an
inherent bias against it, and has informally told the council's
president, Poland's ambassador, that it wants the session postponed, a
UN spokesman said.
"A decision will be taken in the event Israel
does not show up for its UPR, the council will decide on a course of
action. States are working very hard behind the scenes to come up with a
solution," council spokesman Rolando Gomez told Reuters.
...
"We see a strong bias against Israel that has not gone away," Donahoe said on Thursday.
But Washington has urged its ally to take part in the UPR whose universality it does not want to see "broken", she said.
"We
have encouraged Israel to come to the UPR, to tell its story, to
present its own narrative of its human rights situation. We think it is a
good opportunity to do that."
Donahoe added: "My feeling is members understand that it is not only about Israel."
A 'postponement' would be face-saving for the 'council.' Israel should just say it's not showing up - not next week, not next month and not next year - and let the chips fall where they may.
This is rich: Israel to cause the collapse of the 'human rights council'
You might recall that in March 2012, Israel suspended all cooperation with the United Nations 'human rights council' after the terror-supporting group established a 'fact finding' mission to investigate 'Israeli abuses' in the Golan the same week that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad murdered hundreds of his fellow citizens.
That step is putting the council in an uncomfortable position. Israel is due for its quadrennial Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the council on January 29. The UPR cannot be done without the cooperation of the country being reviewed. In the last go-round, every country showed up. Not this time. Israel has no plans to show up.
Once HRC officials realized that Israel's decision would also affect
UPR, they panicked. UPR can only work if there is 100% state
participation. Without UPR, the façade of a reformed HRC is now in
jeopardy. On November 28, 2012, the HRC President sent a desperate
letter to Israel trying to guilt it into participation by ironically
promoting the "universality" of the process. When Israel didn't bite,
the HRC met this week and openly chastised Israel for refusing to
participate in the discredited framework.
In concert with the UN, NGOs predictably began issuing condemnations.
The NGO WILPF, in Orwellian fashion, lamented that "Letting the
non-cooperation of a State produce a double standard in the UPR process
and setting such a precedent would undermine its object and purpose,"
while ignoring the decades of double standards aimed at Israel. No
doubt, similarly self-righteous statements will soon appear from HRW and
others.
Of course, none of these actors offered to take concrete steps, such
as repealing Agenda Item 7, to end the systemic bias at the HRC. And in
typical HRC fashion, Venezuela was selected to preside over Israel's UPR
in absentia.
The fact is that the UN, HRW, and the other organizations that are
responsible for the dysfunctional state of affairs at the HRC have no
one to blame but themselves. Some have engaged in half-hearted efforts
to end the bias, while others have actively encouraged it through
activities like the immoral Goldstone process. If the collapse of UPR is
what it takes to force real change at the HRC and to end the
stranglehold of abusive regimes at that institution, it will be worth
it.
Why Gadhafi thinks he can get away with mass murder
Why does Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi expect the world to let him get away with mass murder? This video is instructive about that issue. This video was made at the 'universal periodic review' of Libya's 'human rights' record that took place at the UN 'Human Rights Council' in November. You will recall that when the United States had its interview, it was lambasted and humiliated. Libya's review didn't look like that.
Let's go to the videotape.
After fawning treatment like that, is it any wonder that Muammar Gadhafi thinks he can get away with mass murder?
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
