Israeli exceptionalism at the United Nations

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/israeli-exceptionalism-at-the-united-nations/81857/

Last month, Israel ended a 20-month boycott of the United Nations Human Rights Council when Israeli officials participated in the Universal Periodic Review, a process where every UN member state has their human rights record reviewed before the council. The process is designed “to ensure equal treatment for every country” by assessing each country based on the same body of international law. Yet, at the opening of Israel’s review session on October 29, Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Eviatar Manor, declared, “The unfair treatment of Israel must come to an end.”

To be clear, the international community is not treating Israel unfairly; Israel is simply being treated and recognized as the persistent human rights violator that it is. The deep-rooted notion of Israeli exceptionalism inherent in Ambassador Manor’s statement is consistently used to delegitimize any international criticism of Israel’s serious human rights violations against Palestinians.

If Israel wants improved standing in the international community, its leaders must take responsibility for what is truly exceptional: a 46-year-old military occupation where systemic discrimination and persistent human rights violations are deeply entrenched and impunity reigns.

In the West Bank, there are two separate legal systems operating in the same territory and the sole factor in determining which laws apply to a person are his or her nationality and ethnicity. Israeli military law, which fails to ensure and denies basic and fundamental rights, is applied to the Palestinian population, including men, women and children; while Israeli settlers living in the West Bank are subject to the Israeli civilian and criminal legal system. Aside from the blatant violation of universal non-discrimination guarantees, why is this unique?

[shira]

1. What a joke of an OP

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Hot mic catches UN interpreter saying anti-Israel votes are 'a bit much'

Note the laughing in the background. Even UN delegates understand the bullshit is thick there.

Comments at 972:

Human Rights Council:
- passed more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world combined.
- employs clearly biased ‘special rapporteurs
- has Israel (and only Israel) as a permanent item on the agenda
- recently had the following countries become members that sit in judgement of Israel: China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia

The reason why Israeli leaders dismiss criticism from such a body as hypocritical and transparently biased is because it is. If you expect Israelis to take such bodies seriously perhaps these bodies should first at least display a modicum of objectivity rather than being platforms for the persecution of Israel by the automatic majority the Palestinians and their supporters enjoy in such bodies.

We wish to be judged by the same standards as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iran, Sri Lanka, the United States, etc, etc…

Some of those might not even pretend to be democratic states, but I have yet to see how ‘universal humanitarian principles’ should be applied in such a way as to give all these horrendous violators of human rights a pass while singling out Israel.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. Your reply was much more humorous and telling.

[azurnoir]

3. well what I found 'telling'

is that the US is now included as being along the same lines as Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia guess $3,000,000,000+ per year doesn't buy much luv, especially not when there's these guys named Obama and Kerry........

[shira]

36. U.S. rips U.N. Human Rights Council for ‘disproportionate’ Israel focus

By Ron Kampeas March 19, 2013 10:47am

(JTA) – The Obama administration refused to participate in a U.N. Human Rights Council meeting on Israeli settlements and slammed the body for its "disproportionate" focus on Israel.

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2013/03/19/news-opinion/united-states/u-s-rips-u-n-human-rights-council-for-disproportionate-israel-focus#ixzz2krjZ8HB7

[azurnoir]

38. it's YOUR link that rated the US the same as Saudi Arabia, Iran < China, Russia why do you

seem to want to deny now, don't you believe what you post?

[shira]

42. Huh? What are you on? Try to explain clearly. n/t

[shira]

4. Your support for the UN speaks volumes. Here's Kofi Annan....

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[67]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

[azurnoir]

5. well it seems Israel is choosing you know making a choice to participate in the UNHRC

so apparently Israel takes them seriously, and IMO I'll look forward to what Israel says and does there

[shira]

34. Israel was pressured so that other rogue regimes wouldn't drop out of the review....

Israel was also promised (who knows if they'll get it) full membership on the Western Nations and Others group, as well as help against being the only special repeat item on every HRC meeting.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. It's strange to see support for a global multilateral organisation at DU?

I think what any DUers support for the UN speaks volumes about is that they're not some nutty RW type and that they support multilateralism and the spirit of the UN Charter...

[shira]

7. It's abominable to support an organization that elects human rights abusers....

...like Russia, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam to its Human Rights Commission.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Don't forget Israel in that list!

And WTF is wrong with Cuba? I know American RWers hate it, but this is DU, isn't it?

[shira]

10. Israel isn't on the UNHRC. And you support Cuba?

Tell me something, is Cuba the model of a secular democracy you have in mind for Israel and other nations that don't quite cut it in your view?

I'm asking before I take a few seconds to google "human rights violations in Cuba" for you.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. They're a member state of the UN aren't they?

Or did I miss the memo saying they aren't...

No, I neither support or don't support Cuba. I think it's fucking mindless to treat countries like they're football teams to be supported. I just find it pathetic how some Americans live in the past with all the commies under the bed crap when most other countries in the world accept Cuba just like any other country...

I take it that you have no problems with secular democracies committing human rights violations. Don't worry. For DUers who oppose human rights violations no matter who does it, I'll take a few seconds to google "human rights violations United States" and "human rights violations Israel", which makes more sense than you trying to relive the Cold War...

[shira]

21. The UN won't allow Israel on the HRC. That's bigotry. And you asked WTF is wrong with Cuba?

You'd never ask that of Israel or the USA, so why Cuba? And it's not Rightwingers who have a problem with Cuba's violations:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what we did with respect to Cuba was recognize that the Cuban people now have not enjoyed freedom for 50 years, and everywhere else in the world you’ve been seeing a democratization movement that has been pressing forward.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/28/remarks-president-open-questions-roundtable

From HRW:

Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. The government of Raúl Castro continues to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they leave the country, the government continues to sentence dissidents in closed, summary trials. The government has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely.

So yeah, it's problematic that Cuba is elected to judge other nations' human rights situations.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. And according to yr logic, they shouldn't be on the human rights commission...

After all, human rights abusers aren't a good thing to have on it. And Israel abuses the human rights of Palestinians, so that counts them out. Now let's work together on getting rid of the others, except for Cuba, where you still haven't shown any actual human rights abuses. Given the US weirdness about Cuba, and that you've told me many times HRW are a bunch of liars, have you got anything actually trustworthy to point to?

[shira]

23. No countries are perfect, but free, liberal western democracies are best suited....

...to be on such commissions, not closed, authoritarian, theocratic, fascist dictatorships that oppose people's freedoms and work to deny people civil rights.

This isn't rocket science.

Well....maybe it is for you. Since it's apparent you lack even the most basic understanding of the world, free countries vs. closed ones, maybe it's best we wrap it up here.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. So you think human rights abuses by secular democracies can be overlooked...

Oh-kay. Most people at DU I know oppose human rights abuses no matter who commits them, and don't tend to fall in line behind the RW 'It's fine because it's a secular democracy that's bringing freedom and joy to the world!' mindset...

I always get a bit of a chuckle when you try to talk down to me about things like international relations...

[bemildred]

25. I was thinking of the vast effort I set in motion with that statement.

An effort to prove that election to the UNHRC was an award for good behavior.
Which, once proven, naturally means all the current members must have got there for their good behavior.
And anybody not elected must have some issues.
Which is just ludicrous.

The problem is that the original assumption, that it's an award, is OBVIOUSLY wrong.
But I do agree with Shira that Israel should be there too.

[shira]

27. THANK YOU! We probably agree Israel should be allowed on all UN committees....

The problem is they're not, and the only reason is bigotry.

[bemildred]

30. Oh they are allowed, what they are not is elected.

And that most certainly does seem to indicate some bias against them. And as we both know, people will disagree about whether those biases are merited, arguing vehemently at times.

But I was pointing out that the premise that is was some sort of award is wrong. If you want to complain about their focus on Israel, at least there you have an argument. I suggest you stick with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Agreeing with Shira would be a stopped clock moment, I suspect...

Though I notice she's virulently opposed to Cuba being on the Council, which does come across as quite a double standard considering she wants Israel on the Council...

Personally I don't give a shit who's on it. It's not like it actually does anything other than generate reports...

[shira]

26. I didn't say that, did I? I think the main focus should be on the world's worst violators....

...and go down the list from there, from worst to first.

And you don't oppose human rights abuses no matter who commits them. The UN is supposed to work for universal human rights and they don't do so when they're passing far more country-specific resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world's worst regimes combined.

Here's Kofi Annan calling bullshit on you:

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[67]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

I wish you'd quit with the bullshit.

[azurnoir]

39. so it seems once it's pointed out to you that it;'s an election not an award

suddenly it's BS

[shira]

43. Election to HRC for S.Arabia or Cuba shows how terribly corrupt/broken UN is. n/t

[azurnoir]

45. as has been pointed out to you no it does not

and may I add that the US has also been voted in during that time

[azurnoir]

44. Odd how you seem to focus on the Bush years in the UN not so much the present though-curious that

when John Bolton was the US ambassador but here is more from your link-

Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, former president of the council Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[2][3][4] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration.[5] Beginning in 2009 however, with the United States taking a leading role in the organization, American commentators began to argue that the HRC was becoming increasingly relevant.[6][7]

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Well, yeah. You did...

All that nonsense about how it's different if it's secular democracies committing human rights violations. That'd be the bit.

btw, apart from you having no idea at all about how the Human Rights Council works, and having some stupid idea that membership is a reward, you also don't seem to be aware that me and Kofi Annan (who I'm sure you've probably labelled an anti-Semite at some point in the past) don't know each other and he doesn't call bullshit on me. What that is is you, who's the last person to be talking about human rights, using someone you've probably attacked in the past to hide behind to fling their opinion at me. I know this will fry yr brain, but I don't have a problem with what Kofi Annan said. I have a problem with twits who obsess over Israel behaving as though Israel's a great bastion of human rights and only attacking the human rights records of other countries to do some weird 'But look! Israel's better than that country!!' argument that always falls flat on its face...

Sorry, but when I see bullshit, I tend to respond to it, which explains why I've been responding to so many of yr posts today...

[shira]

51. But u support a UN that singles out Israel to the detriment of human rights elsewhere....

Last edited Sun Nov 17, 2013, 09:32 AM - Edit history (1)

You don't even see a problem with Cuba's human rights, you think Israel is actually worse, but you claim to support Universal Human Rights around the globe.



Riiiiight.

Israel isn't perfect, it makes mistakes, and deserves to be called out on them. But if the UN were doing its job, it would be passing 100x the number of resolutions condemning other nations that are FAR worse than Israel.

But you don't support that kind of UN.

You support the UN as it currently stands. It doesn't even work to protect Palestinian rights outside of Israel when Jews cannot be blamed.

But you have no problem with such a UN.

Speaks volumes.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. *sigh* Yr just not getting the whole the UN isn't a football team to be blindly supported thing...

It's been explained to you multiple times now, but you seem intent on ignoring it. Rather than pointlessly repeat myself knowing that you won't read it or digest it, here's the link to where I last told you how silly and reactionary that support or hate thing is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113450963#post28

I think yr hatred of Cuba is just really bizarre and OTT. I asked you for proof that they're one of the worst human rights offenders in the world and you produced some guff from the US govt, which is out of step with the rest of the world when it comes to Cuba anyway and really can't be considered trustworthy.

Israel merely 'makes mistakes'? The building of settlements on occupied territory and the treatment of Palestinians over the past few decades isn't merely a minor mistake. What Israel has committed is human rights violations on an ongoing and big scale.

You support the UN as it currently stands.

Really? According to you I have no criticism of the UN as it currently stands? What would I do without you to correct me on what I think? Thanks, Shira!

[shira]

69. You've given no indication you disapprove of how the UN treats Israel....

Here's Ban Ki Moon from Aug 2013:

On Aug. 16, Ban told university students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem, “Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination.”

“I’ve been in touch with the Secretary-General’s office in New York, and I can assure you that what he said there in New York was not meant as a retraction,” Serry said on Israel Radio. “Ban has said, unfortunately, because of the conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism, and suffered from lies and sometimes even discrimination,” Serry added. “This is what I know he has been saying here, and I know this is what he stands for.”

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/un-ban-ki-moon-did-not-mean-to-retract-statement-on-anti-israel-bias/2013/08/27/

That indicates a big problem, but as I understand it you're incapable of acknowledging it.

As to Cuba, I also quoted from HRW, an organization whose criticism of Israel you've used many times. Whether I believe they're credible is irrelevant b/c on Israel you believe they're extremely credible. So why not Cuba?

But it's funny you think I hate Cuba. Am I to understand that someone who has big problems with a country's human rights situation is automatically a hater? That would apply to you since your animosity towards Israel dwarfs whatever feelings I have toward Cuba.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. You clearly forget what you post from one post to the next...

Here's what you said: 'You support the UN as it currently stands.'

That's what I addressed. I'll translate that into normal person language as 'You have no criticism of the way the UN works'. And I'm suggesting that instead of just making up stuff and bellowing at others that you know how they think better than they do, you do the normal person thing and ask them. If you'd asked me, which you shouldn't have needed to if you'd bothered reading the other post you just replied to, you'd discover that I am indeed critical of the way the UN Security Council is set up. But it doesn't turn me into a slavering and rage-filled ball of hating the UN. When I've discussed things like that at DU, I talk about things like the difficulties that are inbuilt into the UN that would make it virtually impossible for change and what should be done to fix it. I don't do the 'OMG! The UN is so bigoted and evil!' routine, which is why you wouldn't notice my criticism if the subject came up. Plus you don't do the GD thing, which is where such conversations are likely to occur...

You included Cuba alongside Saudi Arabia as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. You've shown nothing to back that up. And it's hypocritical of you to flash something that doesn't even prove that from HRW when you've spent so many posts here condemning HRW as liars and anti-Semites.

But it's funny you think I hate Cuba. Am I to understand that someone who has big problems with a country's human rights situation is automatically a hater?

Just showing you how yr 'logic' when it comes to Israel works in reverse. If it's good enough for you, why can't other people do it?

[shira]

77. I agree that the UNSC is screwed up, but it goes beyond that....

Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 12:04 AM - Edit history (4)

Ban Ki Moon claims the UN lies and discriminates against Israel. I take it you disagree? Moon also unleashed against the UN's special Palestinian rapporteur Richard Falk's 911 wingnut conspiracy nonsense. And then there's Falk's anti-Jew bigotry that he's been called out on. He's an outright embarrassment to the UN.

Cuba denies basic civil rights, including freedom of expression. No better than other closed, totalitarian societies where there is no freedom, no civil liberties we westerners take for granted. I don't understand how a progressive would be an apologist for that. Like I wrote previously, it seems you're in need of a lesson or two distinguishing b/w western style democracies and totalitarian regimes. In no way can any western style democracy honestly be compared to a totalitarian regime. But you believe such an argument can be made. I find that fascinating to behold on a liberal board.

[sabbat hunter]

40. While I do not think

that human rights abuses by secular democracies should be overlooked at all. To me the UNHRC loses all credibility when it has nations on it that are among the worst for abuses and they never get criticized by the body while other nations (in this case Israel) are constantly a target.

Israel is FAR from perfect, but they are also FAR from the worst in the world.

[King_David]

70. Cuba?

You mean that homophobic anti human rights island that imprisons their own people?

That's the Cuba your talking about?

[Violet_Crumble]

73. That sounds similar to the US, Dave....

Except the US isn't an island. This may come as a shock but many countries imprison their own people. Got anything that shows that Cuba is on a par with Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights abuses?

btw, I noticed that you posted two responses to my post within a few minutes of each other. Unless yr trying to inflate yr post count, there's this thing called the edit button where you can add or remove things from yr post after you've posted it. If yr confused, ask Shira. She's very familiar with how to use it...

[King_David]

76. I never realized it was the same post I was replying to,

It was an iPhone moment.

[King_David]

71. Israel is the only reason the UNHRC exists

The UNHRC is obsessed with the Jewish state and not in a good or fair way.

The UNHRC is a joke and it's way past it's "best by " date that should be put out to Pasteur .

[azurnoir]

74. U.N. Human Rights Council: LGBT Rights Are Human Rights

On Friday, the U.N.'s Human Rights Council took a critical step forward for human rights by recognizing that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people around the world struggle against violence and discrimination every day and deserve protection from such abuses. On the closing day of the Council meeting in Geneva, members adopted, for the first time ever, a resolution condemning violence and discrimination against those who are LGBT. It is the first U.N. resolution to focus solely on LGBT persons.

The U.S. cosponsored the resolution, which was introduced by South Africa, and worked to secure its passage by the Human Rights Council. The Obama administration deserves credit for once again demonstrating its commitment to the understanding that protections for those who are LGBT are human rights. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released the following statement in response to passage of the resolution:

Today's landmark resolution affirms that human rights are universal. People cannot be excluded from protection simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The United States will continue to stand up for human rights wherever there is inequality and we will seek more commitments from countries to join this important resolution.

In addition to condemning human rights abuses against those who are LGBT, the resolution will also commission the first-ever U.N. report on the challenges that LGBT people face around the world. Indeed, the challenges are daunting. Homosexuality remains "criminal" in dozens of countries around the world, and LGBT people are vulnerable to serious human rights abuses, including state-sanctioned executions. Twenty-three of the 42 countries voting on the U.N. resolution opposed the measure, including Nigeria, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and other countries in which homophobia is widespread and LGBT persons are subject to endemic persecution.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-lgbt-rights/un-human-rights-council-lgbt-rights-are-human-rights

[King_David]

75. Good Move

Twenty-three of the 42 countries voting on the U.N. resolution opposed the measure, including Nigeria, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and other countries in which homophobia is widespread and LGBT persons are subject to endemic persecution.


Lets see if they sanction those repressive backward territories and states in the Middle East...ever.

[bemildred]

9. Membership on the commission is not a reward you get for being good.

It is precisely the human rights abusers you want there, they are the ones that need to talk about the issue.

[shira]

11. How naive. They're on the commission to deflect criticism from themselves.....

...by blaming others.

[jessie04]

13. WOW....Just wow.

thats the most amazingly b******* post I have ever read.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Hello again. No bullshit in bemildred's post

Maybe you should learn about this thing called international relations?

[aranthus]

16. Only extreme naivite.

Negotiations don't achieve anything unless there is something to back them up. You aren't going to persuade rights abusing governments that they should do the right thing, unless they believe that it is in their interest. And since they are abusive because it is in their interest, that means that you aren't going to persuade them out of it at all unless you either offer them something that they want more in exchange or threaten them if they don't comply. And since the interest that compels abuse is the maintenance of their power, good luck with that. Which is why every UN or other governmental human rights organization ends up being an exercise in game playing, white washing the worst abusers, and propaganda attacks on those countries that the majority doesn't like.

[bemildred]

18. That's another thing, if you want peace, you talk all the time.

Not just when you think you will get something. If you don't want to talk, you don't want peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. In that case I don't think Israel should ever be on the Human Rights Commission...

And here's the thing. Those who are getting all outraged about other countries (I'm still WTF about Cuba being singled out) would be the same folk doing victory laps and posting glowing praise if Israel was on it....

Don't get me started on negotiations and their pointlessness. I immediately think of Israel and its settlement construction and Israel thinking that's something to back up their intentions for peace with

[bemildred]

15. I'm just explaining why all those human rights abusers are there.

That's where they belong. It is not a police organization, it's a forum to discuss human rights.

And I am fully aware the idea will cause some cognitive disconnect down here.

[aranthus]

17. You're wrong.

They aren't there to discuss human rights. They are there to prevent any serious discussion or action about their own violations of human rights, and to direct the energy of the counsel against governments that they don't like. They have been very successful about this which is what makes these commissions such a joke and an insult to those who suffer.

[bemildred]

19. Oh my, did I strike a nerve? nt

[aranthus]

29. How do you equate calling you out on your naivite with striking a nerve?

That makes no sense at all.

[bemildred]

31. Name calling isn't much of an argument.

I usually interperet such outraged bleats as, well, outraged bleats.

[aranthus]

32. What name calling?

In post 17, I said that you were wrong. How is that name calling? In post 29, all I did was point out that your position is naïve. That isn't name calling. So what are you talking about?

[bemildred]

33. You said I was naive. That's an insult. nt

[aranthus]

46. You are actually very good at this.

Diversion I mean. You've managed to side step the argument and put up a front of being insulted at the same time (completely false, but well played). While I don't think much of the method, I do respect the ability. Nevertheless, your diversion only proves that you don't have any kind of substantive response.

[bemildred]

50. You made no argument to step aside from.

Neither did you offer anything to support your claim, because there is no support for that claim.

Calling people who disagree with you "naive" is an insult, not an argument. At least when I insult someone, I know it.

[sabbat hunter]

41. they never do talk about the abuses they commit

they just point the fingers elsewhere, often at Israel.

the UNHRC has a strong anti-Israel bias.

And if it is there to talk about abuses they commit, then shouldn't Israel be a part of it?

[bemildred]

52. Yes. Please see posts #27 & #30.

Edit: One of the main reasons for Israel to be there is to point out the failings of others, and to counter-argue its case. And I quite agree that the UN errs in not seating Israel like anyone else. But as many here note, the UN errs a lot, that does not mean you give up on it.

[aranthus]

28. Unfortunately Parker isn't joking.

He either really believes what he writes (in which case he is just a deluded nut) or else he is simply lying.

[shira]

37. Parker is a liar and an outright enemy of Universal Human Rights. n/t

[aranthus]

47. I suspect that you are correct. n/t

[shira]

35. Kofi Annan calling out the UN rights council for its corrupt, criminal neglect

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:07 PM - Edit history (2)

In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[67]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

Now to what could Kofi Annan be referring to?



Hmm, let's see from the same link...

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006 - the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[49] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[50] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern.".[50]

The only people claiming to have no problem with the UN are those who are enemies of Universal Human Rights, supporting rogue regimes that use Human Rights as a political weapon. The following is but one example of the UN's blatant disregard for Universal Human Rights:

United Nations: It's Okay to Kill the Gay

NEW YORK, NY -- Last week, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a special resolution addressing extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. The resolution affirms the duties of member countries to protect the right to life of all people with a special emphasis on a call to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. The resolution highlights particular groups historically subject to executions including street children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority communities, and, for the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation as a basis on which some individuals are targeted for death.

The tiny West African nation of Benin (on behalf of the UN's African Group) proposed an amendment to strike sexual minorities from the resolution. The amendment was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/united-nations-its-okay-t_b_787024.html

But, but....you say that Israel really does deserve the bashing it gets at the UN. How about that? Okay, but not at the expense of much worse that's going on, like Syria gassing its people...

UN Refuses Urgent Meeting on Syria Gas Attack, Slams Israel

#t=139


Now what possible problem could any leftwing, progressive human rights advocate have with a wonderful UN which rules it's okay to kill gays? Or a UN that coddles Syria after Assad gasses thousands, deciding instead to work on yet another redundant anti-Israel resolution?

[azurnoir]

53. still reminiscing about the pre-2009 years in the UNHRC?

second time you've posted this stuff here some of it on this very thread , so where to begin

Kofi Annans statements predate the US rejoining the UNHRC after we rid ourselves of a Republican administration

Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, former president of the council Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration. Beginning in 2009 however, with the United States taking a leading role in the organization, American commentators began to argue that the HRC was becoming increasingly relevant.

This page was last modified on 16 November 2013 at 19:26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

your false statements about the UNHRC where Syria is concerned

Syria: UN human rights chief condemns use of chemical weapons Sep 9, 2013

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay spoke two days ahead of the expected update from a UN panel probing for war crimes and other human rights abuses in Syria, including the use of chemical weapons. The 47-nation UN Human Rights Council, which authorized the probe, is likely to consider a resolution on Syria before the end of its session.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/syria-un-human-rights-chief-condemns-use-of-chemical-weapons-1095773.html?utm_source=ref_article


UNHRC condemns rights violations in Syria

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Friday strongly condemned the continued gross, systematic and widespread violations of human rights and all violations of international humanitarian law in Syria and urged the government to grant immediate access to the UN commission of inquiry.

The UNHRC demanded that the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the commission of inquiry, including by granting it immediate, full and unfettered access throughout the country.

"The council strongly condemned the continued gross, systematic and widespread violations of human rights and all violations of international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities and affiliated militias, as well as any human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law by armed opposition groups," its said in a resolution adopted at the end of its 24th session.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/unhrc-condemns-rights-violations-syria-144805899.html

and I saved this for last you post a HuffPo article from 2010 and pretend it represents the present, it does not because in 2012

The Third Committee also retained language expressing “deep concern” over the continuing instances of arbitrary killing resulting from the use of capital punishment in a manner that violates international law, which some States led by Singapore attempted to have deleted. The Singapore proposal was rejected in a vote with 50 votes in favor, 78 against, and 37 abstentions and 30 absent.

The full resolution passed with 108 votes in favor, 1 against, 65 abstentions, and 19 absent.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/21/un-seminal-vote-gender-identity

ps that last one was drawn up by wait for it the very same UNHRC you attempt to demonize

http://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/03/22/lgbtrights/

[shira]

54. Still happening post 2009. You supported the UN then just as you do now...

1. The Obama Admin constantly says that the UN's disproportionate focus on Israel is problematic.
2. You're pointing to UN statements of condemnation of Syria, not Resolutions.
3. Where were the Israel-bashing Human Rights posers back in 2010 when gays were allowed to be executed by the UN? They were supporting the UN for its disproportionate focus on Israel.

[azurnoir]

55. But it's not happening now is it

your post that would have given the impression that it was and is still makes me wonder were you ignorant of the fact that the resolution was passed that included not only sexual orientation but also gender identity and was drawn up by the UNHRC, or were you hoping no one would notice?

[shira]

56. What's not happening now? Disproportionate focus on Israel?

And where you and your Israel-bashing friends back in 2010 when it was permissable by the UN to kill gays?

Were you on vacation?

[azurnoir]

58. ooh we were speaking about the UN and LGBT rights changing the goalposts -again?

I understand why

[shira]

62. You claimed that since 2009 things have changed with Team Obama @ the UN....

You were wrong, as the bias and discrimination still persists. Obama's UN representatives admit it, as did Ban Ki Moon just a few months ago.

And your support for the UN prior to 2009 and since then has never waned.

I understand why you don't wish to expand on that more.

[azurnoir]

64. yada yada yada got nothing so you resort to personal attack

oh well just business as usual

[shira]

66. Pleasure, as always. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. Do you really take pleasure in attacking others?

[shira]

57. Ban Ki Moon 2013... says Israel suffers discrimination & lies @ UN

August 2013: Ban Ki Moon admits to UN Bias and Discrimination vs. Israel

On Aug. 16, Ban told university students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem, “Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination.”

“I’ve been in touch with the Secretary-General’s office in New York, and I can assure you that what he said there in New York was not meant as a retraction,” Serry said on Israel Radio. “Ban has said, unfortunately, because of the conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism, and suffered from lies and sometimes even discrimination,” Serry added. “This is what I know he has been saying here, and I know this is what he stands for.”

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/un-ban-ki-moon-did-not-mean-to-retract-statement-on-anti-israel-bias/2013/08/27/

[azurnoir]

59. are you confused? that was Ban not Annan

also Ban sort of switched up on that one didn't he? From the link you've posted twice now

But when later pressed by reporters in New York about his statements regarding UN discrimination against Israel, Ban answered, “No, I don’t think there is discrimination against Israel at the United Nations. The Israeli government in fact, you know, raised this issue that [there is] some bias against Israel.”

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/un-ban-ki-moon-did-not-mean-to-retract-statement-on-anti-israel-bias/2013/08/27/

[shira]

60. Oops, I'll correct. But Moon did admit to bias, discrimination and lies against Israel @ the UN....

Robert Serry confirmed it.

You're now in denial despite Serry clarifying.

[azurnoir]

61. I quoted what Ban said afterwards nothing more or less

it seems Serry was the one doing a clean-up attempt

[shira]

63. Not very honest of you. Serry confirmed Moon's admission of bias, lies, & discrimination....

Your disingenuous attempt to put that into question speaks volumes to your support of continued bias, lies, and discrimination against Israel at the UN.

You support the UN's abuse of human rights as a political weapon, where gross violations worldwide are swept under the rug as Israel is scapegoated.

Shameful.

[azurnoir]

65. Now your changing it up I see once again I quoted Ban's statement in NYC

after the first statement in Jerusalem(?)

[shira]

67. Pitiful. n/t