UNHRC slams Israel for the 7th time

[Phx_Dem]

The UN Human Rights Council passed a seventh resolution criticizing Israel on Friday, this time for it's failure to act on earlier recommendations that it end military operations in the Palestinian territories and allow a fact-finding mission to the region.

The rights body, which has only condemned the Israeli government in its seven-month existence, noted with regret its July resolution urging the release of all arrested Palestinian ministers had not yet been carried out.

snip

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the watchdog last month to deal with the Mideast conflict in an impartial manner, and said it was time to focus attention on "graver" crises such as Darfur.

Despite his plea, the council has passed only a watered-down resolution on the western Sudanese region proposed by African countries, which urged all parties to the conflict to end human rights violations.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881850162&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[cali]

1. The UNHRC continues its march

to completely discredit itself. Just as the prior council did.

[Igel]

2. This one's going at double time. n/t

[IntiRaymi]

3. I find it refreshing to see the 3rd World socking it to the 1st World.

For a change.

[cali]

4. For a change?

Pretty clear you don't know the history of the organization that preceded this Council. BTW, The SG doesn't find it the least bit refreshing.

There's nothing wrong with the HRC passing resolutions about Israel, but there's something gravely wrong with it in that it has not addressed any other human rights crisis on the planet.

Your remark speaks volumes.

[IntiRaymi]

5. You show complete ignorance of these things.

Go and study the history of exploitation and colonization that was accompanied by '1st World' hypocrisy. Israel is an apt target, given its joined at the hips relationship with the USA, and the disgusting alliance it formed with South Africa, during those Apartheid years - Birds of a Feather Flock Together.

Get a perspective, and perhaps then you will start thinking.

[cali]

6. Let me explain again

what I see as the problem: There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the HRC condemning the Israeli occupation and its attendant abuses. It's is when the HRC does nothing but, that the problems arise. Do you honestly believe that there are no other human rights abuses that are worthy of attention?

You assume wrongly that I know nothing about the history of exploitation and colonization. I do. And I agree with you that Israel's alliance with South Africa during Apartheid was most lamentable, but the bottom line is that the HRC should be able to address Israeli abuses and focus the spotlight on other equally grave problems. I'm really curious; why do you think it's legitimate for them to focus solely on one country?

Finally, in the interests of comity, perhaps you could address me more respectfully and open mindedly, and I'll try to do the same for you. I know it's not easy. When I saw your post to me, my first impulse was simply to spit out something nasty back at you, and I don't blame you for your post- my initial post to you was hardly and example of respectful communication. For that I apologize. I don't think I/P is well served by the nastiness that people spew or the hyperbole that pops up all too frequently.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. That's about how I see it...

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the HRC condemning the Israeli occupation and its attendant abuses. It's is when the HRC does nothing but, that the problems arise.

One of the major problems apart from the fact that a human rights commission must try to protect the human rights of all people and this one isn't, is that as valid as the complaints of human rights violations against Israel are, people are not going to take those complaints seriously while they're being obscured by a refusal to do anything about other human rights abuses that are committed by other states...


on edit: fixed up a crap bit and only just noticed how long that sentence is but I'm too lazy to fix it now...

edit again: I just went to the UNHRC website and found this.

4th Special session of the Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Darfur, Geneva, 12 December 2006

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/4/index.htm

[oberliner]

11. Excerpt from Annan's recent remarks on UNHRC

Meanwhile, we must realize the promise of the Human Rights Council, which so far has clearly not justified all the hopes that so many of us placed in it.

Of course it's encouraging that the Council has now decided to hold a special session on Darfur next week. I hope against hope that it will find an effective way to deal with this burning issue.

But I am worried by its 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.

http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2006/sg-remarks.shtml

Many other interesting observations in his remarks as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Let's hope something does happen about Darfur n/t

[Scurrilous]

26. UN to send mission to Darfur

<snip>

"The UN Human Rights Council has agreed to send a high-level mission to Darfur to probe allegations of worsening abuses against civilians."

<snip>

"The 47-state Human Rights Council, which is holding its first special session on Darfur, approved a consensus proposal on Wednesday that left the naming of the five "highly qualified" team members up to the council chairman.

Vesa Himanen, Finland's ambassador, said on behalf of the EU following the decision: "I think that we can be proud of this result."

Kofi Annan, the outgoing UN secretary-general, told the opening session on Tuesday that the council must help end the "nightmare" of violence by sending a "clear and united message ... that the current situation is simply unacceptable".

The council, launched in June as part of UN reform, was under pressure to show it can act effectively on Darfur where aid officials say more than 200,000 have died in violence over the past three years."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2036159E-D233-468A-AD93-8D9A8BB5B40E.htm

[eyl]

27. about time n/t

[pelsar]

7. just curious...

was israel the only country to have had some kind of alliance with South Africa during the apartheid years...at least thats my impression here.

[IntiRaymi]

9. Here you go Pelsar....

You seem to be looking for a way out of this mess:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

Vorster, whose army was then overrunning Angola, told his hosts that South Africa and Israel were victims of the enemies of western civilisation. A few months later, the South African government's yearbook characterised the two countries as confronting a single problem: "Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples."

Vorster's visit laid the ground for a collaboration that transformed the Israel-South Africa axis into a leading weapons developer and a force in the international arms trade. Liel, who headed the Israeli foreign ministry's South Africa desk in the 80s, says that the Israeli security establishment came to believe that the Jewish state may not have survived without the relationship with the Afrikaners.

"We created the South African arms industry," says Liel. "They assisted us to develop all kinds of technology because they had a lot of money. When we were developing things together we usually gave the know-how and they gave the money. After 1976, there was a love affair between the security establishments of the two countries and their armies.
.................
Speech by Israeli Ambassador to Australia:

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=207859

According to the Australian Jewish News, Tamir was quoted in Haaretz as saying, "Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia. We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don't have yellow skin and slanted eyes."

"Asia is basically the yellow race," he continued. "Australia and Israel are not, we are basically the white race. We are on the western side of Asia and they are on the southeastern side."

Tamir is highly regarded by the Australian government, and has been instrumental in forging already strong ties between the two countries...
..................

If the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid is to be trusted, South Africa obtained support mostly from UK, USA and Israel. Starting to see a pattern here?

[pelsar]

13. no i want a serious history perspective....

this one had me laughing..

"Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples."

is the writer talking about "dark israeli jews"...are they the ones hostile to israel (many are "darker than the palestenans")

I'm curious about other countries that had ties to S.Africa, truth is I dont know...
countries like the Congo, Nigeria, UK, Canada, Russia, Iraq...etc

do you have an serious information? and i have nothing to "get out of"....whether i agree or disagree to the ties to apartheid S. Africa is immaterial here. Of course one could easily make an similar argument to Saudi Arabias/Irans gender apartheid, but thats not the subject here.

so got anything serious?

[IntiRaymi]

14. click on the first link.

Guardian article on the relationship between Israel and South Africa. You will notice that Israel did not merely have trade with South Africa - they viewed that country as a likely ally, given the nature of the surroundings. That quote by the South African prime minister is very, very telling.

[pelsar]

16. so voster was a racist...

they're all over the place, so if a S.African PM is a racist that means israel is?.....at least thats what you seem to be saying.....

.....my curiosity is, as in this thread and the The UN Human Rights Counci...if israel is being singled out or not.

did "black" african nations have a relationship with S.Africa? Taiwan seems to...but how about the others?

[IntiRaymi]

18. Yes, Voster was a racist.

And this detail is what drew the Israeli leadership to form close bonds with South Africa. I highlighted those quotes for the context in which all this exists.
As for the relationships that the other nations had with South Africa, that is merely a detail of academic significance - since they did not share the same context (as illustrated by the quotes) that Israel had.
And, once again, read the entire Guardian article, there is much context and detail in there that you may be missing.
For instance:

"Three years ago, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the former Italian prime minister, Massimo D'Alema, as telling dinner guests at a Jerusalem hotel that, on a visit to Rome a few years earlier, Sharon had told him that the bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. When one of the guests suggested to D'Alema that he was interpreting, not repeating, Sharon's words, the former prime minister said not. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister," he said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

Judge that quote for yourself.

[pelsar]

19. this needs some further explanation...

yes, Voster was a racist. And this detail is what drew the Israeli leadership to form close bonds with South Africa.


let me understand it better.....the israeli leadership likes racists?...(which leaders? likud? Labor?)

btw my original interest is not voster but other countries that had relationship with S Africa...and were they attracted to S.Africa because of Vosters racism?

[IntiRaymi]

20. Have you read the article?

Or are you just deflecting?

[pelsar]

21. yes i did read it....

and one of my questions that came up what who else had relationship with S.Africa..the question has now been asked several times and seems no here seems to know (taiwan was one answer)

nothing to deflect, I'm curious if some of the black nations of africa has relationships with S.Africa.....is israel being singled out? or was it just israel and taiwan that traded with S.Africa?

i also notice you that you ignored my request to expand upon your very strange statement: S. Africas racism is what attracted israel.....

[IntiRaymi]

23. Pelsar, you could get a Ph.D. in Political Science answering these questions

To clarify a few things.

      A         B
    Taiwan - South Africa
    Israel - South Africa
Mozambique - South Africa
   Namibia - South Africa

Column A represents a set of wildly disparate countries, each
with different circumstance surrounding their relationship
with South Africa.  The only one, of those 4 examples, that
shared with South Africa a commonality of geopolitical
circumstances was Israel - and this is the main thrust of the
Guardian article, which examines these factors, the words used
by the leadership at the time, etc, etc.  If you are going to
ask me what that commonality was, just look at one of my
previous posts.
To me it is enough to know that Archbishop Desmond Tutu was
appointed to head this commission, since a genocide on the
black peoples of South Africa was attempted by a white,
European colonizing force, and Israel made itself an
enthusiastic accessory to this attempted crime.  All quite
ironic, of course, given the motivation for the existence of
Israel.  There is a need to investigate the possible survival
of these policies, and who better to do so than someone who
led a non-violent resistance to them.
Some might state that Israel did so out of necessity, to
ensure its survival in a continually threatening surrounding,
and they may be correct in stating this.  But, also stated in
that article is that both South Africa and Israel came to be
in a time that would consign them to becoming anacronisms in a
world that was about to change - the British Empire that had
given itself the right to carve Israel out of Palestine (under
heavy Zionist lobbying in England), would soon lose its
worldwide influence & colonies.  The loss of Western
influence trumps zionism, i.e.
I do not advocate the disappearance of Israel, since it is
abundantly apparent that a homeland is needed.  To the
contrary, it is my impression that Israel has to wake up to
these realities - make friends locally, if it wants to
survive.  It is already becoming apparent that US influence in
that region is waning, and over reliance on the Uncle Sam
umbrella might be the proverbial 'putting all your eggs in one
basket.'

[pelsar]

25. thanks....

for the info. (couldnt seem to find much)

i would reverse the question...has the world really changed? or perhaps just part of it..seems to me crys of "wiping israel of the face of the earth, no recognition, the jews are the cause of lack of health care in jordan etc...actually show that not only have things not changed, but that its geographic situation has actually become worse with the rise of islamic fundamentalism (hamas, hizballa, iran, muslim brotherhood) gaining power in the area.

[Lurking Dem]

10. Taiwan

[Tom Joad]

22. The US govt was an eager supporter of apartheid south Africa, as it is

currently a supporter of Israel's policies in Palestine.
As the US was a eager supporter (actually, it arranged the coup) for Pinochet. *May he rest in hell.*
The US was a main backer of Indonesia's bloody attack on East Timor. Hundreds of thousands killed (Backed by Ford, Kissinger, and pretty much every US president... until Clinton was forced to say enough and the alliance was no longer productive from the stand point of the elite)

The US was a backer of genocidal regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, and elsewhere.

I see a trend. Is it any surprise that the US supports Israeli policy? If it did not, it would be inconsistent with its policies of the last century.

We do hope, that just like the US official support for apartheid, that massive public pressure can change US policy.

[pelsar]

28. except the US is not the exception....is it...

What countries did the USSR back?....France?....etc.....you will find, for those who take an honest look at history will find that backing countries whos policies are less than perfect is actually the standard.


who backed the US when slavery existed in the south?....who backs sudan today? zimbabwa? who backed the Britans invasion of the "falklands".....i would reverse the question, which country has a foreign policy that is "moral based"......(and whos morals?)

[cali]

15. Is it possible for you to respond to

my question about the HRC focusing only on Israel? As I said, I'm curious if you think that's legitimate, and if so why.

[IntiRaymi]

24. I cannot speak for the HRC.

All I can say is that international crap is at work here. If you look at things cynically, which many do, you wouldn't for an instant believe that the USA is truly interested in democracy, anywhere. What the US is interested in is preserving the influence of the corporate sponsors of the US Government. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Is it legitimate? What is legitimate in international relations?
Perhaps a better question would be to ask what Palestinians think is legitimate.
Might makes Right, does it not?

[marcadams99]

17. Whats the Use???

Israel has like over 70+ Resolutions against it.

I really dont think another one will get Palestine justice.