UN Human Rights Council makes Israel permanent agenda item

[bemildred]

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday voted in favor of making Israel's actions a permanent item on the council's agenda.

Of the council's 47 member states, the sole opponent of the decision to make Israel a permanent agenda item was Canada.

Several American Jewish organizations condemned the council's decision.

The American Jewish Committee released a harsh statement that expressed deep disappointment with the council's performance.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872893.html

[Behind the Aegis]

1. The bigotry continues!

[babylonsister]

2. What does this mean? Is being a 'permanent item' a bad thing?

Does that mean they require constant surveillance? I'm clueless, as you can see.

[bemildred]

3. I'm guessing it means that item is always on the agenda when the council meets.

Given the vote of 47 to 1, either irrational bias against Israel borders on universal, or there is near universal concern about Israeli human rights abuses. Which you choose seems to depend on ones own attachments.

The little bit down below about how the current council was a reformation of the previous arrangement that was supposed to get rid of the "excessive focus on Israel" is telling.

[babylonsister]

4. Thanks -

I am so not 'up' on this P/I mess because of the threads going in this forum vs. discussion being allowed. I need to take some time and read up on the situation.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I would say it mostly comes from Arab states regularly joining together in the one issue that unites

them all: being anti-Israel.

Something I might respect a bit more, if the Arab states had ever lifted a finger to give any constructive support to the Palestinians themselves. Mouthing a lot of anti-Israel slogans doesn't count.

Israel has frequently done the wrong thing, but they are hardly unique.

I hope there are similar UN concerns about Hamas, who are currently committing a lot of violence against other Palestinians.

[bemildred]

6. So there are 47 Arab states and Canada on the UNHRC?

It is not "anti-Israel" to criticize the Israeli governments human rights failures any more than it is "anti-American" to criticize the failures of the US government. There is an easy way to address the issue and shut the "anti-Israel" people up, and that is to start respecting Palestinian human rights.

[papau]

7. UN Human Rights Council is a joke -IMO - oil money aid and Muslim brotherhood means you get 47?

states, most of whom are into serious and constant human rights violations of their own population , pretending to judge right and wrong. I do not believe the US is still funding their meetings. But the 47 includes countries I would have expected to fight this nonsense.


THE CURRENT MEMBERS - THE YEAR SHOWN IS THE YEAR THAT THEY ARE TO BE REPLACED BY SOME OTHER COUNTRY FROM THEIR AREA OF THE WORLD.

Algeria 2007 Bahrain 2007 Azerbaijan 2009 Argentina 2007 Canada 2009
Cameroon 2009 Bangladesh 2009 Czech Republic 2007 Brazil 2008 Finland 2007
Djibouti 2009 China 2009

Poland 2007
Cuba 2009 France 2008
Gabon 2008 India 2007 Romania 2008 Ecuador 2007 Germany 2009
Ghana 2008 Indonesia 2007 Russian Federation 2009 Guatemala 2008 Netherlands 2007
Mali 2008 Japan 2008 Ukraine 2008 Mexico 2009 Switzerland 2009
Mauritius 2009 Jordan 2009 Peru 2008 United Kingdom 2008

Morocco 2007
Malaysia 2009 Uruguay 2009
Nigeria 2009 Pakistan 2008
Senegal 2009 Philippines 2007
South Africa 2007 Republic of Korea 2008
Tunisia 2007 Saudi Arabia 2009
Zambia 2008 Sri Lanka 2008

[Scurrilous]

9. The Human Rights Council

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/


Membership of the Human Rights Council

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm

[bemildred]

11. Clearly a bunch of rabid Israel-hating Arab states there.

Someone is in denial here, and it ain't me.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Only 30%

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Oh yes.

Because a majority vote would never be influenced by anything other than the "right thing." :eyes: No, it is much better to put Israel on the permanent schedule as opposed to the Palestinian situation. See, if they did the latter, then they would also have to address the violations committed by various other nations against the Palestinians, including other Palestinians.

[bemildred]

10. Yep, the whole world hates Israel, which has never done a thing to warrant it.

47 to 1 is not just a majority vote, it's a one short of unanimous vote. The Palestinians are catching plenty of flack too, and deservedly so. The notion that Israel is singled out for abuse is juvenile.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. The notion that Israel is NOT singled out is willful blindness.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1, with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its final repudiation in the later Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

[bemildred]

13. Indeed, anyone disagreeing with you MUST be willfully blind.

That's perfectly clear, isn't it? Why must they be so obstinate?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Not those that disagree, just those unable to see.

It is not a matter of disagreeing with me personally, but understanding the nature of bigotry.

[bemildred]

17. I'm not saying there is no bigotry, I'm saying bigotry is not an adequate explanation.

And it is you that refuses to "see".

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Define bigotry.

And, you are the one that refuses to see this, as you have stated on more than one occasion!

[bemildred]

19. I am surprised you admit that you don't know the meaning of words that you use. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

20. I know what it means.

Apparently, you do not. Which is why I was trying to determine how you defined bigotry and thus, work within the parameters of your definition. Or are you admitting you don't understand the term or how it is used?

[bemildred]

21. You used the word. You defend it.

It's not hard to find a dictionary, why are you annoying me about it?

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Because you seem to have a different definition.

This is the one I use:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source big·ot·ry (bĭg'ə-trē) Pronunciation Key
n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

I also include "beyond reasonable bias."

[bemildred]

23. I'm going to refer you back to post #17.

If you read it carefully, you will see that it says "I'm not saying there is no bigotry ...".

And it appears to me that we are using the same definition. It's just that I don't think that bigotry is an adequate explanation for a unanimous-but-one vote of the UNHRC to pay attention to human rights issues in Israel and the OPT.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. So you admit, there is bigotry?

Well, that is a step in the right direction. You will also see that I don't say that bigotry is the only explanation. The fact is that if this body were actually interested in Human Rights violations, then they would not single one country out for repeated resolutions. The committee it replaced was because it was seen as lop-sided in its "special attention" to Israel. If this is about the human rights violations of the Palestinian people, then why not make that the permanent issue on the table? Bigotry is established by pattern. To use an racist term does not make the speaker a racist. However, if the speaker continues to make those remarks or other disparaging remarks, then a pattern is established and it moves from bias to bigotry. This "committee" has repeatedly singled-out Israel, while all but ignoring other human rights issues throughout the world.

[bemildred]

31. Ah, something got through. Excellent.

The UNHRC is also a flawed organization; that doesn't mean its interest in Israeli human rights "issues" is misplaced, or that when it takes a 47 to 1 vote to have a continuing interest in that subject it is because they are all bigots who "hate Israel". Israel has serious flaws in that area and it is in the best interests of Israel that those flaws should be remedied.

[AviBaruch]

32. Some facts

Only one nation has been condemned by the UNHRC-Israel.

When investigating last summer's Lebanon war, they specifically decided not to investigate Hezbollah's actions and only focus on Israel.

They have passed 8 resolutions-all condemning Israel.

They have yet to pass a single resolution condemning any actions in Darfur or anywhere else in the world.

And yesterday, they dismissed investigations on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus-two very well know violators.

Flawed doesn't seem to accurately describe it. More like "fixated beyond the point of reasonableness" on condemning Israel and no one else.

Might as well rename it the UN We Hate Israel council.

[bemildred]

35. Oh good, I just love "facts". nt

[AviBaruch]

37. Dispute any you believe untrue

otherwise, they stand.

[bemildred]

38. One of the most amusing things about this dispute is the tendency

of both sides to just make stuff up when they feel like it. I am sure off the top of my head that several of your facts are not, and several others are opinions, not "facts"; but no, I will not do any research for you, in the vain hope of altering your opinions. And you are most deluded if you think that just because you said things they must be so. If you want to go down that road you can start by supporting all of your allegations with original sources.

[AviBaruch]

39. I made none of this up

and this information is readily reported in the press. As for proving things, I too don't feel like altering your opinions, since it's quite clear that's an act in futility.

But I will say on this you are 100% wrong.

[bemildred]

42. Ah, "faith based" debate. How nice.

You demand that I support my position, but you refuse to do the same.

[AviBaruch]

44. Not faith based, reality based

in essence, you are using the technique 9/11 truthers use to deny the realities of that day. Namely, we must prove proven facts which they can readily discard if they don't sync up to their views.

Quite a dishonest technique in my opinion.

[bemildred]

46. You have not produced a shred of evidence. nt

[pelsar]

55. is any of this not true?

Only one nation has been condemned by the UNHRC-Israel.

When investigating last summer's Lebanon war, they specifically decided not to investigate Hezbollah's actions and only focus on Israel.

They have passed 8 resolutions-all condemning Israel.

They have yet to pass a single resolution condemning any actions in Darfur or anywhere else in the world.

And yesterday, they dismissed investigations on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus-two very well know violators.

sounds pretty damning to me if its true....

[LeftishBrit]

33. Yes, Israel has serious flaws and it is in the best interests of Israel that those flaws should be

remedied.

I fully agree!

However, isn't the same true of lots of other countries that don't receive the same attention from the UNHRC?

[bemildred]

34. It seems true of most countries in one degree in another.

There are a few exceptions, but not many. There is, however, good reason to pay attention to the issue in Israel, it is a very important place, and the implementation of human rights protections and the peaceful resolution of that conflict there would have far-reaching and beneficial effects. Meanwhile the persistence of the situation as it is justifies a host of abuses elsewhere. One despairs of repairing the situation in Darfur, say, but in Israel one feels there is a chance that things could be done better.

[AviBaruch]

36. What an absolute load of dung

My apologies if this comes off as obnoxious, but I don't know how you can claim with a straight face and an unbiased belief system that stopping a genocide is somehow less important than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If the UNHRC was REALLY interested in making an impact on the conflict, then they'd be paying attention to BOTH sides. But, they're not, they're only focussing on Israel. Not just in this conflict, but overall.

The Palestinians aren't the only people sufferring human rights abuses in this conflict alone, much less in all the world. And for this Council to ignore all others is just beyond pathetic and ridiculous.

[bemildred]

41. Name calling is not an argument.

I see you are another one who thinks anyone that disagrees with him must be nuts.

"less important" is not what I said, or what I mean;, and in any case that would be an opinion, not a "fact".

[AviBaruch]

43. Your implication is that focussing on the Isr/Pal conflict

can change things, while focussing on Darfur cannot.

Which is ridiculous-ending a genocide would change a lot.

[bemildred]

48. Ah, you know my "implications" now too. nt

[pelsar]

40. so as i understand it..

and its not the first time i've heard this:

in Israel one feels there is a chance that things could be done better...because israel is a western democratic country and because it does react to public pressure, as long as it doesnt hurt its own security needs, its ok to "dump" on israel.

it is true that neither dfur, china, russia, syrian, iran, saudi arabia, the Palestinians, cuba, where human rights really are abused, where real torture exists will really react to any "public pressure"...so the argument goes, why bother waisting time/resources with them when we might get some real results out of israel.

ok now i shall explain why that way of thinking is a dangerous: GAZA. The Palestinians in gaza have no culture of human rights, etc....at least not in the way that reflects upon their own society. They've played the "left" brilliantly while using the "human rights" as a way to pressure israel, but they themselves, as a society have not accepted it...and they've never received any pressure from the intl groups to change their behavior and culture. (ISM as i understand were very careful about "not making any waves"..i.e explain and teach about civil rights)

The results speak for themselves.....they've been "excused" from any pressures and the results were/are obvious. Perhaps if all those UN groups/human rights organizations also taught civil rights and human rights while they were aiding the Palestinians, gaza would look different today. (and the hamas wouldnt have shot up the nonviolent protest last week).

Thats why is a false argument to say: why bother with those other countries..it wont affect anything anyway.

[bemildred]

45. Human rights really are abused in Israel too.

It's not a matter of "dumping" on anybody, although I know it comforts you to think so.

[AviBaruch]

51. Then please explain why Israel has remained the

sole focus of the Council, while all others are ignored.

[AviBaruch]

52. Kofi Annan disagrees with you

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=86691818&p=8669zyzx&n=86692198

[pelsar]

54. the human rights abuses within israel

are to pathetically minimum compared to 90% of the countries in the world...plus israels own judicial system can be counted on to react to public pressure to make right its own abuses... I hadnt realized that israels transgressions within its own population was so terrible to warrent the time and resources of the UN (i shall ignore the obvious civilian control methods of hamas just next door)


such horrible transgressions surly wouldnt be true of any of the following countries.....


Republic of Abkhazia<3>
•  Afghanistan – Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
•  Albania – Republic of Albania
•  Algeria – People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
•  Andorra – Principality of Andorra
•  Angola – Republic of Angola
•  Antigua and Barbuda
•  Argentina – Argentine Republic<9>
•  Armenia – Republic of Armenia
•  Azerbaijan – Republic of Azerbaijan<10>


B
•  Bahrain – Kingdom of Bahrain
•  Bangladesh – People's Republic of Bangladesh
•  Barbados
•  Belarus – Republic of Belarus
•  Belize
•  Benin – Republic of Benin
•  Bhutan – Kingdom of Bhutan
•  Bolivia – Republic of Bolivia
•  Bosnia and Herzegovina<11>
•  Botswana – Republic of Botswana
•  Brazil – Federative Republic of Brazil
•  Brunei – Negara Brunei Darussalam
•  Bulgaria – Republic of Bulgaria
•  Burkina Faso
• See Myanmar for Burma
•  Burundi – Republic of Burundi


C
•  Cambodia – Kingdom of Cambodia
•  Cameroon – Republic of Cameroon
•  Central African Republic<13>
•  Chad – Republic of Chad
•  Chile – Republic of Chile
•  China, People's Republic of – People's Republic of China<14>
•  China, Republic of – Republic of China (Taiwan) <15>
•  Colombia – Republic of Colombia
•  Comoros – Union of the Comoros
•  Congo, Democratic Republic of – Democratic Republic of the Congo<16>
•  Congo, Republic of – Republic of the Congo<17>
•  Cook Islands (Associated state of New Zealand)
•  Costa Rica – Republic of Costa Rica
•  Côte d'Ivoire – Republic of Côte d'Ivoire
•  Croatia – Republic of Croatia
•  Cuba – Republic of Cuba
•  Cyprus – Republic of Cyprus<18>


D
• See Akrotiri and Dhekelia for Dhekelia
•  Djibouti – Republic of Djibouti
•  Dominica – Commonwealth of Dominica
•  Dominican Republic


E
•  East Timor – Democratic Republic of East Timor
•  Ecuador – Republic of Ecuador
•  Egypt – Arab Republic of Egypt
•  El Salvador – Republic of El Salvador
•  Equatorial Guinea – Republic of Equatorial Guinea
•  Eritrea – State of Eritrea
•  Estonia – Republic of Estonia
•  Ethiopia – Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia


F
•  Fiji – Republic of the Fiji Islands
•  French Polynesia (French overseas collectivity)


G
•  Gabon – Gabonese Republic
•  Gambia, The – Republic of The Gambia
•  Georgia<21>
•  Ghana – Republic of Ghana
•  Greece – Hellenic Republic
•  Grenada
•  Guatemala – Republic of Guatemala
•  Guernsey – Bailiwick of Guernsey (British Crown dependency)<22>
•  Guinea – Republic of Guinea
•  Guinea-Bissau – Republic of Guinea-Bissau
•  Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana


H
•  Haiti – Republic of Haiti
•  Honduras – Republic of Honduras
•  Hong Kong – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Area of special sovereignty)<23>
•  Hungary – Republic of Hungary


I
•  Iceland – Republic of Iceland
•  India – Republic of India
•  Indonesia – Republic of Indonesia
•  Iran – Islamic Republic of Iran
•  Iraq – Republic of Iraq
•  Ireland<24>
•  Isle of Man (British Crown dependency)
•  Italy – Italian Republic
• See Côte d'Ivoire for Ivory Coast


J
•  Jamaica
•  Japan
•  Jersey – Bailiwick of Jersey (British Crown dependency)
•  Jordan – Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan


K
•  Kazakhstan – Republic of Kazakhstan
•  Kenya – Republic of Kenya
•  Kiribati – Republic of Kiribati
•  Korea, Democratic People's Republic of – Democratic People's Republic of Korea<25>
•  Korea, Republic of – Republic of Korea<26>
•  Kosovo – Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia (Autonomous province of Serbia under UN protectorate)<27>
•  Kuwait – State of Kuwait
•  Kyrgyzstan – Kyrgyz Republic<28>


L
•  Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic
•  Latvia – Republic of Latvia
•  Lebanon – Republic of Lebanon
•  Lesotho – Kingdom of Lesotho
•  Liberia – Republic of Liberia
•  Libya – Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
•  Liechtenstein – Principality of Liechtenstein
•  Lithuania – Republic of Lithuania
•  Luxembourg – Grand Duchy of Luxembourg


M
•  Macao – Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Area of special sovereignty)<29>
•  Macedonia, Republic of – Republic of Macedonia<30>
•  Madagascar – Republic of Madagascar
•  Malawi – Republic of Malawi
•  Malaysia
•  Maldives – Republic of Maldives
•  Mali – Republic of Mali
•  Malta – Republic of Malta
•  Marshall Islands – Republic of the Marshall Islands
•  Mauritania – Islamic Republic of Mauritania
•  Mauritius – Republic of Mauritius
•  Mayotte – Departmental Collectivity of Mayotte (French overseas collectivity)
•  Mexico – United Mexican States
•  Moldova – Republic of Moldova<31>
•  Monaco – Principality of Monaco
•  Mongolia
•  Montenegro – Republic of Montenegro
•  Montserrat (UK overseas territory)
•  Morocco – Kingdom of Morocco<32>
•  Mozambique – Republic of Mozambique
•  Myanmar – Union of Myanmar


N
•  Nagorno-Karabakh – Nagorno-Karabakh Republic<4>
•  Namibia – Republic of Namibia
•  Nauru – Republic of Nauru
•  Nepal – State of Nepal
•  New Caledonia – Territory of New Caledonia and Dependencies (French community sui generis)
•  Nicaragua – Republic of Nicaragua
•  Niger – Republic of Niger
•  Nigeria – Federal Republic of Nigeria
•  Niue (Associated state of New Zealand)
• See Korea, Democratic People's Republic of for North Korea
•  Northern Cyprus – Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus<2>
•  Northern Mariana Islands – Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (US commonwealth)


O
•  Oman – Sultanate of Oman


P
•  Pakistan – Islamic Republic of Pakistan
•  Palau – Republic of Palau
•  Palestine – State of Palestine<34>
•  Panama – Republic of Panama
•  Papua New Guinea – Independent State of Papua New Guinea
•  Paraguay – Republic of Paraguay
•  Peru – Republic of Peru
•  Philippines – Republic of the Philippines
•  Pitcairn Islands – Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno Islands (UK overseas territory)
•  Poland – Republic of Poland
•  Portugal – Portuguese Republic
• See Transnistria for Pridnestrovie
•  Puerto Rico – Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (US commonwealth)


Q
•  Qatar – State of Qatar


R
•  Romania
•  Russia – Russian Federation
•  Rwanda – Republic of Rwanda


S
•  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic <35>
•  Saint-Barthélemy – Collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy (French overseas collectivity)
•  Saint Helena (UK overseas territory)
•  Saint Kitts and Nevis – Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
•  Saint Lucia
•  Saint Martin – Collectivity of Saint Martin (French overseas collectivity)
•  Saint Pierre and Miquelon – Territorial Collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon (French overseas collectivity)
•  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
•  Samoa – Independent State of Samoa
•  San Marino – Most Serene Republic of San Marino
•  São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
•  Saudi Arabia – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
•  Senegal – Republic of Senegal
•  Serbia – Republic of Serbia<36>
•  Seychelles – Republic of Seychelles
•  Sierra Leone – Republic of Sierra Leone
•  Singapore – Republic of Singapore
•  Slovakia – Slovak Republic
•  Slovenia – Republic of Slovenia
•  Solomon Islands
•  Somalia<37>
•  Somaliland – Republic of Somaliland<6>
•  South Africa – Republic of South Africa
• See Korea, Republic of for South Korea
•  South Ossetia – Republic of South Ossetia<7>
•  Spain – Kingdom of Spain
•  Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
•  Sudan – Republic of the Sudan
•  Suriname – Republic of Suriname
•  Svalbard (Territory of Norway)<38>
•  Swaziland – Kingdom of Swaziland
•  Sweden – Kingdom of Sweden
•  Switzerland – Swiss Confederation
•  Syria – Syrian Arab Republic


T
• See China, Republic of for the country that is commonly referred to as Taiwan
•  Tajikistan – Republic of Tajikistan
•  Tanzania – United Republic of Tanzania
•  Thailand – Kingdom of Thailand
• See East Timor for Timor-Leste
•  Togo – Togolese Republic
•  Tokelau (Overseas territory of New Zealand)
•  Tonga – Kingdom of Tonga
•  Transnistria - Transnistrian Moldovan Republic<5>
•  Trinidad and Tobago – Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
•  Tristan da Cunha (Dependency of the UK overseas territory of Saint Helena)
•  Tunisia – Tunisian Republic
•  Turkey – Republic of Turkey
•  Turkmenistan
•  Turks and Caicos Islands (UK overseas territory)
•  Tuvalu


U
•  Uganda – Republic of Uganda
•  Ukraine
•  United Arab Emirates

•  United States – United States of America
•  Uruguay – Eastern Republic of Uruguay
•  Uzbekistan – Republic of Uzbekistan



Y
•  Yemen – Republic of Yemen


Z
•  Zambia – Republic of Zambia
•  Zimbabwe – Republic of Zimbabwe

[AviBaruch]

47. It's also subtlely bigotted

in that it assumes Western nations are inherently capable of change while others are unsophisticated and incapable of change.

It amazes me that so-called advocates for Palestinians and others hold such low opinions of them.

[bemildred]

49. Oh good, now I'm a "subtle bigot" because I disagree with you.

And still not a shred of evidence to support your "facts".

[AviBaruch]

50. Those who believe Israel and the west can be reformed

while Pals and others cannot are. If you fit that shoe, wear it.

[pelsar]

53. yes it is a form of "bigotry"

assuming that certain societies cant be "reformed" or cant understand civil rights, or its a truthful statement.....Infact i actually agree with that statement. Societies are not created equal. Whereas people maybe inherently equal, they are infact not equal when it comes to skills, intelligence, etc.

so too with societies....some will be more adaptable some will be less. In my opinion some societies no longer have a place on this earth, as their view of civil rights etc is non existent. (taliban, saudi arabia)

As far as the Palestinians go, for those who "cheer for them" and complain when israel rides over their "human rights" one has to decide if they can live up to the western ideal of civil rights or not.

if they can, then there is no reason not to subject them to the condemnations etc that any western country would get. if they cant...well, i'd like to hear someone on the left express that view.....

[sabbat hunter]

62. why arent other items

permanently on the agenda, like darfur? or iran or saudi arabia? all three have a ton of human rights abuses going on daily, especially in darfur.

[AviBaruch]

78. Because some of the council members have vested

interests in protecting those nations and trying to delegitimize Israel.

[barb162]

79. Why do you suppose China, Iran, Syria, etc., aren't included

on a permanent status if there's no anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli bigotry by UN member states? Israel doesn't hold a candle to some of the egregious and long term human rights abuses by MANY UN member states. Have you read about the child and adult slave labor problems in China? It's been going on for many years. How can you conclude that Israel is not being singled out?

Sample data:

"PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Covering events from January - December 2004

There was progress towards reform in some areas, but this failed to have a significant impact on serious and widespread human rights violations perpetrated across the country. Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained or imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights and were at high risk of torture or ill-treatment. Thousands of people were sentenced to death or executed, many after unfair trials. Public protests increased against forcible evictions and land requisition without adequate compensation. China continued to use the global “war on terrorism” to justify its crackdown on the Uighur community in Xinjiang. Freedom of expression and religion continued to be severely restricted in Tibet and other Tibetan areas of China."
snip
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng

"IRAN
Islamic Republic of Iran
The human rights situation deteriorated, with civil society facing increasing restrictions on fundamental freedoms of expression and association. Scores of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, continued to serve prison sentences imposed following unfair trials in previous years. Thousands more arrests were made in 2006, mostly during or following demonstrations. Human rights defenders, including journalists, students and lawyers, were among those detained arbitrarily without access to family or legal representation. Torture, especially during periods of pre-trial detention, remained commonplace. At least 177 people were executed, at least four of whom were under 18 at the time of the alleged offence, including one who was under 18 at the time of execution. Two people were reportedly stoned to death. Sentences of flogging, amputation and eye-gouging continued to be passed. The true numbers of those executed or subjected to corporal punishment were probably considerably higher than those reported."
snip
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Iran

SYRIA
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC


Freedom of expression and association continued to be severely restricted. Scores of people were arrested and hundreds remained imprisoned for political reasons, including prisoners of conscience and others sentenced after unfair trials. Discriminatory legislation and practices remained in force against women and the Kurdish minority. Torture and ill-treatment in detention continued to be reported and carried out with impunity. Human rights defenders continued to face arrest, harassment and restrictions on their freedom of movement.
snip
http://thereport.amnesty.org/page/1112/eng/

[bemildred]

14. Cuba applauds U.N. human rights watchdog's decision to stop investigating the island

---

The U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva decided to discontinue examinations of the rights situation in Cuba and Belarus, and to continue its scrutiny of Israel. The council was formed last year to replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission, where the United States had more political influence. The U.S. is only an observer to the new 47-nation council.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2886656

[pelsar]

24. it obviously NOT about the Palestenians...

If there was concern about the "human rights" of the Palestinians then we would see many condemnations for the Lebanese shelling (i believe its called "massacres" if we are to keep up a single definition) of Palestinians refugee camps.

we would see condemnations for Hamas violations of the Palestinians of gaza.....but we dont.

_____

so it should be crystal clear by now that this whole UN condemnation thing is not at all about the human rights of the Palestinians....it is just about israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Give this man a teddy bear!

It isn't about human rights issues pertaining to Israel, it is only about condemnation of Israel's interactions with the Palestinians while ignoring the same/similar violations committed by others.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Just to clarify that I think that it's right for the UNHRC to monitor Israel on human rights; BUT.

They should be monitoring human rights EVERYWHERE in the world, permanently and seriously.

I just don't think it's right of them to focus almost *solely* on Israel, and, by comparison, ignore other countries.

From this distance, it does look to me as though a lot of it is due to combined pressure from the Arab states, who certainly seem themselves to escape a lot of justified criticism for their own anti-Palestinian actions. There may be lots of other reasons and pressures, however. But what clearly isn't the case is that Israel is the only country that ever violates human rights - even of Palestinians.

Of course, it's not an excuse for Israel, or any country, that 'other people do it too'; but what we're talking about here is an organization that seems to be fairly selective about its targets. Other human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, look at human rights violations EVERYWHERE; this organization seems to focus disproportionately on one country.

Why do they not instead focus on 'the humanitarian crisis in Palestine' - and *all* the current and recent violations, including those of Israel, Lebanon, and of course, Hamas?

[pelsar]

28. becuase its not about human rights...

]Why do they not instead focus on 'the humanitarian crisis in Palestine' - and *all* the current and recent violations, including those of Israel, Lebanon, and of course, Hamas?

its really that simple.....

[pelsar]

29. because its not about human rights...

]Why do they not instead focus on 'the humanitarian crisis in Palestine' - and *all* the current and recent violations, including those of Israel, Lebanon, and of course, Hamas?

its really that simple.....

[AviBaruch]

30. The US needs to cut off funding to this group

it's the UN Human Right Commission redux. Same biased focus, same results, same problems.

How's their inquiry into Darfur coming?

[LeftishBrit]

56. Just noticed two different OP posts here, both about strikes against Palestinian targets

Israeli airstrike targets Gaza: 47 responses

Lebanese troops bombard Palestinian camp: No responses


It just seems to attract more attention - positive or negative -when Israel does it, than when anyone else does it.

There could be many reasons for this, including that people are simply more aware of Israel than Lebanon; but it is a phenomenon.

[AviBaruch]

57. There is a reason, indicated by this specific thread and the topic its discusses

and that is Israel is held more accountable for its actions than the Arab nations and groups.

[breakaleg]

58. I don't think so. In the Lebanon case, we are all in agreement that it should stop.

So what is there to discuss?

In Israel's case, some of us think it should stop and others support it.

[Shaktimaan]

59. But do you think

that the UNHRC will end up investigating or condemning the Lebanon case?

I ask because it seems that, barring the most hideous events such as Darfur, the UNHRC seems to stir only when Israel does something to pique its attention.

[AviBaruch]

60. They don't even stir on Darfur

they had a resolution on Darfur quashed last year.

[AviBaruch]

61. so, your claiming that people complain

about Israel but not the Pals or Lebanese because it's assumed that we know their actions are wrong?

Yeah, don't buy that.

[breakaleg]

63. I'm saying that there isn't much debate when all parties are on the same side.

Now, if you read this forum these past few days you'll see a lot of figurative hand slapping and glee at the turn of events in Gaza, but since most respondents are like minded individuals, even that gets old after a while.

Didn't someone point out to you that "Pals" is a derogatory term and ought not to be used in this forum? I've seen you use that term consistently even after that warning.

[AviBaruch]

64. Yes, and again, that's not my intention

I'm typing fast and its a force of habit.

I don't see much glee at what's happenning in Gaza, more a lot of "I told you sos" from people who've been berated for holding their beliefs.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. Let's review.

The Regular Sessions.

UN HRC Session 1

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/1/1 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/2 Working group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/3 Open-ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/4 The right to development
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/5 Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=10&se=2&t=3">Decisions

• A/HRC/DEC/1/101 Titles of officers
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/102 Extension by the Human Rights Council of all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/103 The Universal Periodic Review
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/104 Implementation of paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/105 Draft framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/106 Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/107 Incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance

Review of Regular Session 1: The newly created UN HRC has already singled out Israel for discussion in Session 2.

UN HRC Session 2

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/2/1 Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/2 Human rights and extreme poverty
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/3 Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/4 Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/5 Effective implementation of international instruments on human rights

Decisions

• A/HRC/DEC/2/101 Situation of human rights in Kyrgyzstan
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/113 Cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Afghanistan
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/114 Cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Nepal
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/115 Darfur

Review of Regular Session 2: Despite discussions about human rights concerns in other nations, only one, Israel, is again singled out with two resolutions.

UN HRC Session 3

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/3/1 Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S1/1
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/2 Preparations for the Durban Review Conference
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/3 Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon (adopted without a vote)
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/4 Implementation of General Assmebly resolution 60/251: agenda, annual programme of work, methods of work and rules of procedure of the Human Rights Council

Decisions
(Only 4 "decisions" adopted, none reference any country.)

Review of Regular Session 3: Session Three has four resolutions, two against one country, Israel.

UN HRC Session 4

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/4/1 Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/10 Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/2 Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/3 Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/4 The right to development
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/5 Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/6 Strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
  
• A/HRC/RES/4/7 Rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  
• 4/30/2007 A/HRC/RES/4/8 Follow-up to decision S-4/101 of 13 December 2006 adopted by the Human Rights Council at its fourth special session entitled "Situation of human rights in Darfur"
  
• 4/30/2007 A/HRC/RES/4/9 Combating defamation of religions

Decisions

Five "decisions" were passed with none mentioning any specific countries.

Review of Regular Session 4: Once again, we see only one country singled out for 'condemnation,' Israel.

UN HRC Session 5

Resolutions*

• A/HRC/5/L.4 follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon
  
• A/HRC/5/L.5 follow-up to Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 on the occupied Palestinian territory
  
• A/HRC/5/L.6 follow-up to the resolution on the situation of human rights in Darfur

*(Note: The link to the "Resolutions" and "Decisions" is still under construction.)

Review of Regular Session 5: It's déjà vu! Two of the three resolutions focus on ONE country. Any guesses? If you said "Israel", you win! The first resolution is a throwback to the 2nd Lebanon War.


On to the Special Sessions**...

First special session of the Human Rights Council, 5-6 July 2006

A/HRC/S1-1 -- Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

2nd Special session of the Human Rights Council, Geneva, 11 August 2006

A.HRC.S-2.L.1 -- The grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations

3rd Special session on Israeli military incursions in Occupied Palestinian Territory, 15 November 2006

A.HRC.S-3.L.1 -- Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent one in northern Gaza and the assault on Beit Hanoun

**(Note: For some reason some of the documents are not opening properly. This happens from time to time at that site.)

Review of the Special Sessions: Four "Special Sessions" have been called in the one year of this organization's being. Three of the four dealt with the condemnation of one country, ISRAEL!


Overall Review of the UN Human Rights Council: Just over a year old, and this group has passed twenty-seven (27) resolutions, of those seven (7) were against Israel, meaning the UNHRC passed 25% of ALL its resolutions against ONE nation, ISRAEL!!!! One in four resolutions will be passed by this group against Israel. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the Special Sessions chastized ONE nation...ISRAEL!

This group is a joke! It is BIGOTED against Israel, not biased! This is demonstrated by its OWN actions and its repeated resolutions condemning Israel while other violators get a "free pass." Like any nation, Israel is NOT beyond reproach, nor should it be. However, when an organization, under the guise of Human Rights, cannot even muster condemnations of similar and WORSE actions by other nations, it moves from bias to bigotry!

[breakaleg]

66. So, of the 4 special sessions...

One was regarding Lebanon - you know - that WAR Israel was involved in causing massive civilian damage and casualties.

One was regarding Beit Hanoun where out of 18 dead in one family, 8 were children and 7 were women.

So that leaves one pertaining to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Territories.

Which one was unnecessary?

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Which post did you read?

Did I say any of them were unnecessary? No, I did not. But, I don't expect you to understand the problem given your posts on Israel. Where are they special sessions on Darfur? Oh yeah, there was ONE! Where are the special sessions about the on-going conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are the special sessions on the violence in Gaza being perpetrated by Palestinians? Where is the special sessions on the current situation in Lebanon? That last one, they can't bother to pass a resolution about the current situation, but have no issue bringing up the war from last year.

The one regarding Lebanon, where was the condemnation of Hizb'allah? Where was the special session on the Eliat terrorist attack? Where are the special sessions of the on-going humanitarian crisis in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan?

Let me guess, you don't see any bias in the information presented, just "justice" being served. :eyes:

[breakaleg]

68. What is your argument then? If the issues discussed were important, then I don't see the problem.

You criticize them for being biased. One would assume that if bias is their sole reason to bring attention to Israel then there would be no substance behind their claims. But their is substance. So, if the issues are real, the concerns are legitimate, then on what grounds to you condemn them?

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Read the entire thing again!

I am not criticizing the resolutions or the special sessions, I am criticizing the Council!!! It is not the bias of the resolutions it is the bigotry of the "Human Rights" Council only passing resolutions against Israel! Got it now?!

Maybe this will help you...

A police arrests car thieves. All his arrests are Black men. The officer is aware of white, Hispanic, and Asian violators but doesn't arrest them. It doesn't mean that the Black thieves should "get a pass," but when the others are 'given a pass,' it is BLATANT BIGOTRY. Does that help?!

[breakaleg]

70. You don't have to scream.

You are criticizing the council for focusing on Israel, even though their charges are completely valid.

Read that a couple of times and perhaps you'll see the issue I have with your post.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. I wasn't screaming.

And here is something for you to read a few times: Bigotry is always wrong! Did you understand the example I gave you?

[Shaktimaan]

71. You have no problem with selective enforcement?

What if America chose to give black criminals far higher sentences than white ones? Or only really investigated crimes committed by black people, barring a few un-ignorable crimes by whites?

Would you argue that no problem exists? That it is OK if the courts exist solely for the prosecution of black people and the protection of whites, because the black people who were convicted were truly guilty?

Guilt and innocence is only one aspect of justice. Another one is the assurance that the law is applied equally to all. After all, what is a court worth if its only purpose is to enforce the laws against one ethnicity?

If the HRC's goal is to ferret out human rights violations in Israel alone, then it is fair to ask who is looking after the rest of the world? When you argue that no problem exists you are arguing that the intended purpose of the HRC is unnecessary. That fighting for human rights everywhere is less important than ensuring that Israel is closely watched so that any infraction can be pounced upon.

You are arguing that a human rights worker who comes across a murder scene in Palestine, and discovers upon investigation that the murderers were Hamas and not Israel, has no obligation to prosecute Hamas just as they would Israel. That there is nothing wrong with her just walking away from the murder scene to go in search of a crime that Israel did commit. Even if that crime is far less significant.

Let me boil it down to one question... Is it OK for a court to only prosecute black people, if they make sure that those people are indeed guilty, and let everyone who isn't black get off scot-free?

[breakaleg]

72. No.

But rather than let all of the black criminals (in your example) out of jail in an effort to even things out, I'd try to see that the judicial system focuses on all criminals. So, a defense cannot be "look, he did the same thing" and let them both off. But rather, let's charge that white guy (in your example) too.

[pelsar]

75. actually its call: "systematic racism"

in the states when a certain group is "singled out" while others are either ignored or receive lesser attention.

[Shaktimaan]

76. OK.

When I criticize the HRC as biased against Israel, and question their findings, it is not an attempt to, (following my analogy), "let all the black people out of jail to even things up." I agree with you that it would be preferable that the HRC investigated crimes according to their impact and not according to political goals. I wish they approached their mission honestly and with integrity, making the victims of human rights abuses their charges, no matter where they lived or who hurt them. But they have not.

And in choosing to make their mission about finding fault with Israel, they have shown themselves to be unconcerned with their official mission. Just like my imaginary court, their stated motive is actually just a front for selective persecution.

I am not arguing that no HR crimes should be investigated unless none of them are. I am not saying that Israel should not have her HR crimes investigated and punished. I am saying that the UNHRC has shown itself to be a dishonest judge, concerned with punishing Israel, NOT with investigating Human Rights abuses. And as such, their judgements are not trustworthy. Once we have shown that they have an institutional bias against Israel, we can be sure that they are not judging Israel fairly. There are always two sides to every story. Any judge that disqualifies all evidence for the defense while ordering unlimited resources for the prosecution can not be trusted to deliver an honest verdict. Once it becomes clear that a judge's motive is to put black people behind bars, instead of wishing to see justice done, we have ample reason to question the parity of their rulings. Should we then learn that the judge in question has a record of finding only black people guilty, we have ample reason to consider his courtroom's verdicts unrelated to the true meaning of justice.

If the UNHRC exists as a tool to bludgeon Israel while protecting other, far worse states, then it's findings can be assumed to be equally dishonest. Any court that exists to jail a single ethnicity is not a court at all. The UN's effectiveness is only as strong as its reputation for honesty and parity. Unrelenting bias is not tolerated in any honest courtroom. If it is detected, the trial is annulled. Likewise, we can out no faith in the findings of an unquestionably biased UNHRC.

[eyl]

77. self-delete n/t

[Eugene]

74. U.N.'s Ban faults rights council over Israel

Source: Reuters

U.N.'s Ban faults rights council over Israel

By Patrick Worsnip
Wed Jun 20, 7:51 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in
criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council
for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its
working rules.

The European Union, Canada and the United States
had already attacked the singling-out of Israel's role
in the occupied Palestinian territories for continued
special investigation, under the deal reached in
Geneva on Monday.

A U.N. statement said: "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."

The statement did not mention Israel or the
Palestinian territories by name.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/wl_nm/rights_council_un_dc

[barb162]

80. Does the UN Human Rights Council have ANY credibility? NO

It clearly doesn't if its focus is one country to the exclusion of focus on other countries with far worse and long term human rights violations.

"U.N. human rights body singles out Israel

snip
Established last year by the U.N. General Assembly, the Human Rights Council was supposed to represent a new beginning for the world body's human rights arm, which had been discredited in part for its singular focus on Israel. Reformers had hoped the new council would take a broader and more balanced approach to human rights records across the globe.

"Today is a terrible day for human rights. It’s a terrible day for the United Nations," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch. "The council has destroyed its credibility on its very first day."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/102556.html

[barb162]

81. It looks like the new UN watchdog is as much of a joke as its predecessor

UN rights body rules blocked by China opposition
snip
"Formed to replace the Human Rights Commission, which was seen in its final years as politically manipulated by China, Russia and others, the council has been attacked for failing in its short existence to address abuses in some of the world's most troubled areas.

Rights campaigners and Western countries bemoan that the council has been dominated by its large African, Arab and Asian blocs, spending much of its time singling out Israel and fending off criticism of countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.
snip
Although many developing countries object to investigations of nations with poor human rights records, they make an exception for Israel, the only government criticized so far by the body. Censure by the council brings no sanctions beyond international scrutiny.

De Alba called for the establishment of a ``universal periodic review'' mechanism under which all countries would have their rights record examined regularly, so as to remove any accusation of bias.
snip


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Europe/UN_rights_body_rules_blocked_by_China_opposition/articleshow/2132640.cms