Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Israel ends contact with UN Human Rights Council
Israel has cut working relations with the UN Human Rights Council, officials say, after it decided to investigate Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The foreign ministry has reportedly told its envoy in Geneva not to co-operate with the council or with UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay.
It will also prevent a UN team entering Israel to assess the effects of settlements on Palestinian rights.
Last week, Israel said the decision to establish the probe was "surrealistic".
more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17510668
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
aranthus
(3,385 posts)saras
(6,670 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)They have some serious issues.
MrBig
(640 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)refuse to co-operate and then cry foul when the report is released, however this time there is no 'fog of war' type situation to distort facts
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The facts about settlements are readily available already.
Have you ever heard of B'tselem?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as to the investigation yes B'tselem has the 'facts' , however a UN investigation would put those facts in an official international document, seems some are worried about those facts being compiled in such a way.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)The best thing that the UNHRC could do to advance the cause of human rights in the world would be to disband.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)this time we'll see, wonder if the report will be finished before 11/12? 
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)none of them are co-operating with the UNHRC's investigations
In a resolution (A/HRC/19/L.22) regarding the situation of human rights in Iran, adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, 5 against and 20 abstentions, the Council welcomes the report and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran and expresses serious concern at the developments noted in that report as well as the lack of access permitted to the Special Rapporteur to travel to Iran; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran for a further period of one year, and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on the implementation of his mandate to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-second session, and to the General Assembly at its sixty-seventh session; calls upon the Government of Iran to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to permit access to visit the country as well as all information necessary to allow the fulfilment of the mandate; and requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with the resources necessary to fulfil the mandate.
Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
In a resolution (A/HRC/19/L.29) regarding the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses its very serious concern at the ongoing grave, widespread and systematic human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 16/8, for a period of one year; urges the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to permit him unrestricted access to visit the country; also urges the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure full, rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance; and requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with all assistance and adequate staffing necessary to carry out his mandate effectively, with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
and also on their agenda
Concerning birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, the Council called upon States to establish or strengthen existing governmental institutions responsible for birth registration and the preservation and security of such records. States should identify and remove physical, administrative and other barriers that impeded access to birth registration.
With regards to the participation in political and public life by persons with disabilities, the Council called upon States to ensure that persons with disabilities could effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected, and to participate in the conduct of public affairs.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12004&LangID=E
so if you believe that the UNHRC is not credible then these other items must not be credible or legitimate either, or is it just when it comes to Israel?
For myself I think they're credible in what they do or are trying to do
shira
(30,109 posts)From a couple weeks ago:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-votes-favor-watered-down-measure-syria-retains-seat-un-human-rights-panel
Seems that if you condemn the UNHRC, that would be anti-Palestinian and against the cause b/c the UNHRC does so much good work for Palestinians (and against Israel).
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)freedom of religion, rights for the handicapped, and human rights in Iran and N.Korea are not legitimate concerns?
or is it just when it comes to Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)...who thinks the UNHRC is credible. It's not just Syria either. I'm not sure anything could convince you that the UNHRC is a joke.
But now at least you know why no one takes the so-called "pro Palestinian" movement seriously. Their sanctimonious outrage is little more than rightwing humanitarianism.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the right to worship without governmental discrimination are in your opinion not that important, is that it? Or are you willing to throw these rights under the bus because the UNHRC talks bad about Israel?
well we all have our priorities I guess 
shira
(30,109 posts)And just to be clear:
Is your argument that just b/c the UNHRC does little more than the bare minimum WRT Iran and N.Korea, that makes them credible? The few scraps the UNHRC throws at the victims of N.Korea and Iran makes the UNHRC worth keeping, and credible?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so all three have this in common, it is the same scraps that are being thrown at the Palestinians
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so in that respect they do have that in common, now of course Israel does treat it's majority citizens quite well however it is not the treatment Israel gives its majority citizens that the UNHRC wants to look at its the way its majority citizens that have settled in Palestinian land are affecting the Palestinian population, but Israel for some reason does not want anyone looking too closely
shira
(30,109 posts)...was completely discredited by Goldstone himself (the last time the UNHRC went after Israel). Being discredited and worthless now, we don't hear about it anymore. It's in the dustbin of history. The game's over. I'm certain, however, you still believe in retrospect that while the Goldstone Commission was an enormous waste of time and resources that could've been spent on real systematic abuses worldwide, it was still worth it.
Am I right?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)of noncooperation working quite well, what Goldstone said of his report is that "if I had known then, what I know now" parts of the report may have been different hardly discrediting the entire report, however why did he not know, simple because Israel did not co-operate with UNHRC team and after the report was released went busily to work gathering 'evidence' in an attempt to discredit the report. However as in the case of the Goldstone report there was a 'fog of war' element which Israel used to its advantage that situation does not exist in the case of the settlements so that element can not be relied on, as it stands the report will go on with or without Israels co-operation
shira
(30,109 posts)...of time and resources devoted to it, correct?
After all, it served it's purpose (delegitimization/demonization).
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and it did that and in fact it found fault with both sides didn't it?
shira
(30,109 posts)....which could have been used for real systematic abuse of human rights worldwide. In Libya, Syria, etc...
Why not just say 'yes'?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and if you remember there was an investigation into Libya we've already gone over that, the one where the then government of Libya claimed we're trying and they were commended for that claim however apparently the people of Libya disagreed, any investigation into Syria in 2009 would have likely then as now have been met with the same resistance that Israel is/has shown to being too closely looked at
now I say this because as a result of Goldstone Israel was forced to bring charges against a few of its soldiers who commit acts outside of military 'moral' or regulations that could not be hidden or explained away, I believe I saw these soldiers described as "victims of Goldstone" or some such also and far more significantly Israel was forced to perhaps amend the methods by which it conducts itself in civilian areas if only slightly and IMO these 2 things alone could be the reason you demonize Goldstone
quite frankly I wish such an investigation would be brought up against the US and NATO forces, however that has been forestalled because neither the US or NATO seems to be all too quick to excuse or whitewash their crimes, both tend to admit wrong doing and apologize
shira
(30,109 posts)...Israel in 2009 was a better use of resources than the UN focusing anywhere else in the world at that time where REAL, genuine systematic human rights abuses were going on? Am I understanding you correctly?
Was focusing on Israel before OCL, more than anywhere else in the world, also the correct thing to do - in retrospect?
Maybe you believe that's so, because the UNHRC would be wasting its time doing anything anywhere else in the world... where they'd be ignored.
Yes or No?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)well that's to be expected
shira
(30,109 posts)....anywhere else that demands far more attention.
Remember the Sri Lanka massacres going on at the same time as OCL? Remember what the UNHRC did about that?
Serious question.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but I guess for you that's no one?
shira
(30,109 posts)...cannot be expected to be taken seriously WRT human rights anywhere in the world (Palestine or anywhere else).
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or to worship freely without discrimination
shira
(30,109 posts)...then I must be against the handicapped and those who can't worship freely without discrimination?
Is that what you're claiming?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that I do not care about any kind of human rights for any one any where is that the case?
oh what to do? what to do? the best you can do is say that I haven't answered your question however the posts in conversation answer both our questions quite well and you do seem willing to ignore the UNHRC's work in any area because of Syria, is that the case?
shira
(30,109 posts)In other happenings this month, the UNHRC released a report praising Gaddafi's human rights record in Libya:
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/03/15/u-n-adopts-resolution-praising-qaddafi-rights-record/
A Hamas official (representing pretty much the opposite of human rights) was invited to address the UNHRC:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4204561,00.html
Retaining Syria on the council is just the tip of the iceberg. All this has been happening just in the past month.
But this, you support. The UNHRC is still credible b/c you like how they treat Israel. Screw the people in Libya, Syria, etc.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the so called praise is contained here in this PDF from 11/10 taken from link in which Libya basically said "we're working on it" and the other members of the UNHRC said good for you
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf
and Hamas discussing administrative detentions in Israel
wow stop the show these people can not be heard or something
shira
(30,109 posts)Poutrage.
Yeah, it's all about human rights. You keep saying that...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)anywhere in it's article
however it is about about human rights whether or not you want it to be
shira
(30,109 posts)The Palestinian cause is not about human rights and never has been. It's about bashing Israel.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it did not mention the tweet either, but I guess your done bashing Amnesty now?
seems you tried to claim the same thing about the Palestinian cause as you call it apparently its too hard can't bring yourself to say self determination, where Khalood Badawi was concerned too
shira
(30,109 posts)...was abhorrent. You believe the UNHRC is a credible organization, solely due to its Israel bashing. You can't possibly believe the UNHRC is credible due to its stellar human rights record, b/c WRT human rights their record is deplorable. There's the Syria example, Gaddafi praised, Hamas addressing the UNHRC. During OCL, the UNHRC was praising Sri Lanka for its carnage. Iran was elected to the Women's Rights Commission by the UN. The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine is none other than Richard Falk who is BFF with Gilad Atzmon. I could go on for pages...
It's a complete farce and you know it.
That you cannot admit it goes to show how little you value human rights. You're not alone, however. Almost the entire pro-Palestinian movement is the same way, which goes to show how awful it truly is.
ETA:
Put very simply, no one who argues human rights for Palestinians while defending or making excuses for the UNHRC can ever be taken seriously by objective people.
You got it yet?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)wrong I have spent numerous posts showing what the UNHRC does other than as you choose to call
it "Israel bashing" however you seem intent on ignoring or dismissing all of that, IMO it is the reverse that is true you seem willing to ignore human rights work in virtually any other area because the UNHRC criticizes Israel and what it mainly criticizes is the occupation of Palestinian land
shira
(30,109 posts)You say that because the UNHRC does (enough) good work, there's no reason to condemn it. Of course they do some good work. So? They also do an awful lot that terrible and against the cause of Universal Human Rights worldwide.
I know, you can't admit that. It's against the cause.
Tell me, what would the UNHRC have to do to prove to you they're really, really bad for Human Rights worldwide?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what terrible work does the UNHRC do, oh wait it criticizes Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/03/statement_on_un
I would say that the UN's refusal to protect women worldwide is due to the constitution of its human right representatives (nations which systematically oppress women). This is an ongoing evil that dwarfs everything Israel has done since 1948, combined, times a million!
Slamming Israel is more important than Universal Women's Rights, correct? Yes or No?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from your link
We say NO to any re-opening of negotiations on the already established international agreements on women's human rights and call on all governments to demonstrate their commitments to promote, protect and fulfill human rights and fundamental freedoms of women.
but please don't stop BTW you never did say how the on line petition against Khalood Bawadi is coming
shira
(30,109 posts)In fact, the UN actually excuses abuse vs. women due to cultural differences, guaranteeing nothing will be done about it.
It's clear you're incapable of finding fault with the UNHRC, for the sole reason that by doing so you are undermining its credibility WRT Israel.
Talk about an Israel firster.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)http://www.un.org/womenwatch/
http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/women/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42155&Cr=hiv&Cr1=aids
http://www.un-instraw.org/
eta it got past me last March so thanks for kicking the thread and bringing this to my attention
shira
(30,109 posts)...so that they can sit there accusing others while covering for themselves.
That you don't find such an act abhorrent speaks volumes.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it must be a man right?
shira
(30,109 posts)...that she must be doing a good job representing the women of S.A.?
Really?
Because S.A. sends a female representative instead of a male, that means S.A. is serious?
Holy shit!
Tell me this. Knowing what you know about women's rights in S.A., and I'm assuming you realize how awful conditions are there, why do you think S.A. actually desires to be represented at the UN council for women's rights? Try answering that one seriously.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)
but it is interesting that you would wish to bar women from one of the most repressive countries on Earth from participating on the council
shira
(30,109 posts)...represented on a UN human rights council for women?
And no one is barring women from being on the council. Just because SA elects to send a female representative doesn't make their participation on the council any more palatable.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)yes shira I will be book marking this one
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you do realize that there are reforms going on in SA small but it is happening
shira
(30,109 posts)..will say something @ the Human Rights council that the Saudi regime would be against? She is a Saudi puppet and will only say what the Saudi regime commands her to say.
Why is this difficult for you to comprehend?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)ya makes sense to me 
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Hitler was well known to be a vegetarian. Does that fact mean that all vegetarians are fascist mass murderers? Or does it mean that anyone who opposed Hitler must have also opposed animal rights because killing Hitler would end all of the positive animal rights work he accomplished?
Those two examples were meant to highlight the obvious flaws in your logic.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Let's be clear. I think that the UNHRC is not credible at all. That does not mean that all claims of human rights abuses against Iran, North Korea, and/or Israel are not credible. It just means that you can't use the reports and proceedings of the UNHRC to prove it. Every case has to stand on its own based on real evidence and untainted and unbiased investigation and analysis. You won't get that from the UNHRC, or from any part of the UN for that matter. The organization is inherently politicized, and so is everything that it does. Yes, that includes things like refugee and disaster relief and human rights. That's just what the UN is. It's a political forum. Expecting moral pronouncments or action from it is folly.
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2012, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)
this is from your link
In a statement, the body said it did not have an ambassadorial programme and the event at Victoria Falls had been held in order for an agreement to be signed by the UNWTO, Zimbabwe and Zambia to permit the hosting of the general assembly at the waterfall, which straddles the borders of both countries.
It added that the letter sent to the Zimbabwean president had also been sent to the leaders of other countries as part of the UNWTO's "global leaders for tourism" campaign. "This letter was sent to all heads of state and government worldwide and aims to raise awareness of the potential of tourism for development, job creation and economic growth," it said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/01/canada-quits-un-tourism-mugabe
perhaps you and Canada don't think such letters should be sent to African countries or perhaps it's overblown BS
shira
(30,109 posts)It's odd that the Guardian would post lame, overblown BS conservative op-eds like that, isn't it?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)She added: "UNWTO does not have an ambassadors programme and the receiving of the UNWTO/WTTC [World Travel and Tourism Council] open letter implies no legal commitment or title attribution to the country or the head of state or government in question."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/29/robert-mugabe-un-international-envoy-tourism
seems you quest to demonize any UN agency on the flimsiest of 'facts' falls short
shira
(30,109 posts)...and don't necessarily buy the excuses. Like those mentioned in the article, as well as the Guardian writers. The UN has repeatedly allowed tyrannical regimes to represent both the Security and Human Rights Councils. This isn't breaking any new ground. Just more of the same...
I don't expect you to agree, as you excuse everything the UN does. In your view, there's hardly any legitimate criticism that exists WRT the UN.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so you do not buy the UN's explanation? I'm shocked I tells ya shocked 
shira
(30,109 posts)Hey, did you know Pakistan is about to join the UN Human Rights Commission?
What are your thoughts on that?
Good step in the right direction for human rights?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what country is has a stellar enough record? Let me guess........?
shira
(30,109 posts)Tell me, how do you think having Pakistan on the council is a good thing for the cause of universal human rights?
Just one reason, if you can.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and what better place to get than being on the UNHRC ? seems the thought upsets you huh?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 06:05 PM - Edit history (2)
...deserves to be on UN human rights commissions. Not authoritarian regimes with the most appalling human rights conditions.
And who are you kidding by claiming Pakistan is on the UNHRC in order to point or direct them into improving their human rights record? They're not there to be directed into respecting human rights. They're there to protect their interests, and if at all possible, deflect attention away from their record.
Oh, BTW, Syria is currently on UNESCO's human rights committee. Pretty much for the same reason SA and Pakistan are.
I'm going to have to remember threads like these for future reference....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)
and what is the racial majority in the nations you deem worthy?
yep I'll have to book mark this one too
shira
(30,109 posts)It's unbelievable you believe that chronic rights abusers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are worthy of representation on the UN human rights council.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Dick Dastardly
(937 posts)place being on the UNHRC. Its unbelievable that you think only western nations recognize human rights and are worthy of
being on the UNHRC. Japan and S. Korea are two examples of non Western nations that are highly democratic and recognize human rights. They may not have perfect records but no nation whether western or not has a perfect record. They are as worthy as any western nation to be on the UNHRC.
shira
(30,109 posts)I consider them "western".
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the end game here is? I would put them in the lime light so to speak, being on the UNHRC does not legitimize their abuses, no IMO it highlights them and in a way that eliminates the 'high minded' so to speak lecturing of the Western nations
eta I think the poster you were addressing should say thank you for the 'candy' don't you?
Dick Dastardly
(937 posts)bodies like the UNHRC) and their abuses put in the limelight. Putting them on the international council thats supposed to investigate HR abuses, make decisions on HR, uphold standards on HR and deal with various other HR issues is shear idiocy. Its like putting rapists in charge of investigating rapes or in charge of a rape crisis center.
Putting them on the UNHRC does not highlight their abuses in any way and in fact just the opposite it allows them to cover each others backs to better hide their abuses and derail any real investigation. It turns the UNHRC into an agenda driven political pulpit.
The Western nations or specifically the Western democracies while not perfect have a excellent HR track record and have a right to lecture HR abusers as do the many non Western nations who have similarily excellent HR track records. Calling those with proven track records that expose HR abusers as just some high minded lecturing by Western nations is nonsense right out of the mouths of HR abusers. The only thing you eliminate by putting the worst HR on the UNHRC is the legitimacy of the UNHRC.
