Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • January 28, 2013

    Showdown between UN Human Rights Council and Israel?

    By Anne Hertzberg, GATESTONE INSTITUTE

    While thousands were being butchered by the Assad regime in Syria, the Human Rights Council outrageously passed a resolution condemning Israel for the “suffering of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan.” Of course, none of the actors at the HRC offered to take concrete steps, such as repealing Agenda Item 7, to end the systemic bias at there.

    Another major confrontation is brewing between Israel and the United Nations. On January 29, Israel is scheduled for its quadrennial Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the Human Rights Council (HRC). Following the March 2012 Council session, however, Israel’s foreign minister ceased all contacts with the HRC due to its obsessive bias and double standards targeting the Jewish State. As a result, Israel will not participate in UPR.

    This has UN officials very worried, and for good reason. If Israel fails to show up for UPR, this may force the HRC to end the stranglehold of abusive regimes over the institution, and implement long overdue reforms.


    UPR was instituted as the focal point of the newly-created HRC in 2006, which was established as a correction to its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission was disbanded after being hijacked by dictatorships and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The huge embarrassment was compounded by a singular focus on Israel. According to UN Watch, approximately half of all country-specific resolutions condemned the Jewish state.

    The Commission’s standing agenda included the notorious “Item 7,” meaning that Israel was the only country singled out at every session. Inevitably, this resulted in incessant discussion of alleged Israeli violations against Palestinians. By 2005, the situation had deteriorated to the point that UN Secretary General Kofi Anan remarked, “the Commission’s ability to perform its tasks has been . . . undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work.”

    UPR was created to ostensibly remedy the pervasive one-sidedness by implementing a peer review of the human rights records of every UN member state once every four years. It was heavily promoted by officials from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Europe, and the UN as the linchpin of the HRC and proof of its “reformed” and universally-concerned character, despite the perpetuation of Agenda Item 7 on Israel. Human Rights Watch (HRW) in particular lobbied extensively for UPR.

    In spite of the promises, the new HRC differed little from the Commission. Dictatorships and Islamic regimes continued to dominate the council and its leadership. Resolutions against Israel outnumbered those issued against any other country by orders of magnitude, and 5 of the first 9 special sessions targeted Israel. Prompted by the Arab League and the OIC, coupled with intensive campaigning by HRW, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and other NGOs, there have been at least four separate “fact-finding” missions aimed at Israel, most notably the Goldstone Mission. Follow-up committees, reports for Goldstone (ignoring the repudiation of the report by Judge Goldstone himself), and the other inquiries continue to be placed on the agenda at every HRC session – wasting precious time and resources.

    And although every country participated in the first round of the UPR process, which concluded in 2011, the meetings usually consisted of dictators patting each other on the back for their stellar human rights records. Bashing Israel and Canada stood in for “constructive dialogue.”

    Based on this sorry history, the March 2012 HRC session was the last straw for Israel. While thousands were being butchered by the Assad regime in Syria, the HRC outrageously passed a resolution condemning Israel for the “suffering of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan.” Due to intense lobbying by several European-government funded NGOs, including Al Haq and Badil, seeking to lay the groundwork for a new campaign against Israelis at the International Criminal Court, the HRC also initiated another fact-finding mission against Israel. This time, Israel decided to disengage entirely from the farce.

    Once HRC officials realized that Israel’s decision would also affect UPR, they panicked. UPR can only work if there is 100% state participation. Without UPR, the façade of a reformed HRC is now in jeopardy. On November 28, 2012, the HRC President sent a desperate letter to Israel trying to guilt it into participation by ironically promoting the “universality” of the process. When Israel didn’t bite, the HRC met this week and openly chastised Israel for refusing to participate in the discredited framework.

    In concert with the UN, NGOs predictably began issuing condemnations. The NGO WILPF, in Orwellian fashion, lamented that “Letting the non-cooperation of a State produce a double standard in the UPR process and setting such a precedent would undermine its object and purpose,” while ignoring the decades of double standards aimed at Israel. No doubt, similarly self-righteous statements will soon appear from HRW and others.

    Of course, none of these actors offered to take concrete steps, such as repealing Agenda Item 7, to end the systemic bias at the HRC. And in typical HRC fashion, Venezuela was selected to preside over Israel’s UPR in absentia.

    The fact is that the UN, HRW, and the other organizations that are responsible for the dysfunctional state of affairs at the HRC have no one to blame but themselves. Some have engaged in half-hearted efforts to end the bias, while others have actively encouraged it through activities like the immoral Goldstone process. If the collapse of UPR is what it takes to force real change at the HRC and to end the stranglehold of abusive regimes at that institution, it will be worth it.

    Anne Herzberg is the Legal Advisor of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, the author of “NGO ‘Lawfare’: Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” and the co-editor of “The Goldstone Report ‘Reconsidered’: A Critical Analysis”.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 2:52 pm | 8 Comments »

    8 Comments to Showdown between UN Human Rights Council and Israel?

    1. NormanF says:

      The world’s dictators need Israel as a whipping boy.

      The UNHCR is a joke on human rights – both on oppressed peoples and on legitimate human rights activists.

      Now if only Israel were to withdraw from the UN itself, something constructive would finally get done.

    2. Dean says:

      This time, Israel decided to disengage entirely from the farce.

      What took Israel so long?

      Why would any self-respecting nation be part of such hate-mongering and Islamo-fascism?

      …HRC session – wasting precious time and resources

      What precious time and resources? The UN is designed to waste – your tax dollars and mine. These people are incapable of real work and so they are given sinecures by their dictators for sycophantic behavior.

      the Commission’s ability to perform its tasks has been . . . undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work.”

      Really, and I thought that they have been doing exactly what you wanted them to do, Mr. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan. Maybe you could have phrased it more honestly as such:

      “Stop making us look like the Jew haters we are and balance the agenda with a lot more America bashing to impress Obama with our balanced approaches here at the UN.”

    3. Eric R. says:

      My real question is why don’t Israel commandos land in Geneva and take out all these UNHRC Nazi savages? If they need to spare a few from countries from whom the fallout would be too great, fine. But no tears lost over losing a UNHRC from Venezuela, Algeria or Malaysia.

    4. Dean says:

      Correction: That’s Mr. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, not Kofi Anan.

    5. birdalone says:

      the “suffering of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan.” ?????
      Did the UNHRC decide that the Golan Druse who finally started applying for Israeli citizenship were tortured into that decision?????

    6. BethesdaDog says:

      How many tanks and planes does the human rights council have anyway?

    7. john says:

      is their really any difference when it comes to israel?

    8. dweller says:

      @ birdalone:

      “…the ‘suffering of Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan.’ ????? Did the UNHRC decide that the Golan Druse who finally started applying for Israeli citizenship were tortured into that decision?”

      UNHRC can call the Golan “occupied” — they can call it the “Big Rock Candy Mountain” — or, for that matter, “spaghetti & meatballs” or anything else it suits the fluttery pitty-pat of their hearts to call it.

      But the undeniable reality is that if the Syrian govt[s] had behaved themselves in 1948 & 1967 — and stayed home instead of using the Golan on those occasions as a launching pad to assault the citizenry of their Israeli neighbor — the clear likelihood is that the Syrians would still have the Golan today.

      — He who resorts to arms (to force an issue) implicitly accepts the VERDICT of arms.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites