UN criticizes Israel for Golan Heights annexation

[cali]

Human Rights Council passes two resolutions criticizing Israel, but keeps its record intact of singling out no other country for human rights abuses

Associated Press Published: 11.27.06, 20:32

The UN Human Rights Council on Monday passed two resolutions criticizing Israel , but kept its record intact of singling out no other country for human rights abuses.

The 47-nation council, which has censured only Israel since it began operating six months ago, this time took the Jewish state to task for its occupation of Syria's Golan Heights and for building settlements in occupied Arab territories.


The council voted 32-1 with 14 abstentions to declare illegal Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights and demand that Israel rescind its decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the area, which it captured in the 1967 Middle East war. Canada, which said the resolution was unbalanced, was the only no vote, and European Union members abstained.

<snip>

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333344,00.html

I hadn't realized that the council hasn't passed a single resolution condemning any other country than Israel. That's not just crazy, it's criminal. I have no problem with the council comdemning certain of Israel's actions, but to the exclusion of all else? Yeah, the Golan Heights is of equal seriousness to the genocide in Darfur, or many of the other terrible human rights abuses that go on systematically in other states.

[rockymountaindem]

1. When people ask why Israel consistently ignores the UN

perhaps this is part of the answer to that question. The UN loses a lot of credibility when it acts like this.

[Boston Critic]

14. Bingo

It's amazing that no mater how many times this is pointed out, some people still don't get it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Comparing the Golan Heights thing to the settlements...

...seems a bit silly, at least in human rights terms.

As for ignoring Darfur, I was re-watching the Frontline special on the Rwandan genocide the other day, and I'm still depressed by how little the international community, including the UN, has done to help the people in Darfur. "Never again" my fucking ass.

[cali]

3. To say that the UN

hasn't done enough about Darfur is a woeful understatement, and I do think that the human rights council is weakened by focusing on Israel to the exclusion of all else. And yes, it appears to demonstrate a degree of bias.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Of course, they won't call what's going on in Darfur a genocide either.

Because if they did, their own conventions would require them to intervene. Can't have that, eh? Two genocides in Africa in thirteen years, and nothing but a bunch of fucking hand wringing after the fact. If the UN can't address genocide, what CAN it do? Issue toothless reports on Global Warming to which nobody pays attention? And I don't much care for the people who defend the UN on the basis of what they did in East Timor. That was an exception to the rule. Darfur is the rule. Rwanda is the rule. We need a new fucking strategy.

[oberliner]

4. Human Rights Watch has been critical of this UN Council

Here is a press release from Human Rights Watch from October:

UN: Rights Council Disappoints Again
Fails to Take Action on Darfur, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan

(Geneva, October 6, 2006) – The UN Human Rights Council adjourned its second regular session today without taking any effective action to address the world’s human rights crises, Human Rights Watch said today. States with poor human rights records dominated the council’s deliberations and countries more committed to human rights failed to exercise effective leadership.

“In the face of atrocities in the Sudan, attacks on civilians in Sri Lanka, and impunity for mass murder in Uzbekistan, this council was largely silent,” said Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. “As the premier international human rights body, the council needs to demonstrate its credibility by taking robust action against violator states.”

The council heard detailed reporting from its independent experts on human rights violations in a number of countries during its “interactive dialogue” segment, but was not able to agree on any follow-up to their findings.

The council also adopted only a short procedural decision allowing continuation of its activities, and will meet again in late November to continue its work.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/06/global14354.htm

[cali]

7. That makes me sad

and angry. I think it's fair to say, this new council is a bad joke.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. I usually agree with HRW, but...

...As the premier international human rights body

Sorry to say that the UN lost that distinction some time ago... assuming it ever had it in the first place.

[everythingsxen]

5. The UN is ridiculous sometimes

When they do things like this. There are actual genocides taking place, yet they condemn Israel for actions carried out 25 years ago.

As a side note to Darfur, didn't the government try to blame it all on Israel/Jews because they were some of the only people trying to provide humanitarian relief? (Googling.... will edit when I find it..)

[mom cat]

6. They should have at least passed a resolution condemning

the US for its illegal wars.

[cali]

9. I'd be interested to see

someone make a case for the council not being biased. Anyone?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Of course it's biased.

It's a group of human beings. Worse, a group of politicians and diplomats and faux-diplomats. Since the UN is quite good at ignoring its own stated standards for human rights, the council has become little more than a vector for posturing on the world stage. Hell, it isn't even anti-zionist sentiment that drives most of these decisions against Israel - it's the fact that Israel is an easy target. Much easier to take on a situation you cannot conceivable alter than to take on a situation like Darfur where UN involvement might actually do some good.

[msmcghee]

12. You might also mention . .

. . that the Darfur genocide is being accomplished by Arabs, the Janjaweed. The reason it is not condemned by the UN HRC is not because Israel is an easy target. It is because that would draw world attention to Islamist atrocities - in this case the killing by and destruction by armed militia of whole villages full of civilians. The younger women and girls are often captured and only killed after they've been sufficiently raped. The count was up to 450,000 innocent civilians killed as of last April.

Let's see, how many Palestinians were killed by the IDF in Gaza over the last year - in defensive operations to quell continuous rocket fire into Israel? I think I saw the number 400 tossed around - but then some unknown proportion of those were militia either firing rockets or resisting arrest.



From Wiki article on UN HRC:

Position on Israel

The new UN Human Rights Council has to date condemned only one country, Israel. It voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, a bloc of Muslim countries, was passed by a vote of 29 to 12, with five abstentions. Israel, the United States and some human rights groups raised concerns about this revival of a practice of the UN's discredited former Commission on Human Rights.<3>

In its Second Special Session in August 2006 the Council announced the establishment of a High-Level Commission of Inquiry charged with probing allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.<4> The resolution was passed by a vote of 27 in favour to 11 against with 8 abstentions. Before and after the vote several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting the resolution solely at Israel and failing to address Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece.

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

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. I was trying to avoid discussing it from that angle...

...as I believe there are enough criticisms to be made of the council without getting this thread sent to the I/P forum. My original point about inaction still stands, regardless of the Islamic Conference's agenda. It's all just so many words. The Islamic Conference wouldn't do a goddamn thing if they thought it might lead to an actual confrontation with Israel. Again, the council is impotent. Is that for the best? I dunno. So far they haven't made matters any better or worse on any problem they've tacked.