UN Human Rights Council - fair and balanced since 2006

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
Just found this gem when looking for some information about UNSC resolutions:

Wiki said:
On March 23, 2007, UN Watch's Hillel Neuer delivered what became the most famous speech in the history of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Neuer asked the Council why it failed to address pressing humanitarian situations around the world, instead devoting 100 percent of its resolutions to scapegoating Israel. The UNHRC President, Luis Alfonso De Alba of Mexico, responded by threatening to "remove from the record" the testimony, and said he would not "express thanks for that statement... I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council."[3] [4] It became the most written-about NGO speech in the history of the United Nations, earning praise from the editorial and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun,[5] the Washington Times, Canada's National Post, Italy's Il Foglio and numerous other newspapers in Canada, Australia and around the world. Major blogs that praised the speech included Commentary, Foreign Policy, Atlantic Monthly magazine, and the on-line magazine Slate, which reported on the speech's blog coverage in its "Today's Blogs" column. [6]

Source

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch


Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: To distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of Rene Casssin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang, Charles Malik, who assembled here in Geneva sixty years ago? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

REPLY BY UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

Article and video


Funny how nothing has changed since:

UN official says Israel responsible for breaking truce with Gaza

Palestinians in Gaza believed Israel had called a 48-hour lull in retaliatory attacks with Hamas when Israel Air Force warplanes launched a massive bombardment of militant installations in the Gaza Strip, a UN official said Monday.

Karen Abu Zayd, commissioner of the UN Relief and Works Agency which helps Palestinian refugees, raised the possible violation of an informal truce in a video press conference with UN reporters from her base in Gaza.

...

Abu Zayd mentioned the lull when she was asked whether the population of Gaza was aware that this was all commenced by the Hamas government unilaterally ending the cease-fire and firing rockets.

"I don't think they think the truce was violated first by Hamas," she said.

"I think they saw that Hamas had observed the truce quite strictly for almost six months, certainly for four of the six months, and that they got nothing in turn - because there was to be kind of a deal," Abu Zayd said.


"If there were no rockets, the crossings would be opened," she said. "The
crossings were not opened at all."

Whole article

:crazyeye:
 
"I think they saw that Hamas had observed the truce quite strictly for almost six months, certainly for four of the six months, and that they got nothing in turn - because there was to be kind of a deal," Abu Zayd said.

Yeah, if you ignore those whole two months or 1/3 of the time, then they were model citizens! :goodjob:
 
Damn those Israelis and their self defense policies!
 
An israeli ("former") state employee, head of a "UN Watch" organization indirectly funded by israeli interests, ranted about the UNSC condemning actions carried out by the state of Israel?

I'm really surprised! :rolleyes:

I don't know about the actual war on the ground, but Israel at least prepared the propaganda war much better this time than it did in 2006.
 
An israeli ("former") state employee, head of a "UN Watch" organization indirectly funded by israeli interests, ranted about the UNSC condemning actions carried out by the state of Israel?

I'm really surprised! :rolleyes:

I don't know about the actual war on the ground, but Israel at least prepared the propaganda war much better this time than it did in 2006.

Oh right. Since he's a Jew and he clerked in the Israeli Supreme Court, what he said is invalid and propaganda to make Israel look good during the current conflict. Yes, when he gave the speech in 2007, he foresaw what's going on today.

Not to mention his outstanding work in helping free political prisoners in Russia and speaking out of oppression of Arabs in Iran is rooted in his desire to see Israel win this war. Oh and his advocacy for Darfur victims is clearly a case of Zionism. Friggin Jews....
 
Yet another trolling thread. Nothing to see here folks. Please move on.:sleep:
 
The fact that he's right is of course completely irrelevant, isn't it? :lol:

Is it? I'm old enough to remember that until the 1980s Israel had a partner in this kind of antics (and many other nastier ones). It was South Africa. No different from the government of my own country hiring PR firms to spread propaganda in New York in support of our colonial wars back in 1962-4. And that worked, too.

Propaganda is a tool, and both sides in the war you've been commenting here use it. Arab states spread propaganda to influence the UNSC, Israel spreads propaganda complaining about arab propaganda. Oh,the irony!
But why are you so eager to work for free to one of the sides anyway?
 
Not to mention his outstanding work in helping free political prisoners in Russia and speaking out of oppression of Arabs in Iran is rooted in his desire to see Israel win this war. Oh and his advocacy for Darfur victims is clearly a case of Zionism. Friggin Jews....

That is remarkably aligned with the intervention agenda of a certain group of people known as the "neocon hawks" in the US,, I believe. Preemptive wars to destroy WMD, er, liberate oppressed peoples, the evil russian bogeyman, etc...
Really, follow the money. I'm not bothering to research it now, but who do you think funds all those think-tanks and foundations?
Most of those organizations are not in the business of helping others, they're in the business of furthering the business interests (or their government proxies) funding them.

The UNSC, at leats, unlike many of those obscure organizations, has a clear membership and affiliation and works as an effective diplomatic forum. To criticize it is to criticize all of its permanent members and the majority of the elected members. Are national politics less democratic and more obscure that small self-righteous organizations? There's no point in criticizing the UNSC, criticism can only be directed at the governments represent represented there.
 
That is remarkably aligned with the intervention agenda of a certain group of people known as the "neocon hawks" in the US,, I believe. Preemptive wars to destroy WMD, er, liberate oppressed peoples, the evil russian bogeyman, etc...
Really, follow the money. I'm not bothering to research it now, but who do you think funds all those think-tanks and foundations?
Most of those organizations are not in the business of helping others, they're in the business of furthering the business interests (or their government proxies) funding them.

The UNSC, at leats, unlike many of those obscure organizations, has a clear membership and affiliation and works as an effective diplomatic forum. To criticize it is to criticize all of its permanent members and the majority of the elected members. Are national politics less democratic and more obscure that small self-righteous organizations? There's no point in criticizing the UNSC, criticism can only be directed at the governments represent represented there.

So what's a criticism of a critic :confused:
 
No one likes Jews.

I do though. If I had the chance, I would have gotten with this cute Jewish girl. MMM-MMM!
 
Well, yes, Israel is a criminal state that is completely unaccountable and therefore a great shame for the international community.
 
Well, yes, Israel is a criminal state that is completely unaccountable and therefore a great shame for the international community.

There is merit to what you say, but human rights issues are confined to Gaza and the West Bank. Compared to the amount of abuse in the world, Israel gets a disproportionate amount of criticism.
 
I don't know about the actual war on the ground, but Israel at least prepared the propaganda war much better this time than it did in 2006.

No, people are just realizing that Israel is right. People who see this "wave of propaganda" are actually awakening to reality. Embrace the truth.

Well, yes, Israel is a criminal state that is completely unaccountable and therefore a great shame for the international community.

If this statement applies to anyone, it's Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Palestine. Be real.
 
Top Bottom