UN Commissioner for Human Rights Undermines Human Rights

Today witnessed yet another example of the bias the UN has shown toward Israel. The UN's press office released a statement on conditions facing Palestinian refugees. The statement noted closures in the Gaza Strip but made no mention whatsoever of the Palestinian terrorism that made such closures necessary.

Relevant excerpts on that matter follow:

There was an increasing gap in the "rhetoric of peace and what people had to face on the ground every day", Mr. Grandi [Deputy Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, Filippo Grandi] said.

Gaza was the most blatant example of that. The immediate causes of the crisis were relatively simple: closures around the Gaza Strip to impede the flow of goods – including to a certain extent humanitarian goods – and people. In January 2007, according to UNRWA's figures, some 14,000 to 15,000 trucks had passed Gaza borders; in January 2008, only 1,800 trucks had been allowed through. The most serious aspect of the crisis was the energy shortage. The director of a large public hospital in Gaza told him last week that he could no longer deal with the health problems of the population, as he had to spend his whole day looking for fuel. Without it, the generators would stop and vital structures, such as incubators for infants, would shut down. UNRWA had, at various times, run out of paper to print textbooks; run out of cement to complete over $100 million in construction projects; run out of nylon bags used to distribute food; run out of meat; and run out of cash to pay employees. True, those shortages were eventually made up – but very, very late and as a result of a lot of negotiations. To run such a vast operation, catering to so many who were heavily dependent on aid, was very, very difficult indeed.

I lost all faith and confidence in the United Nations eons ago. Today's UN is not even a shadow of the organization envisaged at its inception. It caters to political blocks, and is an international podium for every tin-pot dictator and repressive regime on terra firma. Biased, corrupt, and ineffective.

I, too, have no respect for the UN. As an organization, it is totally polticized. It's bias is clear on a number of fronts, as is it's ineffectiveness.

A report written by UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard and published on January 21, 2008 again reveals the UN Human Rights Council's anti-Israel bias. The report makes some incredible but baseless charges.

The report argues:

Common sense, however, dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid, or military occupation. While such acts cannot be justified, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation.

In other words, according to Mr. Dugard, acts of terrorism carried out by Al Qaeda are unjustifiable but terrorism by such groups as Hamas against israel can be rationalized. Moreover, he legitimizes Hamas' acts of terrorism as part of a "war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid, or military occupation." Yet, if Mr. Dugard had taken the time to examine Hamas' Charter, the terrorist group seeks not "liberation," but only Israel's destruction. According to the general usage of the English language, not to mention the world's other languages, there is a distinction between "national liberation" and "destruction" of another country.

His analogies to colonialism and apartheid demonstrate a lack of historical understanding of colonialism and apartheid and a disregard for those who suffered under apartheid or colonialism. His description of "military occupation" ignores the reality that Israel completely disengaged from the Gaza Strip and that Israel's current military measures are wholly necessary to defend its civilians against continuing acts of terrorism.

Mr. Duggard also writes, "Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context. This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end." Again, Mr. Duggard could not be farther off the proverbial mark. Israel fully disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Yet, the terrorism continued. The fact that the terrorism continued and then increased markedly escapes Mr. Dugard's mention. Of course, even if he were to acknowledge such realities, he had already rationalized them earlier in the report.

Mr. Dugard adds, "In the present international climate it is easy for a State to justify its repressive measures as a response to terrorism--and to expect a sympathetic hearing. Israel exploits the present international fear of terrorism to the full." Such language seeks to deprive Israel of its inherent right of self-defense. Such a demand is a violation of any state's sovereignty. It is wholly unreasonable and unconscionable. The fact that he grossly mischaracterizes Israel's defensive measures merely compounds the anti-Israel bias contained in Mr. Dugard's report.

Mr. Dugard should be condemned for his flagrant expression of bias and his malicious analogies. He could also be criticized by the environmentally-conscious for his waste of paper. His continuing role within the United Nations will only further damage that body's diminishing integrity.

In the end, Mr. Dugard does no favor to the cause of human rights by his minimizing Apartheid and colonialism through his ill-founded comparisons, his equating pursuit of destruction of a sovereign state as an act of "national liberation," and his rationalizing terrorism as an inevitable response to a victim's defending itself against terrorists. Moreover, by rationalizing terrorism and attempting to undermine the victim's right of self-defense, he makes it more difficult for any Middle East peace process to become viable.

In my view, Israel should make clear that there are consequences for such irresponsible and malicious acts. It should bar Mr. Dugard and the UN Human Rights Council from its soil. Other nations who value human rights and seek peace should do likewise. So long as such individuals or entities bear no penalties for the consequences of their destructive acts, they will continue to engage in such malicious acts.

Zionism is racism.

Tashah said:

Today's UN is not even a shadow of the organization envisaged at its inception.

Click to expand...

A puppet world government for the winners of world war 2?

CaptainCourtesy said:

I, too, have no respect for the UN. As an organization, it is totally polticized. Its bias is clear on a number of fronts, as is its ineffectiveness.

Click to expand...

The UN is only as effective as the nations that support it. If the UN votes for military action, and the US veto's it, it isn't effective. Or, are you stating that the UN is ineffective because it fails to carry out your policies and political ideals?

As donsutherland1 poignantly pointed out above, the UN is a highly biased organization. It is also corrupt as evidenced by the scandalous Oil for Food Program in which millions of Iraqi petro-dollars were laundered and embezzeled.

MarcusMagnus said:

Zionism is racism.

Click to expand...

Zionism is not racism. Attempts to deny the Jewish people alone of national expression is an act of discrimination. All peoples everywhere have a right of national expression. Zionism, the support for Israel's re-establishment and then later its wellbeing, is anything but racist.

donsutherland1 said:

Zionism is not racism. Attempts to deny the Jewish people alone of national expression is an act of discrimination. All peoples everywhere have a right of national expression. Zionism, the support for Israel's re-establishment and then later its wellbeing, is anything but racist.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's also denies non-jews, in particularly Palestinians from any right to live where they are.
Zionism from the political right of Israel has become a call to arms for continued satellite settlements which are one of the major obstacles in peace talks between Israel and Palestine. Anytime you link some form of political movement with some kind of divine right you're going to see serious consequences and bloodshed.