First, Haaretz reports:
The United Nations Human Rights Council passed three resolutions on Wednesday condemning Israel over its policies related to what it called Palestinian and Syrian territories, but the United States voted against them all.
A further resolution, calling for a fund to compensate Palestinians who suffered losses during Israel’s offensive in Gaza 14 months ago, is expected to be passed on Thursday.
Much can be learned about international diplomacy from reading UN debates, press releases, and resolutions. From the general debate on the “human rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories”, many representatives spoke in the debate. From the press release:
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Spain on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Sudan on behalf of the Arab Group, Bahrain, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Russian Federation, Cuba, the United States, Bangladesh, Turkey, Oman, Morocco, Algeria, Switzerland, Malaysia, Iceland, Yemen, Kuwait, Libya, Iran, Sri Lanka, League of Arab States, Tunisia, Sudan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.
Also speaking were representatives of Union of Arab Jurists, United Nations Watch, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches, and the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations.
Speaking in a right of reply were Israel, Palestine, Algeria, Iran, and Lebanon.
Of the 26 countries that spoke, 18 were Muslim or Arab countries. From the remaining 8, the following 3 are notable: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Russia, and Cuba. Here are some of the highlights:
The most hypocritical statement that afternoon came from Egypt:
HISHAM BADR (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed grave concern about the unilateral measures by Israel aimed at altering the status and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, its continuation of unlawful settlement activities and its illegal blockade on the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza. That blockade was the cause of the current severe humanitarian crisis, impeding reconstruction and depriving the Gaza population from the full range of their human rights…
… Israel had ignored all human rights guaranteed by international documents and had ignored the realities – not just the geographical ones, but also the cultural rights of those people – as seen by the annexation of the Bilal Mosque (Rachel’s tomb) …
Words in Italics are my addition.
The US still acting like the Council has credibility:
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States) said the Council had too often been exploited as a platform from which to single out Israel, while ignoring other significant human rights situations. That unbalanced approach had undermined the credibility of the Council, and the United States strongly encouraged it to eliminate the institutional bias embodied by that agenda item and cease convening highly politicized and unconstructive special sessions focusing solely on alleged violations of international law by Israel. The unbalanced attention devoted to Israel was unconstructive for the larger peace process, and also came at the cost of diminishing the ability of Council members to focus on other urgent and pressing problems around the world. The human rights record of States should be scrutinized under a common rubric, rather than having a separate standing agenda item for a specific country. All Governments were responsible for abiding by their international human rights law obligations. Israel, like every other country, should examine its own human rights record and the Palestinians should examine their human rights record. The Council should develop a more constructive approach to these issues and the United States would work to ensure that it was tackling the critical human rights issues of this era.
Qatar:
All of that reflected the need for the recommendations of the Goldstone report to be applied to bring an end to the culture of impunity. Moreover, the economic, social and cultural rights of Syrian detainees in Golan Heights should be respected. However, that could not be achieved unless Israel retreated to the lines of 1947.
1947? I’m afraid they are not joking.
Bahrain:
It condemned the fact that Israel had decided to build a Synagogue very near an Islamic holy site
Kuwait:
Israel had passed at least 21 bills discriminating against Palestinians.
From NGO -UN Watch:
BETHANY SINGER-BAEFSKY, of United Nations Watch, recalled that in 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had voiced disappointment at the Council for singling out Israel as the only item on the agenda. That agenda item had been opposed by a number of democracies. Each of the resolutions was one sided, politicised and unfair. Each turned a blind eye to Hezbollah and Hamas. Each ignored terrorism. Each gave a free pass to their State sponsors Iran and Syria. United Nations Watch opposed that resolution because it would not lead to peace in the region. Such resolutions attacked the spirit of peace, moderation and reason. They disregarded morality and truth. By perpetuating the Goldstone report, these resolutions lay the ground for further injustice. All those who supported human rights and opposed terrorism must vote no.
Also speaking:
KLAUS NETTER, of Coordination Board of Jewish Organizations, in a joint statement with B’nai B’rith International, said the Human Rights Council was engaged in its thrice-annual ritual on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, leading to a multitude of resolutions lambasting Israel, all of which would be adopted without difficulty by the well-organised majority dominating the Council. The 2011 Review of the Council’s work should be used to eliminate this egregious item from the permanent agenda – this would strengthen the credibility of the Council, whose most obvious symptom of selectivity, politicisation and one-sidedness was the maintenance of this item on its permanent agenda. The Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations looked forward to the report of the inquiry commission established by the Palestinian Authority to react to the accusations levelled at Hamas by the Goldstone report and hoped it would be as thorough and self-critical as the one submitted by Israel.
Conclusion?
Recent Comments