So this supposedly reformed UN Council on Human Rights, the one that John Bolton said wasn’t good enough, but Kofi Annan said was much better than the previous one? It just voted to condemn Israel in every single council session.
The new UN Human Rights Council voted Friday to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session.
The resolution, which was sponsored by Islamic countries, was passed by a vote of 29-12, with five abstentions. It effectively revives a practice of the UN’s dissolved Human Rights Commission, which also reviewed alleged Israeli abuses every time it met.
Yes, that’s right: Every single time.
Arab and Muslim countries succeeded in obtaining the signatures of one-third of the 47 Council members in order to hold a special discussion on “human rights violations by Israel in the territories†during the Council’s first session.
In the temperamental discussion, the Arab and Muslim bloc proposed a resolution according to which the Council’s inspectors would prepare a report on the Israeli violations of human rights in the territories for the Council’s next session scheduled for September.
In addition, the Israeli violations issue will also be discussed on a permanent basis every time the Council convenes. The next sessions are expected in December and in March, but one-third of the members will be able to summon special discussions, as they did Friday.
So let’s see. The UN reforms are actually not reforms. There is no financial reform. There is no real reform of the Human Rights Commission, as this Council has already proven as corrupt and useless as the previous Commission. And Kofi Annan is counseling patience.
Yeah. Same-old, same-old. I wrote about the UN’s bias against Israel what, four years ago? The more things change….
What if Israel simply stopped sending representatives to UN meetings? Stopped recognising the legitimacy of the UN? (Or it’s “right to exist?”) What’s really the worst that could happen?
I don’t know why the US doesn’t kick the UN off our soil. Then again, the current administration keeps asking the Israelis to be “balanced” in their response. I dunno, but it someone killed a member of my family, my balanced response would include not dismembering the body of the assailant before I buried it and then salted the earth.
The UN helped form Israel after WWII. I’ve long been convinced that they did this not out of the goodness of its heart, but rather a desire to gather all the Jews in one place for easier picking.
Is it wrong to say that I wish the Israelis weren’t so civilized?
The UN is broken. Really broken. Still its mere existence does serve various purposes such as allowing countries to voice their opinions (thus putting their intentions on the strategic radar screen).
Dictatorships have served humanity for many millenia and in various marketing packages. I do think it has outlived its usefulness – especially in this time of Nuclear Weaponry. Democracy does seem to be the next step in the evolutionary process of the social ‘sciences’.
It would be nice if the WOT would eventually morph into an overarching strategy of ridding the entire world of Dictatorships as they seem to be the areas where the troubles all come from (Cuba, Venezuela, Myanmar, Muslim Countries in general, various African Countries, etc…)
Maybe we should have an UN for Democracies only. But then, we won’t know what the dictatorships are doing either…
Pingback: Liberty and Justice
Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard
I don’t know, cond, dictatorships aren’t actually all that shy about what they’re doing, if you’ll actually listen.
True Eric, but most people don’t listen or read (Mein Kampf was enlightening to the few who read and took it seriously). Look at the way the Western media refuses to understand Hamas’ N-O, as Meryl has been pointing out for so long.
There are limits to the greatest power. That is why idealism has to be tempered by prudence and national interest. It would be nice if the vicious thugs of Myanmar were stood against a wall and democracy instituted there, but they are no threat to us or to their neighbors. They are safe from US wrath as long as they keep their noses clean.
The hope of the Bush strategy is that democracy in Iraq will have a demonstration effect elsewhere in a region traditionally ruled by murderous thugs. If we help catalyze the spread of halfway decent consensual government by supporting the reformers we look forward to removing the real roots of terrorism, which lie in the dysfunctional political culture of the Arab and Iranian world. This may not work, but it is the best plan to start with. The alternatives are a lot messier and bloodier, especially for the Arabs and Iranians.
One of the many things Bush’s anti-war critics miss is that if we fail there will be a knock-on effect that will discredit democracy far beyond Iraq. Many people will conclude that democracy does not work and establish more…ah…muscular forms of government. This has happened before, more than once. It happened after we lost in Vietnam. It is a tribute to the ignorance, absence of wit, and lack of imagination of the anti-war lefties that they do not comprehend this simple fact. Or perhaps, like International ANSWER, they are copacetic with the spread of fascism, red, green or black.
I would say that the correct response would be to not salt the earth. Instead, I would plant and Etrog (citron – for a Jewish religious ritual) tree to take advantage of the fertilizer that is all such people are good for.