Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    The UNHRC is a farce.
    Claiming that Israel gets disproportionately more interest from the HRC is not the same as saying that the attention isn't warranted. Nor is it the same as saying that their analyses are wrong.

    Israel was always going to get more attention from the UN simply because of how and when the Arab-Israeli conflict started (so close to the UN's birth and with the UN so deeply involved), and it has become something of a yardstick by which the UN's effectiveness (or lack thereof) is measured. The attention continues to snowball because Israel acts with impunity whilst violating more UN resolutions than any other nation on Earth. We maybe heading towards the birth of the peace process in September, fingers crossed. There are lots of things the UN could be doing with the resources it uses on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I for one hope to see Israel and Palestine at peace this time next year.

    Comment


    • #62
      Find any example of any other international law overiding the LOAC.

      Gaza as distinict from the rest of the territories occupies a grau area as regards occupied and as aninternational conflict.

      Comment


      • #63
        Find any example of any other international law overiding the LOAC.

        Gaza as distinict from the rest of the territories occupies a grau area as regards occupied and as aninternational conflict.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
          Claiming that Israel gets disproportionately more interest from the HRC is not the same as saying that the attention isn't warranted. Nor is it the same as saying that their analyses are wrong.

          Israel was always going to get more attention from the UN simply because of how and when the Arab-Israeli conflict started (so close to the UN's birth and with the UN so deeply involved), and it has become something of a yardstick by which the UN's effectiveness (or lack thereof) is measured. The attention continues to snowball because Israel acts with impunity whilst violating more UN resolutions than any other nation on Earth. We maybe heading towards the birth of the peace process in September, fingers crossed. There are lots of things the UN could be doing with the resources it uses on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I for one hope to see Israel and Palestine at peace this time next year.
          To be honest, I'm all for the unilateral declaration. Then the entire world will see how even with the Fatah-Hamas agreement (which has already collapsed, more or less), and according to Abbas' own words, the PA can't stand on it's own two feet. Then what?

          The difference is, even if the PA declares, we won't immediately roll in with the declared intent of killing every single last one of them
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #65
            Dubitante,

            UN General Assembly (UNGA) is founder of UNHRC, was that report presented AND accepted by UNGA?
            To be more specific, after this document was published, what happened with the findings within?

            From what I have read this Report was prepared only from Turkish and Jordanian facts and evidence, since Israel wasn't cooperative (Mission's words). This is like forming an eminent commission to find if there was an UFO landing based on facts from UFO believers, since X government wasn't cooperative.
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Find any example of any other international law overiding the LOAC.
              I think we're talking at cross purposes. What you refer to as "LOAC" I assume to mean "Laws of Armed Conflict". In legal circles, this is more commonly referred to as International Humanitarian Law. This is precisely the set of laws that we're both talking about, we're just using different terminology. And International Humanitarian Law is distinct from International Law. The analysis of the illegality of the blockade was carried out under what you refer to as LOAC.

              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Gaza as distinict from the rest of the territories occupies a grau area as regards occupied and as aninternational conflict.
              You're right that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is an IAC, but even if I accept that Gaza is separate (which I don't, excepting the obvious lack of contiguity) it doesn't alter the fact that it is under Israeli occupation, therefore Israeli control - hence Article 51 does not apply.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                To be honest, I'm all for the unilateral declaration. Then the entire world will see how even with the Fatah-Hamas agreement (which has already collapsed, more or less), and according to Abbas' own words, the PA can't stand on it's own two feet. Then what?
                Put bluntly, it's not really Israel's business is it? The theft of land and the brutal occupation has to stop. Give the Palestinians their right to self determination and let's support them.

                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                The difference is, even if the PA declares, we won't immediately roll in with the declared intent of killing every single last one of them
                Erm....good. :)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
                  Israel was always going to get more attention from the UN simply because of how and when the Arab-Israeli conflict started (so close to the UN's birth and with the UN so deeply involved), and it has become something of a yardstick by which the UN's effectiveness (or lack thereof) is measured. The attention continues to snowball because Israel acts with impunity whilst violating more UN resolutions than any other nation on Earth. We maybe heading towards the birth of the peace process in September, fingers crossed. There are lots of things the UN could be doing with the resources it uses on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I for one hope to see Israel and Palestine at peace this time next year.
                  That is the most absurd arguement i have ever heard. It takes two to tango. Israel wasn't fighting a civil war there were other parties involved why is no attention being given to their attrocities? I guess Israel allowing enough supplies into Gaza for the Redmant to declare that there is no crisis in Gaza is worse than Syria gunning down its own children and Gaddafi raping his own daughters and mothers. Do you honestly think we don't know the bias of the so called UNHRC?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Actually, the UN has a documented institutional bias against Israel
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
                      The theft of land and the brutal occupation has to stop. Give the Palestinians their right to self determination and let's support them.
                      The theft of land you are talking about is in your mind. Israel is where it is now for defensive purposes. When peace negotiations have been completed whatever would have been agreed Israel will implement, even if it means uprooting its citizens. Otherwise as things stand both West bank and Gaza are under Israel control and therefore they are not stealing anything from anyone.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                        Actually, the UN has a documented institutional bias against Israel
                        The fact that you don't like what's in those documents doesn't mean they are biased ;)
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The LOAC is not humanitarian law.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
                            The attention continues to snowball because Israel acts with impunity whilst violating more UN resolutions than any other nation on Earth.
                            Yeah right, and how many UNSC resolutions has Iran violated? And still on that, when are we going to see resolutions on Syria, Saudi, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, etc on human rights?
                            Last edited by Zinja; 26 Jun 11,, 00:49. Reason: rephrase

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              The fact that you don't like what's in those documents doesn't mean they are biased ;)
                              Clinton: UNHRC bias against Israe... JPost - Diplomacy & Politics

                              The UNHRC: Hard at work condemnin... JPost - Opinion - Editorials

                              From one of Pari's old posts:

                              As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. The UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticized by some Western countries[who?] for its fixation on Israel while ignoring the actions of neighboring states. This has lead to accusations of the organization being anti-Israeli.[27] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[28][29] Toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern."[28]
                              [edit]Richard Falk
                              Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied"[30] said that the actions of Israel in the Palestinian territories to be unprecedented and found that it has produced immense suffering for Palestinians. He argues that it would not be forgivable if the Human Rights Council overlooked charges of Israeli violation of international humanitarian law. He notes that the HRC has appointed special rapporteurs for other situations, including the DPRK and Myanmar. Falk says that his experience suggests that the Council gives complete freedom to its special rapporteurs to report on a situation and expects adherence to principles of impartiality. [31] Other observers take the view that the Human Rights Council's has an obligation to condemn Israel's violations of international law in keeping with the basic mission of the Council, which is to safeguard human rights. [32]
                              The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of possible 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, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[33]
                              [edit]2006 Lebanon conflict
                              At 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.[34] 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. The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel,"[35] as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah.
                              [edit]Disproportionate attention
                              On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.[36][37]
                              Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day). Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[38]
                              On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[39] The European Union, Canada and the United States were also critical of the Council's focus on Israeli violations.
                              A Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses[citation needed], were removed from a list of nine special mandates. The list, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, had been carried forward from the defunct Commission.[40]
                              [edit]United States representative criticisms
                              The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.[41][42]
                              The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass.[43][44].
                              [edit]Habitual censorship
                              Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.[45]
                              [edit]January 2008 decree
                              The Council released a statement calling on Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip and to open the Strip's borders to allow the entry of food, fuel and medicine. The Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 30 to 1. 15 states abstained.
                              "Unfortunately, neither this resolution nor the current session addressed the role of both parties. It was regretful that the current draft resolution did not condemn the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians," said Canada's representative Terry Cormier, the lone voter against.[46]
                              The United States and Israel boycotted the session. US ambassador Warren Tichenor said the Council's unbalanced approach had "squandered its credibility" by failing to address continued rocket attacks against Israel. "Today's actions do nothing to help the Palestinian people, in whose name the supporters of this session claim to act," he said in a statement. "Supporters of a Palestinian state must avoid the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and actions that this session represents, which only stoke tensions and erode the chances for peace," he added.[47] "We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of the seven EU states on the council.
                              At a press conference in Geneva on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded when asked about its special session on Gaza, that "I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.[48]
                              [edit]Gaza report controversy
                              Aharon Leshno Yaar, Israel ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, accused the latest report on the Gaza War of being solely written to "appease the Arab-controlled Human Rights Council." UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay submitted a report detailing "grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip." The 34 page report was created at the request of the Human Rights Council. Leshno Yaar said Pillay's report was "written by Palestinians in Ramallah" and "screened by Palestinian lawyers in Geneva" to satisfy Palestinian diplomats on the Human Rights Council. Leshno Yaar said the report was "totally biased" and "unsubstantiated." [49][50]
                              I've got more, but I'm goin to sleep now
                              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                UN General Assembly (UNGA) is founder of UNHRC, was that report presented AND accepted by UNGA?
                                To be more specific, after this document was published, what happened with the findings within?
                                It hasn't been submitted to the GA yet, largely due to what I suspect to be political posturing by Turkey. It's still rattling around, and the HRC will be issuing updates this year. Fingers crossed it will become a non-issue.

                                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                From what I have read this Report was prepared only from Turkish and Jordanian facts and evidence, since Israel wasn't cooperative (Mission's words). This is like forming an eminent commission to find if there was an UFO landing based on facts from UFO believers, since X government wasn't cooperative.
                                hmmm, not sure how you formed that impression. The Fact Finding Mission had issued its report after having interviewed 112 witnesses of 120 nationalities, and also included a substantial review of evidence from the Israeli investigation into the assault (Turkel).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X