|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 31, 2007 21:53:28 GMT -5
(h/t to Sweetness and Light @ www.sweetness-light.com/archive/a-speech-the-united-nations-doesnt-want-you-to-hear ) This is the text of a speech given before the United Nations Human Rights Council by Hillel Neuer 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 dictators 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? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.
Thank you, Mr. President.All I can say is WOW! Do you think Mr. Neuer would be our next UN Ambassador? Oh...and did the MSM bother to cover this speech at all? Certainly one could not expect they'd cover it like they did Chavez' anti-Bush speech there or any of Arafat's speeches there, but didn't a speech that 'speaks truth to power' as this one did merit at least some coverage? Or does a speech at the UN have to be anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Israel- or, better yet, all three!- to get covered? (link to video of the speech: www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367&msource=UNWnews&tr=y&auid=2501956 ) (link to United Nations Watch website: www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1277549/k.BF70/Home.htm )
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on Apr 3, 2007 20:29:41 GMT -5
Awesome!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 21:25:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 10:25:51 GMT -5
Blondie, are you actually disputing what is being said in the OP?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 12:01:13 GMT -5
Blondie, are you actually disputing what is being said in the OP? Not in whole. Just the zany conspiracy theory. "Why has this Council chosen silence? Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights."
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 12:47:29 GMT -5
So why do you feel the Council has chosen silence?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 14:24:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 14:33:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 14:46:11 GMT -5
So, you're saying this: "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." could be just a paperwork issue? I'm not sure what you're really saying in regards to that. Are you excusing the UN?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 15:38:58 GMT -5
So, you're saying this: "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." could be just a paperwork issue? I'm not sure what you're really saying in regards to that. Are you excusing the UN? What are you implying? The UN's a bunch of Nazis? Israel is a member of the UN. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 15:53:50 GMT -5
What are you implying? The UN's a bunch of Nazis? Israel is a member of the UN. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't. Are you just trying to play games? I'm just trying to verify where it is you stand on this. Hamas and Hezbollah not being a part of the UN has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is why has the UN singled out Israel for resolutions when there are so many other atrocities going on around the world that they are ignoring. You made a sarcastic post that seemed to support them in doing so and I'm just trying to get you to give a straight answer as to why you feel that way. Of course, getting a straight answer out of you is always like pulling teeth but I feel like playing dentist today.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 16:27:38 GMT -5
Are you just trying to play games? I'm just trying to verify where it is you stand on this. Hamas and Hezbollah not being a part of the UN has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is why has the UN singled out Israel for resolutions when there are so many other atrocities going on around the world that they are ignoring. You made a sarcastic post that seemed to support them in doing so and I'm just trying to get you to give a straight answer as to why you feel that way. Of course, getting a straight answer out of you is always like pulling teeth but I feel like playing dentist today. I don't think Israel is being singled out: www.un.org/documents/scres.htmThe only objective source I could find about the Israeli Palestinian situation is the UN. So I guess I only have a circular argument. 2007 UN Human Rights Report Condemns Israeli Treatment of Palestinians
The UN’s Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, has issued a harshly critical report on Israel’s human rights record in regards to its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
“The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights - colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation,” Dugard says. In his 24-page report, which will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly for debate on 15 March 2006, the South African lawyer accuses Israel of all three.
Occupation
Israel is clearly guilty of occupying another nation. Dugard also refutes Israel’s claim that, since its ‘disengagement’ in 2005, it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel controls all the borders, air space and sea space surrounding the Strip, in addition to carrying out numerous military incursions and air strikes into the Strip, thereby continuing to be the occupying power.
Apartheid
Furthermore, Dugard says Israel’s discriminatory practises towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. He says in his report: “Discrimination against Palestinians occurs in many fields. Moreover, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid appears to be violated by many practices, particularly those denying freedom of movement to Palestinians.”
Dugard harshly criticises Israel’s system of checkpoints and barriers across the occupied West Bank, which makes freedom of movement and trade impossible. In particular, he criticises the arbitrary nature of the restrictions. “There is a secret list with some 180,000 names of security risks who may not pass through a checkpoint,” Dugard says, “But no notice is served on such a person on this list until he arrives at a checkpoint”; this means “it is left to Palestinians to find out by trial and error whether they will be allowed to pass through a checkpoint on a particular day”. As a result, “An arbitrary and capricious regime prevails.”
Dugard warns Israel that, “In apartheid South Africa, a similar system designed to restrict the free movement of blacks - the notorious “pass laws” - created more anger and hostility to the apartheid regime than any other measure. Israel would do well to learn from this experience.”
Dugard singles out Israel’s illegal separation wall as one of Israel’s most apartheid-like tools. He says, “It has become abundantly clear that the Wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers.”
In regard to Jerusalem and the wall, Dugard says: “The 75 km Wall being built in East Jerusalem is an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem by reducing the number of Palestinians in the city. The Wall is being built through Palestinian neighbourhoods, separating Palestinians from Palestinians, in a manner that cannot conceivably be justified on security grounds.”
Dugard depicts in particular the absurd plight of the inhabitants of Ar-Ram neighbourhood of northeast Jerusalem: “Some 60,000 people live in the suburb of Ar-Ram just outside the municipal boundary of Jerusalem. About half of the residents are Jerusalemites who left Jerusalem because of the restrictions placed on Palestinians’ building houses in the city. They are completely dependent on Jerusalem for work, education and hospitals. Yet now they are surrounded by the Wall and cut off from Jerusalem. To get to work, school or hospital they must travel a circuitous route of several kilometres and pass through the international terminal-like checkpoint at Qalandiya, and they may only do this if they have the correct permit. A journey that previously took them minutes is now extended into hours.”
Colonialism
He also accuses Israel of carrying out illegal, colonial practises, saying, “The Occupied Palestinian Territory is the only instance of a developing country that is denied the right of self-determination and oppressed by a Western-affiliated State.” He singles out the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a new form of colonialism. Furthermore, noting that Israel has appropriated agricultural land and water resources in the West Bank for its own use, Dugard says that, “This aspect of Israel’s exploitation of the West Bank appears to be a form of colonialism of the kind declared to be a denial of fundamental human rights and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations as recalled in the General Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 (Resolution 1514 XV).” He suggests the case be referred to the International Court of Justice.
War crimes
Dugard accuses both Israeli military personnel and Palestinian militants of war crimes, pointing out that the state of Israel has the greater responsibility: “Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked.”
While condemning the Palestinian launching of homemade Qassam rockets into Israel, Dugard says, “Israel’s response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes.”
As for Israel’s policy of demolishing residential buildings in the Gaza Strip suspected of housing weapons, preceded by a warning issued over the telephone shortly before the air strike, Dugard describes this act as a “policy of terrorism by telephone.” In regards to the Palestinians’ collective act of gathering on the roof of a targeted building in a form of ‘human shield’, Dugard says, “Voluntary, collective action of this kind can at most be categorized as an act of civil disobedience against the occupying Power.”
Dugard describes the imprisonment of the Gaza Strip’s 1.4 million inhabitants behind Israeli-controlled borders as “a controlled strangulation that apparently falls within the generous limits of international toleration.”
The UN rapporteur also describes the racist attacks carried out by some Israeli settlers against Palestinians. “Undoubtedly the most aggravated settler behaviour occurs in Hebron,” Dugard says, “where Palestinian schoolchildren are assaulted and humiliated on their way to schools, shopkeepers are beaten and residents live in fear of settler terror.” Dugard adds that, despite rulings by Israel’s High Court of Justice that it is the duty of the Israeli military to protect Palestinian farmers from settlers, “there is still evidence that the IDF turns a blind eye to settler violence and, on occasion, collaborates with the settlers in harassing and humiliating Palestinians.”
In regards to Israel’s policy of extrajudicial killing, or targeted assassinations, of ‘terrorists’ wanted by the state of Israel, Dugard describes this practise as “the death penalty on a wide scale through the back door “.
Palestine, a test for the West
Dugard concludes that the case of human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory has come to resemble a ‘test’ for the West, by which its commitment to human rights is to be judged. He recognises that numerous other nations in the developing world suppress human rights, but Israel is the only “Western-affiliated regime” allowed to get away with it. Dugard warns, “If the West fails this test, it can hardly expect the developing world to address human rights violations seriously in its own countries, and the West appears to be failing this test.”
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 4, 2007 16:38:05 GMT -5
The only objective source I could find about the Israeli Palestinian situation is the UN. So I guess I only have a circular argument. If you're calling the UN "objective" (which I'm not surprised that you are), then you have NO argument....
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 16:49:15 GMT -5
I don't think Israel is being singled out: No? Then why didn't you dispute what was said in the OP? Instead it appears you're justifying the idea that the UN would be acting appropriately in singling out Israel. Is this the point you were trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 20:52:22 GMT -5
[If you're calling the UN "objective" (which I'm not surprised that you are), then you have NO argument.... More objective than an angry Jew on YouTube. Of course the UN is objective as a whole. It's the collective of every country on Earth. What do you think it's full of a bunch of straw man Democrats. No, no. I bet you think it's the future home of the Antichrist. It's virtually impossible to find an objective source about the Israel Palestine situation. The UN is as good as it gets. I'd be curious to see some Chinese source but it's sure to agree with the UN.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 4, 2007 21:05:36 GMT -5
No? Then why didn't you dispute what was said in the OP? Instead it appears you're justifying the idea that the UN would be acting appropriately in singling out Israel. Is this the point you were trying to make? I know Israel thinks they are fighting for their survival. But they fight dirty: www.youtube.com/watch?v=w27mndOwBqg
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 4, 2007 22:10:12 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question. Also, if you had most of the countries around you saying they wanted to wipe you off the face of the earth, wouldn't you feel like you were fighting for you survival? Think about that.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Apr 5, 2007 3:48:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Apr 5, 2007 3:54:27 GMT -5
The UN is worse. At the very least, Hitler gave prior notice about his plans. The UN operates under great subterfuge. Oh..........and the Nazis at least had cool uniforms.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 5, 2007 14:40:13 GMT -5
Why do conservatives hate the UN? Is it because it's full of foreigners? This guy used to be part of the UN. Does he not count? Is this the face of evil? www.un.int/usa/
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 5, 2007 17:06:36 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between hating something and having no trust in it. Maybe you should try that question again.
According to the left.....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 5, 2007 17:41:28 GMT -5
I happened to catch John Bolton on "The daily Show" the other night.
Bolton absolutely handed Stewart his ASS.....I'll be very surprised if Stewart ever invites Bolton on his program again because Bolton did reveal that the 'emperor' (Stewart) 'has no clothes'.
I especially loved one of Bolton's comebacks.
After correcting Stewart once again, Bolton actually got some applause. Stewart seemed surprised that anyone might approve of anything someone on the Right may say.
Bolton said something like "How'd they get in here?", pointing to the fact that Stewart, like Maher (and Hillary Clinton for that matter) take great pains to pack their crowds with ideological fanbois.
Bolton was a 'part of the United Nations' only to the extent that an exterminator is part of a bug infestation.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 6, 2007 10:22:29 GMT -5
I happened to catch John Bolton on "The daily Show" the other night. Bolton absolutely handed Stewart his ASS.....I'll be very surprised if Stewart ever invites Bolton on his program again because Bolton did reveal that the 'emperor' (Stewart) 'has no clothes'. Are you serious? You need to expand your info sources beyond the Faux News channel. Funny: www.devilducky.com/media/59510/
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 6, 2007 15:50:25 GMT -5
I'm very serious.
Stewart looked more wooden than Al Gore...and that's a pretty high standard to exceed.
Bolton absolutely OWNED John Stewart.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 7, 2007 10:13:05 GMT -5
I'm very serious. Stewart looked more wooden than Al Gore...and that's a pretty high standard to exceed. Bolton absolutely OWNED John Stewart. I like John Stewart, but he's just a comedian. Bolton did hold his own in front of a hostel audience. I think Stewart was surprised he wasn't the straw man the left has painted him as. OWNED is pretty strong though.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 7, 2007 11:33:46 GMT -5
blondie...
do you know what "straw man" is???
you consistently misapply the term....
you seem to think "straw man" is same as "whipping boy"....
there IS a difference....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 7, 2007 14:33:30 GMT -5
blondie-
I agree that Jon Stewart is a comedian.
However, to say he is "just" a comedian is to downplay the impact his show has on particularly young people (the under 25 crowd).
They don't see him as a comedian. They take him very seriously...almost like people took Cronkite seriously back in the 1960s (smaller demographic group to be sure but the sentiment towards them is much the same). If Stewart's true 'Faux News" reports that they should approve of this liberal idea or liberal personage, they do so because he applauds them. If he mocks an idea or person on the Right, well then the young'uns take that as their marching orders too.
At one time, I blamed Stewart for that because, at first, I think he really did try to be more than a comedian and desire to be given some credibility as a 'journalist' (since the standards for journalism are so low these days, it's not the stretch one might think it is). I think he's backed away from that- much as Charles Barkley did in his "I am not a role model" commercial- but the fans haven't followed his lead this time.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on Apr 7, 2007 22:17:55 GMT -5
The UN is NOT our friend. If you delve into things you will see why. Did you know that the No child left behind" is actually tied to the UN?
Here are a few buzz words to look out for...
sustainable development agenda 21 local agenda 21 Multiculturism Diversity
This does not even touch the tip of the iceburg. Why do we need someone telling us or making laws for what should be commmon sense? I judge people by charater, however, if they are going to start screaming that I HAVE to accept what I do not believe, then we have an issue. I do NOT force my believes on anyone else and I resent the hell out of others doing this. Those that do this are NOT helping their cause, they are alienating those that might have sympathized.
The more you get in my face the more I will turn away from your issue.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 7, 2007 22:32:52 GMT -5
Who would've thought that John Birch had it right?
dixie- I agree: the United Nations is NOT our friend.
Nor is it the friend of any true liberal democracy around the world.
It is a friend to socialists, despots, tyrants, terrorists and dictators the world over.
I don't think the United States is actively working with the United Nations- as evidence, why would Bush have appointed John Bolton as our UN Ambassador if he wanted someone who 'plays well with others'?
I think that Bush really expects that, with a bit of hard work and the right people in place, he can bring the United Nations around to a viewpoint that embraces true Western-style freedom and liberty.
A Fool's Errand perhaps...but one that, were it realized, would be to the benefit of us all.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on Apr 7, 2007 23:03:13 GMT -5
W.O.M.I. you definitely see things for what they are! Good on ya!
|
|