Human Rights Nightmare

[msmcghee]

Speech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007

Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

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?

<snip>


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 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.

<snip>

My comment: Be sure to read the remarks in response by the president of the Human Rights Council condemning this short speech. The video (link is on the page) is truly gut-wrenching.

[ixion]

1. "Israeli democracy"

:rofl:

that's a total misnomer, similar to "military intelligence"

[msmcghee]

5. That's quite a sense of humor you've got . .

. . Israel being the only nation in that part of the world that actually provides personal and political rights to all its citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.

[breakaleg]

2. This is nothing more than a "hey! look over there" letter. We shouldn't let it detract from what is

going on in the Occupied Territories.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. No, it is a TRUTHFUL letter.

The very idea you think it is a "look over there" letter says much. And, "We shouldn't let it detract from what is going on in the Occupied Territories." is so biased as not to be funny. The Council speaks on almost nothing but the Occupied Territories, that was the point of the letter!

[Shaktimaan]

6. The UN HR Council

is an organization that's vested with the power to investigate and judge nations in the name of protecting human rights everywhere. Do you not think that it is valid to question an organization like this if it uses its powers in a discriminatory fashion? This isn't about what Israel is doing in the territories. It's about elements in the UN taking a supposedly apolitical council and using it to advance a purely political agenda while protecting the world's worst violators of its mission. When I see something like this happening how can I take any judgement the UN doles out seriously anymore? How can I know if any UN report is biased or legitimate? Because according to the UN HR Council, Israel is the worst violator of Human Rights on the planet, many many times over. Since I know that to be untrue, what does it say about the UN?

This is similar to a police force choosing to solely enforce laws when they are violated by a single family. Sure, the Johnson kid DID beat up that guy and take his wallet so he should be investigated. But does it make sense to ignore the Harris family across the street who just murdered the mailman? Or the Smiths on the next block who just massacred their entire street's adults and sold the children into slavery? Let's stop policing those areas, hey what the commissioner doesn't know won't hurt him, huh? (As long as he doesn't walk down near the Smith's place for a quart of milk that is.) Let's just focus all our resources on bringing down these Johnson scum.

Really, it's one thing to have an opinion on I/P conflict. But to defend abuses of UN power like this has no rational explanation. It seems like you are almost saying, "Well, abuse of the HR Council is hurting Israel, and since I don't like Israel I am going to support it. (Or at least refrain from condemning it.) What is "right" or "wrong" in a fundamental sense does not apply here because the ends justify the means where Israel is concerned."

[leftynyc]

38. YOU are complaining about changing the subject???

That's very humerous.

[breakaleg]

47. Hardly.

Just pointing out that directing our attention elsewhere has absolutely no effect on the situation at hand.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. UN Human Rights Council is an international travesty.

Not surprising that so many refuse to see it.

Edit to add this "gem:"

U.N. rights body ends scrutiny of Iran, Uzbekistan

GENEVA, March 26 (Reuters) - The United Nations top human rights body voted on Monday to end routine scrutiny of Iran and Uzbekistan despite accusations of abuse in both countries.

The 47-state Human Rights Council accepted the recommendation of a five-country working party, whose members included Zimbabwe, that they be removed from the so-called 1503 procedure under which accusations of violations are discussed in closed-door, confidential sessions.

The decision had been widely expected because a majority of states on the Council, launched last year to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission, oppose the singling out of individual states for special attention.

"We are very disappointed at the decision. We think that it is deeply regrettable that the Council will not have the opportunity to consider the human rights situation in those countries," a U.S. spokeswoman said.

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL26651812.html">more... (empahsis added)

[Shaktimaan]

8. Why am I not surprised that

Zimbabwe doesn't want any states singled out over HR abuses.

[pelsar]

7. some perspective from the DU

there is a misconception that much of the discussions on the DU are due to concern for the palestenians human rights etc....that is so, but only in a very limited version.

the concern exists in such an emotional version only as it relates to israel. I've asked, and a couple of posters have made it clear to me that their concern is up and only as it relates to the occupation... once that is gone its none of anybodys business (or at least they will be far less concerned if at all) as to the internal violations of the palestinian society.

There is also little or no concern for the implications of a weak PA, a hamas style run state etc....any continuation of the violence is also of less concern as long as there is no israeli occupation.

I've often wondered for the palestinians what would be their preference: occupation or hamas/iran style dictatorship. My own curiosity has led to me to ask many of the posters here what would have been preferable for iran:

the shah or khomeni? obviously i've never received an answer since it has some implications that there may be worse than the occupation. (first thing khomeni did was hang the left liberals that helped bring him into power and put in a theorcratic dicatorship which by almost any measurement is far worse than the shas version of govt)

[Englander]

9. Why not provide the direct link to lgf?

Isn't that where this was found, via the hate-site?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24924_Banned_UN_Speech-_Human_Rights_Nightmare&only

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

16. It can be found on the front page of Ynet

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381839,00.html

[Englander]

23. "This" is the link to UNwatch.org, not just the subject.

The exact same link that appears here, which lgf also has, & which doesn't feature in the Ynet
article.

Also, the date of the DU thread; Mon Mar-26-07 11:28 PM (gmt)

Date of the lgf entry; Monday, March 26, 2007 4:03 PM PDT

Date of the Ynet article; Published: 03.27.07, 15:33

[pelsar]

27. which means..

that the day lgf published and linked to the article...it was unacceptable

when ynet published the very same article...it then became acceptable

hmmmm i wonder what changed in the content to suddenly make it acceptable?.....or perhaps its something else that made it "unacceptable in one place, but acceptable in a different place?

funny thing about it, the actual article didnt change at all, just the container did...i wonder what that implies?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

10. What is he talking about?

He seems to be conflating the new UN HRC with the General Assembly, from what I can infer. The new UN HRC is like 9 months old, and cannot have produced "one resolution after another", and it would not produce "resolutions" in any case, but "statements" or something like that.

[pelsar]

12. perhaps this is more accurate....

The Council also has held two regular sessions, in June and in September. These sessions resulted in only one condemnatory resolution being adopted against any country in the entire world: Israel. That resolution, again drafted by the Arab and Islamic groups, also was opposed by the Council’s Western democracies.

“As of today, the Council has now held more special sessions to denounce Israel than it has held regular sessions concerning everything else in the world,” said Neuer. “And at its regular sessions, it adopted only one resolution against a specific country, denouncing Israel alone among all 192 UN member states–—making that session, in practice and in effect, yet another special session to denounce Israel.”

http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/docs/2006/11/17/un-watch-criticizes-hrc-resolution/

i have no idea who what the website is....i'm assuming the content is accurate

[bemildred]

13. Seems to be the same "UN Watch" people, different site, same source.

I don't want to "defend" the new UN HRC, or attack it, but I would like to see coherent propaganda, from either side, if I'm to take the time to read it. Incoherent venting is a waste of time.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

15. Smearing is smearing, regardless of the target.

Accuracy is important, emotional rants may feel good, but they do nothing. I have no intention of "getting excited" to please you or anyone else. If you enjoy wallowing in emotion, please do, but leave me out of it.

[oberliner]

18. There was no smear and the statements were accurate

Both the former and current Secretary Generals of the UN have expressed similar concerns with the UNHRC.

[eyl]

40. Is the Secretary-General of the UN credible enough for you?

Mr. Annan’s successor, Ban Ki-moon, told a human rights gathering in December that he was “worried by its disproportionate focus on violations by Israel.” The council, he said, “has clearly not justified all the hopes that so many of us placed on it.”

More

[bemildred]

44. No, I'm not impressed with Mr. Ban so far.

Perhaps he is better versed on Asian issues. Perhaps he will grow into the job. But he seems clumsy to me, so far.

[leftynyc]

56. He's got to be better than Annan

who was a jackass.

[bemildred]

57. I'm sorry you disliked Mr. Annan.

I assume you disagreed with some of his positions or statements. You may be surprised to find that even though Mr. Ban proves more malleable, the situation will still continue to get worse.

[oberliner]

17. What he is talking about

By the beginning of 2007, the Council had spent much of its three regular meetings and four special sessions focusing almost exclusively on the actions of only one country, Israel. The Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, and none condemning any other country. More resolutions targeting Israel have been proposed for the upcoming session.

They produce resolutions at their sessions not statements.

[bemildred]

19. I see nothing about resolutions.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/pr_hrc.htm

They do seem deeply interested in Israel and its doings, but then you would be the first to admit it's an important issue, so I would wager it's their view of the matter that annoys you.

Anyway, that list seems to cover the relevant dates.

[oberliner]

20. Look closer

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/3session/A.HRC.3.L.11.pdf

Note that section II is entitled "Resolutions and Decisons adopted by the Human Rights Council at its third session"

[bemildred]

22. Ah good, a PDF.

I see 4 "Resolutions", of which one is about Lebanon, one about the OPT, and two are of a general nature. The 4 "Decisions" don't seem to address any specifically Middle Eastern issues.

I suppose you can argue they ought to address Darfur or some such place first, but perhaps they will get around to that.

Thanks for finding that.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Resolutions

Special Session 1

A/HRC/S1-1 -- Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Special Session 2

A.HRC.S-2.L.1 -- The grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations

Special Session 3

res_S_3_1 -- Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent one in northern Gaza and the assault on Beit Hanoun


Regular Session 2

A/HRC/RES/2/3 -- Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan

A/HRC/RES/2/4 -- Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan

Regular Session 3

A/HRC/3/L/1/1 -- Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S1/1 (See first link. This can be found on page 3.)

A/HRC/3/L/3/3 -- Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon (On page 6. This is a follow-up of resolution S 2/1, second link)

The resolutions for Regular Session 4 seems to be down, but I did find this: 4th session of the Human Rights Council: Reports

ON EDIT: The UN HRC is still in session (4th) until March 30th which is probably why there is no link to resolutions passed.

[bemildred]

25. Ah, that fleshes things out.

They do seem to address other issues besides Israel and the OPT.

The 4th session page for example:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/4session/reports.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

26. True, but...

...seems they only pass resolutions against one country, Israel. Also, take a look at the wording in the Israeli reports, then look at the language in the reports about violations from other countries (which don't seem to warrant resolutions).

[bemildred]

29. I'm willing to stipulate that the Arab states have a "bias" on the issue.

Everyone who cares about it at all does, I think. That in itself does not mean much. The OP suggests that they talk of nothing else, and are hopeless bigots, which is not the same thing.

I want to suggest that they deserve to be listened to, their arguments heard, their suggestions and "Resolutions" and "Declarations" given due weight, as one would like for statements with a "pro-Israeli" bias, or statements that take other parties to task for their actions. It is an important body and, whether one likes what it has to say on any particular issue dear to ones heart, or not, it should be treated with some respect, and not simply dismissed or attacked because one disagrees with it on some particular issue. It appears to me that, in a general way, it's trying to do its job as it sees it.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. It's gone beyond bias and smack into bigotry.

When a group that is supposed to monitor human rights for everyone, can only muster resolutions against one country, despite their many reports concerning human right issues in other places, this is bigotry! There have been four special sessions called, three were against Israel and included resolutions. One was about Darfur, and despite the passage of a resolution, it was not a condemnation of any country.

Let's look at the regular sessions.

UN HRC Session 1

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/1/1 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/2 Working group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/3 Open-ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/4 The right to development
  
• A/HRC/RES/1/5 Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

Decisions

• A/HRC/DEC/1/101 Titles of officers
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/102 Extension by the Human Rights Council of all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/103 The Universal Periodic Review
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/104 Implementation of paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 60/251
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/105 Draft framework for a programme of work of the Human Rights Council for the first year
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/106 Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories
  
• A/HRC/DEC/1/107 Incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance

So, in review, the newly created UN HRC has already singled out Israel for discussion in Session 2.

UN HRC Session 2

Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/2/1 Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of Mandates
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/2 Human rights and extreme poverty
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/3 Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/4 Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan
  
• A/HRC/RES/2/5 Effective implementation of international instruments on human rights

Decisions

• A/HRC/DEC/2/101 Situation of human rights in Kyrgyzstan
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/113 Cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Afghanistan
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/114 Cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Nepal
  
• A/HRC/DEC/2/115 Darfur

Despite discussions about human rights concerns in other nations, onle one, Israel, is again singled out with two resolutions.

UN HRC Session 3


Resolutions

• A/HRC/RES/3/1 Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S1/1
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/2 Preparations for the Durban Review Conference
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/3 Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon (adopted without a vote)
  
• A/HRC/RES/3/4 Implementation of General Assmebly resolution 60/251: agenda, annual programme of work, methods of work and rules of procedure of the Human Rights Council

Decisions
(Only 4 "decisions" adopted, none reference any country.)

Session Three has four resolutions, two against one country, Israel.

Session Four is still in session until March 30th. However, from their Reports, we see that a numberof nations are "under review." However, there is one difference, only one country, Israel, is the subject of six different reports.

• A/HRC/4/17 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (Mr. John Dugard)
  
  
• A/HRC/4/56 Report of the Secretary-General on the human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
  
  
• A/HRC/4/57 Report of the High Commissioner for Human rights on the issue of Palestinian pregnant women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints
  
  
• A/HRC/4/113 Letter dated 11 December 2006 from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Head of Delegation of the High-Level Fact-Finding Mission established under Human Rights Council resolution S-3/1, addressed to the President of the Council (French version)
  
  
• A/HRC/4/115 Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the follow-up to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon
  
  
• A/HRC/4/116 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (Mr. John Dugard): follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution S-1/1

I guess we will have to wait and see how Session 4 ends. Whereas you only see them as doing their job, I see them as paying lip service and attacking one country, Israel! This international body is a farce, replacing a discredited group that was done away with for basically the same damn thing!

[bemildred]

45. That is your "bias", it is not mine. nt

[pelsar]

28. actually this is rather humerous....

with all the other massacres going on throughtout the world....and other human rights violations....those reports should be filled with dozens of countries and their violations.......its really that simple. The lopsideness is so obvious.....that it is well obvious.

[bemildred]

30. I think human rights is a serious business, myself.

I do see quite a few other countries mentioned there.

[Shaktimaan]

31. This is a riot.

Check out some of the member states...

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia, freakin' Saudi Arabia!
Why not North Korea?


http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. You Do Mean This Year, Right?

Algeria
Argentina
Bahrain
Czech Republic
Ecuador
Finland
India
Indonesia
Morocco
Netherlands
Philippines
Poland
South Africa
Tunisia

I can count only two or three countries with questionable human rights records in this years panel.

[Jim Sagle]

36. It's a regular cavalcade of meatgrinders at the UN.

Who writes their stuff, Quentin Tarantino?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And why is Indonesia and Malaysia being member states a riot?

What I find amusing is that many of the folk in this thread complaining about the Human Rights council would be more than happy for human rights violators like Israel and the US to be on it...

It only takes a wander through the forum archives to discover that the claims of bias and bigotry were aimed at not only the previous Human Rights Council, but the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the UN in general, and this isn't because of any lop-sidedness (that's a red herring of an argument if ever there's been one), but because there are some people who cannot tolerate criticism of Israel. If the resolutions passed were trivial ones I'd be pointing out myself that it was unfair, but regardless of whether or not the Human Rights council is not passing resolutions about other human rights violations, the fact is that the criticism of Israel's actions are for things that Israel well and truly deserves criticism for...

[eyl]

41. "Lopsidedness" is a red herring?

Ia court had a history of convicting only black people, despite those being a minority of the defendents brought before it, would you also consider charges of bias against it to be trivial?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Yeah, that argument is a red herring...

If the lopsidedness and bias of the Human Rights Council were truly the issue for those complaining, they'd be pointing out that while the resolutions passed concerning Israel are ones that Israel definately deserves criticism for, the Human Rights Council should also focus on some other pressing issues when it comes to human rights. But that's not the argument I see here time and time again. The arguments I see appear to consist of nothing more than the same sort of mindset as when someone gets into trouble for something they've done wrong and try to make out that what they've done isn't wrong because they can point to someone else who did something similar and didn't get into trouble. Also, the same people who complain about bias in the Human Rights Council don't seem to have any problems at all with the bias inherent in the Security Council, where the US as a permanent member with veto power displays it's bias by threatening to veto or vetoing most resolutions concerning Israel...

[Shaktimaan]

54. So...

It only takes a wander through the forum archives to discover that the claims of bias and bigotry were aimed at not only the previous Human Rights Council, but the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the UN in general, and this isn't because of any lop-sidedness (that's a red herring of an argument if ever there's been one), but because there are some people who cannot tolerate criticism of Israel.

If I am reading this correctly, you disagree that the many branches of the UN are biased against Israel, correct?

As for your statement on Indonesia's human rights record, the reason we are complaining is simple. While Israel and America have human rights violations I recognize that every country on the planet also have violated human rights to one degree or another. However, there is a tremendous difference between HR violations committed by America or Israel and the far, far worse violations that countries like China or Saudi Arabia are frequently guilty of. They are not remotely in the same category.

It's ridiculous that the countries I mentioned made it on the council because many of them place no value whatsoever on human rights outside of its importance to the international community or as a potential wedge issue against rival states. If you doubt this we can compare stats of the occupation of Palestine with the occupation of Tibet. Let's see if one seems worse than the other, K? It will be interesting. You may learn what ethnic cleansing really looks like.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. That's strange...

After reading 'As for your statement on Indonesia's human rights record, the reason we are complaining is simple.' I anticipated reading an explanation of why you think it's a riot that Indonesia and Malaysia are on the Human Rights Council. Instead I go on to read that every country on the planet has violated human rights to one degree or another, and then you go on to talk about China and Saudi Arabia, rather talking about Indonesia and Malaysia....

So, instead of talking about China and Saudi Arabia, could you explain what human rights violations Indonesia and Malaysia are committing that makes their inclusion on the Human Rights Council a problem for you?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Kick for Shakti...

Still waiting for you to explain what yr problem is with Indonesia and Malaysia. I'm starting to suspect it'd down to nothing more than them being countries with a majority of Muslims...

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. No, I specifically asked you what problem you had with Indonesia and Malaysia...

I'm not particularly interested in playing duelling lists of human rights violations, as I don't think Israel should be any sort of measuring stick for which the membership of countries on the Human Rights Council should be scoffed at.

Yep, I live in Australia, and I'm aware of what happened in East Timor as well as the complicity of the US and Australian governments over a long period of time. Human rights violations isn't about how many civilians are killed, or else the US would be right up there on top of the list as the biggest human rights violator of them all...

What's such a joke about freedom of religion in either country? Are you thinking of the religious extremism that has led to violence? If so, how are the governments to blame for that? Because that's what we're talking about - the violation of human rights by the governments of countries. As for freedom of speech, Malaysia has a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech...

I just want to make something very clear here. I have not and do not consider you a racist xenophobe, and I think you need to apologise for what you said in that last paragraph...

[Jim Sagle]

34. Thank you, msmcghee.

The UN has truly become what it was founded to oppose. It is now an obscene, cancerous blight on the world scene. It promotes genocide and scorns all that is just and right.

[leftynyc]

39. I think they have outlived their usefulness

I started feeling that way during the Rwanda massacres - it's gone downhill from there.

[Casper Alabaster]

42. Isn't the messenger less than fair?

For a representative of Israel to condemn or criticize the UN is par for the course, and vice versa. There's much unnecessary unpleasantness all around.

[bemildred]

46. It goes both ways.

That is the point to my mind. It is most amusing to have people who come here to beat the drum all day for Israel and to trash Palestinians and Arabs/Muslims in general blather on about "bigotry" and "bias".

[Shaktimaan]

48. Who here has trashed Arabs and Muslims in general?

And regardless of what I may say or think, should we not hold the UN to a higher standard than a web-board?

[bemildred]

49. I am sure noone would do that here, Sir.

It's against the rules. I retract that assertion. Everyone here is very fair to Arabs and Muslims at all times.

Are you accusing the UN of trashing Arabs and Muslims in general? Or, what did you mean?

[Shaktimaan]

50. Two things.

First, you stated that people here trash Arabs and Muslims in general. Basically an accusation of bigotry and racism, something I've never seen. Being fair at all times to both sides in respect to the Israel/Palestine conflict is very different than attacking all Arabs on the basis of their race or culture. You equate an opinion on this specific matter with general bigotry, implying that people here who tend to take Israel's side in our discussions do so because they are Arab or Muslim and not because of other, pertinent, reasons. Which is untrue and unfair. Supporting Israel in respect to the posts here does not even automatically imply bias. Most of the people here who defend Israel are not adverse to legit criticism. They ARE adverse to partisan or dishonest statements though.

Secondly, even if supporting Israel was tantamount to bias or even bigotry, even if I was a total racist, that does not mean that I am being hypocritical in demanding absolute parity from the UN. The UN has a responsibility to be even-handed that I am free of. It is far, far worse for the UN to be biased in viewing the situation than it is for me or you to. I am accusing the UN of being biased against Israel. As the UN is nothing more than a congregation of various states' representatives, the huge number of Arab and Muslim states as well as other nations whose interests lie against Israel, have formed a system where Israel has unequal representation, less power/influence than other member states and is frequently the target of disproportionate criticism.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. You didn't answer my question about Indonesia and Malaysia...

You said it was a riot that they were members of the Human Rights Council. I'm sure there must be some pertinent reasons for why you believe that and I'd like to know what they are...

[bemildred]

53. You seem upset.

I retracted the statement since it is not appropriate in this forum.

Are you really saying you have never seen bigotry and racism?

I equated nothing.

I implied nothing.

I am sorry you feel abused.

Supporting Israel IS a bias, bias means taking a side, having a point of view. So is supporting the Palestinians, a bias that is, if that helps. The issue, if there is an issue, goes deeper than favoring one side or the other.

You may demand "absolute parity" from the UN all you like, but I don't expect they will pay much attention to you. It is nice that you think so highly of them and expect so much of them though.

Since the UN created Israel in the first place, and is the source of its legitimacy, or a source of it's legitimacy, and is so cited here at times, it's hard for me to see how it can be all bad. Maybe certain Israeli policies really DO suck and need to be criticized.

[cali]

61. You didn't retract the statement. You merely

added snark to it with a follow up post.

[bemildred]

62. If "I retract the statement" doesn't do the job, I don't see what will. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I think you need to read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x171386