UNHRC calling?

From the Jerusalem Post article about the address by Eviatar Manor, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, speaking to the Human Rights Council on day two of its 32nd session:

In a short, but highly charged speech he accused the UNHRC of overly focusing on Israel’s actions against the Palestinians at the expense of other more serious human rights situations in the Middle East.

“Politicized debates, biased resolutions, preposterous reports, discriminatory conduct and unfounded accusations characterize the attitude of this Council and of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights towards Israel,” Manor said.

The Israeli Ambassador took particular issue with a UNHRC mandate that alleged Israeli human rights violations must be addressed at every session under Agenda Item 7. Israel is the only country that is singled out in this way. All other human rights issues around the world are addressed under Agenda Item 4.

“This Council’s priorities are wide off the mark,” said Manor.

How is it, that it has “an agenda item specifically dedicated to my country when the tragedies of Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, to name but a few, are unfolding and producing a tsunami of refugees about to engulf Europe?” Manor said.

“And you expect us to take you seriously?,” he asked.

On target!

Note the cracking sting in the tail:

He ended with a few lines of attack against the council charging that it “has never cared for the human rights of Israelis.”

Manor further charged that the UNHRC “needs a moral compass” and that it “does not and will not contribute to peace in our region.”

He urged the UNHRC members to weigh his words.

“Think about it, and call me if you change your minds. You can find me at +972 -77-430-4703,” Manor said.

UNHRC calling? I doubt it.

Read it all here.

Schabas shoots himself down

[A follow up to this post.]

The Russell Tribunal is a combination of kangaroo court and theater:

Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine that “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided and the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known. In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute.”

South African journalist and human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund, now living in Israel, described the Cape Town Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine as “It’s theatre: the actors know their parts and the result is known before they start. Israel is to be dragged into the mud.”

You can read more about the infernal beast here.

The relevance is that, as Legal Insurrection points out, the UNHRC’s newly appointed head of their anti-Israel inquiry, William Schabas, appeared before that tribunal.

In his appearance there, Schabas said this:

I recognize the value of enriching the debate with the use of “sociocide” but I am very concerned as John Dugard has mentioned that this opens up the chance for our enemies to attack us by suggesting that we’re acknowledging or admitting that the existing law is inadequate to describe the horrors that are being committed, and I don’t want to do that.

The context is that some people at the Russell Tribunal were complaining that Israel could not be said to be breaking international law as it stands, so instead of stretching the existing law to condemn Israel, they wanted to develop new law…

Schabas said he did not want to do that.

Look at his choice of words: “…our enemies…”

Who else can he mean, but Zionists or Israel – since that was the only target of the Russell Tribunal?

As the Elder points out (where you can see a video of Schabas in action):

Here, when not reading his prepared statements, Schabas reveals his bias for all to see. Anyone who disagrees with the aims of the Russell Tribunal – which is, anyone who says that Israel has the right to exist – is considered “our enemies.”

And now he will get a chance to judge the very people he considers, in his own words, to be his enemies.

That’s UN objectivity for you.

But, hey, he says now he is not anti-Israel, so never mind what else he ever said.

Here’s how he performed in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2:

Note: his explanation for calling Bibi Netanyahu his “favorite” to indict at the International Criminal Court was that Schabas was following the Goldstone Report.

Problem!

  • Netanyahu was not the Prime Minister then.
  • Netanyahu isn’t mentioned anywhere in the report.

Ooops. Mr Schabas has, figuratively speaking, shot himself in the foot. (And, the knee, belly, and wrist.) The man’s credibility is rapidly reaching the bottom of the pit.

Make your own minds up. I wouldn’t let the lying bastard into the country.

 

Old tricks

The UN is up to its usual tricks again, I see. UN Watch points out one or two wee problems about the impartiality of the person appointed to head the kangaroo court the UNHRC instituted, one William Schabas.

UN Watch noted the following Schabas actions and statements:

– “My favorite would be Netanyahu within the dock of the International Criminal Court,” Schabas declared last year.

– Schabas was an active participant before a pro-Palestinian “tribunal” that, according to a New York Times op-ed by Judge Richard Goldstone, consisted of one-sided evidence and a jury composed of “critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.”

– In a law journal article, Schabas wrote that Netanyahu could be considered “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel.”

– A few years earlier, Schabas called for “going after” Israeli president Shimon Peres in the ICC, saying, “Why are we going after the president of Sudan for Darfur and not the president of Israel for Gaza?”

– In a 2009 blog post about the UN’s infamous Durban II conference on racism, Schabas urged the world not only to “ignore” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements, but to stop “exaggerating” them. According to Schabas, those who “deserve the blame” are “Israel and its friends, who have manipulated the truth about the nature of the work of the United Nations by gross exaggeration of the role and intervention of certain fanatics.” Schabas described Ahmadinejad as nothing more than a “provocative politician,” and not a torturer of dissidents, inciter of genocidal anti-Semitism, and arch-sponsor of terrorism.

– In 2011, Schabas went to Iran to co-sponsor conferences with the Tehran-based “Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity,” despite its intimate ties with the fundamentalist regime, and avowed propaganda agenda. The center’s director, Kamran Hashemi, a former political officer with Iran’s foreign ministry, wrote his Ph.D under Schabas at the Irish Center for Human Rights.

Schabas’s response, according to one source, was this:

“Like everybody inside and outside Israel, I disagree with people. Is everyone in Israel who has an opinion about (Benjamin) Netanyahu anti-Israel?”

This is deceit. It’s not about people in Israel, but about a person nominated to hold a post as a judge. You know the old saw about justice not only having to be done, but needing to be seen to be done? What judicial system appoints biased judges?

Notice, he does not deny his comments. Notice, he effectively thereby admits his bias.

It’s a disgusting state of affairs. At least some players on the world stage recognize this. But, once again, the UN’s name will be used as a stick with which to beat Israel. After all, we do know in advance what the outcome of the report will be.