Israel boycotts UN Human Rights Council.

[another_liberal]

Source: Al Jazeera

Israel has become the first country to boycott a UN Human Rights Council review of its rights situation, sparking heated debate among diplomats on how to respond. "I see that the delegation of Israel is not in the room," council president Remigiusz Henczel told the delegates at the United Nations in Geneva on Tuesday. Israel is not a member of the council but like all 193 UN countries it is required to undergo Universal Periodic Reviews (UPRs) of its human rights situation. Its absence on Tuesday, however, came as no surprise. Israel cut all ties with the 47-member state council last March after the body announced that it would probe how Israeli illegal settlements may be infringing on the rights of the Palestinians.

Israel has come under widespread criticism for ramping up its construction of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, notably in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Earlier on Tuesday, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman told AFP the country intended to boycott the meeting. "We cut all our contacts with the council last March, including the current activity," Yigal Palmor said, stressing: "Our policy has not changed."

Israel's failure to show up for its UPR marks the first time since the reviews began in 2007 that a country under evaluation has been absent without explanation, and it was unclear how the rights council would react. When Haiti delayed its UPR in early 2010 its justification was the devastating earthquake that hit the country that year, claiming more than 300,000 lives.

On Tuesday, after Israel failed to show, Henczel called on the council to adopt a draft decision on how to react, including urging Israel to resume its cooperation with the UPR process. It also called for Israel's review to be rescheduled for no later than during the UPR session starting in October this year. Delegates then took the floor, with Egypt's representative declaring that the council faced "a moment of truth." He cautioned that taking a "soft" approach towards Israel would create a dangerous precedent and leave "a wide-open door for more cases of non-cooperation." Israel's main ally in the council, the United States, however, gave its full backing to Henczel's proposal, with ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe insisting in a statement, without mentioning Israel by name, that the text reflected the "best effort to find common ground and to protect the UPR mechanism going forward."

Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013129163929359758.html

---

After some more protests about the "soft" proposal from nations such as Pakistan, the council did eventually adopt Henczel's proposal by consensus. Let's hope that by October some progress has been made in addressing Palestinian complaints. Otherwise it's, "You and me against the World," Israel.

[longship]

1. They've been doing that in practice for years.

The only solution for Middle East peace is the one NyetanBibi and his fundie religious cabal will not address. Two states!

This is a religious war. Enough of this shit!

[another_liberal]

2. A War?

Can either side actually win a war? I doubt if anyone thinks the Palestinian people can possibly defeat Israel on the battlefield, not now and most likely not ever. On the other hand, how could Israel live on as a Mid-Eastern nation if it were to truly defeat the Palestinians and erase them from the map? Aren't they in enough trouble with much of the World (including most of their neighbors) as it is?

Two States almost has to be the answer, yes. However, that end must be reached through peaceful means, or no one wins. The Palestinians' victory will be harder won than many wars.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. For Israel to have any credibility it is going to have to come terms with its

colonial expansionist agenda and pull back. It cannot take land that does not belong to them, and no matter how many thousands of years ago they want to claim that the land was part of a kingdom of Israelites this is now. This is the modern era and not some ancient time where you can claim God gave you the moral authority to kill or drive off your competition.

If Israel goes down the road of total expansion then it is no longer a Democracy, and it would more resemble the countries around it that they accuse of human rights abuses.

[another_liberal]

5. "If Israel goes down . . ."

"If Israel goes down the road of total expansion . . .," she will have become her own worst enemy.

I still have an abundance of hope that wiser heads will prevail, and a way toward peace in that long-suffering region will yet be found. I am not, though, a Palestinian.

[longship]

4. Nobody wants the war.

But I fear that religion is the main factor here. Sorry, Israel, god didn't give you the right to that land. Neither did you, Palestine.

Religion is poison. In the Middle East, it poisons everything.

Fuck them all!

[another_liberal]

6. One has to think . . .

One has to think that if they had to, I mean really had to, they could find a way to settle this thing. France and Germany have spent the last sixty-five years living in peace with each other. If those two peoples can get along . . .!

[longship]

7. But neither France nor Germany think that God gave them "their" land.

Religion poisons everything. There would be peace in the Middle East if it wasn't for the religious element.

Religion is a poison.

[another_liberal]

8. There is that difference.

There is that difference. And it is a big one.

[longship]

16. You speak wisdom which none of the interested parties seem to have. nt

[davidpdx]

13. I personally think the problems in the Middle East suck up so much energy

It makes it hard to address other problems in the world. Things over here in the Asian Pacific have been getting worse for some time now. We need to head these problems off before they become worse.

[DRoseDARs]

9. For a country that just acknowledged commiting eugenics against Ethiopian refugees...

...refugees, mind you, THAT ISRAEL HERSELF BROUGHT IN in two separate, major rescue operations... and that those refugees are of Jewish descent (which was the whole reason the government went to rescue them from Ethiopia in the first place) really makes this all that much more mind-bogglingly racist. So yeah, totally shocking that the government would stomp its feet and pout. The voters really need to find some actual grownups to run things...

[another_liberal]

10. I must admit . . .

I must admit in that case Israel's leaders seem to have forgotten part of their own history, a history of being persecuted as an undesirable minority. Only Seventy years ago, young Jewish women were being involuntarily rendered sterile, through having their ovaries bombarded by x-rays.

[davidpdx]

12. I hadn't heard that

Egads that is just wrong

[davidpdx]

11. No one in the Middle East is going to change their behavior

Until they stop leaning to the far extremes on both sides. The best bet would be for the Arab states to have stable governments, Israel to have a moderate government and the Iranian Government overthrown with moderate government. I'd say the chances of all that happening at the same time are low.

[another_liberal]

14. Add to that . . .

Add to that our own contribution: Many American believers in the "Christian Rapture" claim they are eager for armageddon to happen, so as to hasten "Christ's return to Earth." They are hardly helping things by encouraging the most extreme of Israel's hard-line expansionists.

Everyone involved needs to lighten-up quite a bit.

[mpcamb]

15. "No one in the Middle East is going to change their behavior"

That seems likely.
As a bystander the US needs to swallow hard and cut funding, difficult as that might seem with the dollar$ that get passed around to Congress.
Maybe that won't change anything either.
But I have a hard time seeing how all the good people I remember at the forefront of the civil rights movement and Vietnam protests who stood tall for the society's oppressed and who suffered the Holocaust themselves can support a country that so mistreats its minority and won't attend a Human Rights Council.

[davidpdx]

18. Cutting funding will never happen

Anyone who suggest it will be painted as a anti-Semite, it doesn't really even matter whether it is true or not. I agree with what people are going to say, it's a weak argument. There's no doubt about that. Unfortunately Israel has been given so much leverage over the last 40+ year that they can continue to bully (or at least try to because Obama has been pretty good with holding them at bay) nations into doing what they want.

BTW welcome to DU

[snooper2]

24. how about we just let all the fundies on all sides kill each other?

No more aid, no more bombs..

On your own, deal with it....

[dlwickham]

26. I'm sure that Iran will stop arming terrorist like Hamas and Hezbollah

if we stop aiding Israel

[snooper2]

28. who cares? They all have plenty of weapons..

I say let them go at it fighting over some low grade land LOL...

winner take all, or none, who cares anymore....fuck'em

[Ian Iam]

17. I am shocked by this!

Wait...Actually, I'm not.

Send No (more) Money.

[RandiFan1290]

19. lol

[another_liberal]

21. It may seem . . .

It may seem like a long shot to expect a mere "boycott" to convince Israel's leaders to change their settlement policies, however, that was the same attitude most people had in the early eighties toward a possible boycott of apartheid South Africa. A few years later, no one doubted anymore.

[Ian Iam]

27. Indeed

Boycott. Divest. Sanction. Just as you'd do with any rogue regime.

[dipsydoodle]

20. That is arrogance

.

[L0oniX]

22. Roaches scurry and hide when you turn on the lights. n/t

[another_liberal]

23. Voltaire once said . . .

I do see your point, and though I sense your justifiable anger, I'm pretty sure that if any human beings are really nothing but insects, then we are all nothing but insects. Beware of the people who would have you believe otherwise.

As Voltaire once said:

"Those who can make you believe in absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."

[dlwickham]

25. many of these countries are paragons of human rights

and yes, that is

Members


Members of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. The current members, with the year that the mandate expires in parentheses, are the following:[22]

African States (13)
Angola (2013)
Benin (2014)
Botswana (2014)
Burkina Faso (2014)
Cameroon (2012)
Congo (2014)
Djibouti (2012)
Libya (2013)
Mauritania (2013)
Mauritius (2012)
Nigeria (2012)
Senegal (2012)
Uganda (2013)


Asian States (13)
Bangladesh (2012)
People's Republic of China (2012)
India (2014)
Indonesia (2014)
Jordan (2012)
Kuwait (2014)
Kyrgyzstan (2012)
Malaysia (2013)
Maldives (2013)
Philippines (2014)
Qatar (2013)
Saudi Arabia (2012)
Thailand (2013)


Eastern European States (6)
Czech Republic (2014)
Hungary (2012)
Poland (2013)
Republic of Moldova (2013)
Romania (2014)
Russian Federation (2012)


Latin American & Caribbean States (8)
Chile (2014)
Costa Rica (2014)
Cuba (2012)
Ecuador (2013)
Guatemala (2013)
Mexico (2012)
Peru (2014)
Uruguay (2012)


Western European & Other States (7)
Austria (2014)
Belgium (2012)
Italy (2014)
Norway (2012)
Spain (2013)
Switzerland (2013)
United States (2012)

[Comrade Grumpy]

29. What's your point? That the UN should have no human rights role...

...because not all its members are paragons of virtue?

That's a nice diversion from the issue at hand.

[dlwickham]

30. how can a country like Saudi Arabia sit in judgement of any other country

maybe the UN should put countries on the Human Rights Committee that actually allow their citizens to have basic human rights

[another_liberal]

32. We assassinate our own citizens . . .

We assassinate our own citizens without warning and torture suspects for months, if not years, without even allowing them a trial. Are we an example of the kind of country that allows "basic human rights."

[dlwickham]

36. so you're comparing Saudi Arabia to the US?

[another_liberal]

37. On the subject of human rights . . .

On the subject of human rights, I would not be eager to objectively compare us with any other nation. I love my country too much to ever willingly do that. I only noted that we have no unilateral claim to the moral high ground, we should try to be tolerant of the short-comings of others.

[dlwickham]

38. killing people for being gay isn't a short coming

denying basic rights to women isn't a short coming

denying people the right to privacy isn't a short coming

censorship isn't a short coming

[another_liberal]

42. I've said all I need to.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you look at my earlier posts you will likely find my opinion on any facet of this subject.

[dlwickham]

44. I guess when you can't defend your position any longer

you run away

[another_liberal]

45. Sometimes saying . . .

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:08 AM - Edit history (2)

Sometimes saying nothing says more than saying what's already been said.

[dlwickham]

39. I'm guessing you're referring to the Al Quada members

who were Americans and were killed by drones in Yemen

I don't feel sorry for them-they were actively working with a group that was responsible for the murder of thousands of people in the bombing of the WTC

Anwar al-Awlaki called for a holy war against the United States. I think in that action, he made himself an enemy of this country.

[another_liberal]

41. I don't feel sorry for them, especially, either.

I feel sorry for us all. What proof do we have of anything you're claiming about the suspected crimes of that man and his son? They were American citizens, never charged and never tried (as our Constitution supposedly requires). They were just extra-judicially executed, actually murdered, by somebody at the controls of a robot drone.

Will they use robots to kill suspected muggers next, suspected carjackers or maybe suspected drug dealers? Don't say it won't happen, no one twenty years ago would have thought any of this could happen.

[hack89]

31. How about adherence to basic civil rights as a prerequisite for membership on the HRC?

do you really think that despotic serial violators of human rights are the best people to protect your human rights?

[another_liberal]

33. How many . . .

How many defenseless children has Saudi Arabia lately murdered with air-dropped cluster bombs or burned alive with white phosphorus artillery shells? How many independent, sovereign nations have they preemptively invaded recently and occupied for a decade or more?

Compared to some of us self-congratulating "freedom givers" they look pretty damn good.

[hack89]

34. Shall we look at Human Rights Watch report on Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia responded with unflinching repression to demands by citizens for greater democracy in the wake of the pro-democracy Arab Spring movements. King Abdullah bin Abd al-‘Aziz Al Saud announced economic benefits worth over US$130 billion, but authorities continued to jail Saudis for peaceful dissent. New laws introduced or proposed in 2011 criminalize the exercise of basic human rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

Authorities continue to suppress or fail to protect the rights of 9 million Saudi women and girls, 8 million foreign workers, and some 2 million Shia citizens. Each year thousands of people receive unfair trials or are subject to arbitrary detention.

In March Saudi troops helped quell Bahrain’s pro-democracy protests.

Detainees, including children, commonly face systematic violations of due process and fair trial rights, including arbitrary arrest and torture and ill-treatment in detention. Saudi judges routinely sentence defendants to thousands of lashes.

The Saudi guardianship system continues to treat women as minors. Under this discriminatory system, girls and women of all ages are forbidden from traveling, studying, or working without permission from their male guardians. In 2009 the Ministry of Commerce, though not other ministries, stopped requiring women to conduct ministerial business through a male representative.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-saudi-arabia



Which of your rights would you want to put in the hands of a Saudi judge?

[another_liberal]

35. Your points are certainly valid.

Saudi Arabia is not a champion of human rights, not by any stretch of the imagination. They are ruled by a practically medieval political system rooted in arcane religious traditions. That being said, we can hardly criticize them, we a country which in the last decade has been responsible for the death of, at the very least, half a million civilians in Iraq alone.

It is truly sad to admit, but they have at least as much place on the UN Human Rights Council as we do.

[Ash_F]

40. No country is homogeneous its people's beliefs and goals.

By that standard, the US would not belong on any human rights council ever, we've had and are having our share of violations. But there are people fighting for human rights here, as there are in countries like Israel, Iran and even Saudi Arabia. That is no valid reason to snub the concept of having a human rights council. Action is needed to make changes.

[hack89]

43. I support the concept

I question the execution.