so because there are some worse countries out there lets not do anything about it? yea that sounds really productive.
Anyway, my original point was, in essense, that the presence of certain western states, in addition to America would lessen 'anti-Israeli' bias, especially if the commission hired to do the job is American. That's what irks me to be honest, Israel should have a bone to pick if the investigators are anti-Israeli, not if the body that is appointing them is anti-Israeli.
Case in point. The goldstone report, that seriously harmed Israel, even after they refused to co-operate with it, then Goldstone, the head of the report, comes out years later and says if Israel had co-operated with the report it would of been alot less harsh to Israel. Israel is shooting itself in the foot. Again.
America's presence in the UNHRC hasn't stopped the following from happening (from Le Wiki):
Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe anything good for them would come from an organization obsessed with condemning them.As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all resolutions passed by the Council.By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.*Toward*Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern.".The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses byIsrael*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*Organisation 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*Palestinianarmed 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.
Last edited by s.rwitt; March 28, 2012 at 01:11 PM.
anyways I am saying that all this finger pointing is useless. Israel withdrew from this because they don't want anyone to say anything that is remotely negative about them. however if the same organization said anything about either Hamas or Iran then there would be a slightly different reaction by Israel...
Yes. I am the elected spokesman of the mudpit and no one knows what you are talking about.
Hamas or Iran have nothing to do with the UNHRC's Israel obsession.
FFS, where did I say we should ignore Israel's human rights abuses? Where did I say we should do anything? I'm explaining why Israel did this.
Also, they clearly don't get condemned or sanctioned...they get membership on human rights councils...
Hey, you think this HR council is bad, the one before it used to say stuff like killing Israeli civilians is okay and not a human rights violation, but killing Palis is a no-no. They got dissolved, unsurprisingly.
In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.
Like China, Angola, and Russia? Those allies?oh we ofc can't sanction people with alliances with the US.
You didn't answer my previous questions btw. Here they are again:
"FFS, where did I say we should ignore Israel's human rights abuses? Where did I say we should do anything?"
IS the council monomaniacal? Yes, does that mean it's wrong? I'd say no. It should look at other incidences (If it has a retroactive mandate the US Avtions in south america and Soviet actions in eastern europe would be a perfect start)
Last edited by justicar5; March 28, 2012 at 04:08 PM.
No, no, you're missing the point again. All three of those are human rights abusers and also members of the UNHRC. None of them are US allies. Which means that, as opposed to your implication, sanctions are in fact not based on one's alliance or lack therof to the US.
(The answer to the questions were both "You didn't s.rwitt".)
Your alliance to the security council?They are however based on your alliance or lack thereof to the security council, and most of the loons in the middle east (by no means all, Syria and Iran spring to mind) are US allies. And security council members will veto anything against them anyway.
US = security council? Because that's the only way for your claim to work.
Ok, lets cut to the chase.
Anyone who considers the UN Human Right Council a non-biased body who only wishes to help human rights across the globe sound off.
Yet Israel has every reason to believe worse will come to them by refusing to co-operate with them. Case in point, the Goldstone report.Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe anything good for them would come from an organization obsessed with condemning them.
There's no doubt that this whole situation has put them in a lose-lose position, but I really don't think their cutting ties to the UNHRC is going to hurt worse than continued condemnations and reports that are going to cast Israel in a bad light regardless. Also, I don't think it's going to influence anyone's opinion of them. People that hate them will hate them either way and vice versa, but more years of reports that their opponents can point to as evidence certainly isn't going to help them out. It makes sense when you look at it from Israel's point of view.Yet Israel has every reason to believe worse will come to them by refusing to co-operate with them. Case in point, the Goldstone report.
As for the Goldstone report, the fact that they were apparently more harsh on Israel because of Israel being uncooperative kind of degrades the legitimacy of the report in the first place.
Last edited by s.rwitt; March 28, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...1JC_story.htmlOur report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.
Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.
Under the proud patronage of the grand Tzar
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)