[Rich]

Between them Israel and Saudi Arabia dominate, control and manipulate Western foreign policy in the Middle East. Western leaders have no real independent agency of their own in the region. As long as they get to mouth off worthless platitudes about human rights, "killing their own people", international law etc, they are content. Are Israel and Saudi Arabia's interests perfectly aligned? Certainly not. Could they end up in conflict at some time in the future? Definitely, but for now they are best of frenemies.

Impossible contradictions can help an ideology to remain dominate. Jesus is God and Man, being a classic example. Its a step up from the big lie. Something that is not just factually incorrect but logically impossible. Hence the success of the dominant Islamo feminist ideology in the West.

[AFAIK]

I think the UN has some moral authority in certain areas. How many gov'ts could conceivably come out with a report stating that red meat and dairy substantially increase your risk of developing various cancers? UN agencies aren't dependent on meat and dairy producers for campaign finances and fancy dinners.

Of course, allowing the Saudis to chair the human rights committee is a ridiculous joke.

[Heinie]

...
Of course, allowing the Saudis to chair the human rights committee is a ridiculous joke.

The Anglo-Americans are completely happy to see their close ally, the Saud family's country, represented on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), all the more so if it holds the chairmanship. It is both a strength of the UN and a weakness that all member states, even warlike ones such as the USA, England, and Israel, get to vote for the members of constituent agencies. As it happens, the Saud family's term on UNHRC finishes this year. Maybe it will be replaced with Israel. Then perhaps you will be satisfied.

[AFAIK]

Maybe the Saudis could chair the UNHCR next. Their refusal to allow refugees into the country makes them highly qualified.

I don't know what I've said to give you the impression I'm pro Israel. Should I make some anti-Israel comments 'for balance'?

[Heinie]

... I don't know what I've said to give you the impression I'm pro Israel. Should I make some anti-Israel comments 'for balance'?

The subject of the topic is the Israeli rejection of UN investigations into their human rights crimes in Occupied Palestine.

[AFAIK]

Yes and the discussion has been about the UN's lack of moral authority. If I criticised Obama during a democratic primary it doesn't mean that I am endorsing Hillary. If I criticised him during a presidential election it doesn't mean I am endorsing the Republican candidate.

[wat0n]

The subject of the topic is the Israeli rejection of UN investigations into their human rights crimes in Occupied Palestine.

Indeed, and particularly over whether Israel doesn't allow the UNHRC's rapporteur over fear or because it doesn't regard it as an unbiased body.

Clearly it's not because of fear of scrutiny or it would not allow people like Amira Hass or Gideon Levy to publish articles on misdeeds committed by the IDF in the West Bank on Israeli media, let alone even letting foreigners even visit the West Bank.

Then it makes sense to wonder if the UNHRC is an impartial body or not. It clearly is not, given its membership and also given that its rapporteur's mandate is only limited about reporting on human rights violations by Israel as opposed to reporting on human rights violations committed by everyone in the region. The very mandate of the rapporteur is flawed and is inherently biased on the matter, even if whoever has the post isn't personally anti-Israel.

[Heinie]

Indeed, and particularly over whether Israel doesn't allow the UNHRC's rapporteur over fear or because it doesn't regard it as an unbiased body.

Code for them knowing they are as guilty as hell.

Clearly it's not because of fear of scrutiny or it would not allow people like Amira Hass or Gideon Levy to publish articles on misdeeds committed by the IDF in the West Bank on Israeli media, let alone even letting foreigners even visit the West Bank.

Then it makes sense to wonder if the UNHRC is an impartial body or not. It clearly is not, given its membership and also given that its rapporteur's mandate is only limited about reporting on human rights violations by Israel as opposed to reporting on human rights violations committed by everyone in the region. The very mandate of the rapporteur is flawed and is inherently biased on the matter, even if whoever has the post isn't personally anti-Israel.

Give us a break; one man cannot hope to be able to be on the ground investigating all human rights abuses by the Israelis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, the Saud family, the Iraq Shia government, and so on. Be serious.

[wat0n]

Give us a break; one man cannot hope to be able to be on the ground investigating all human rights abuses by the Israelis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, the Saud family, the Iraq Shia government, and so on. Be serious.

Indeed, the UNHRC would need special rapporteurs in each of those cases, which it can clearly send.

But leaving those cases aside, the UN rapporteur's mandate doesn't include analyze Palestinian attacks against Israelis or internal Palestinian violence, and also doesn't have a rapporteur for that. Obviously, the mission itself is biased against Israel if it will not look at the overall situation of human rights in Israel and Palestine, including human rights violations committed by Palestinians against Israelis and other Palestinians.

[Heinie]

Indeed, the UNHRC would need special rapporteurs in each of those cases, which it can clearly send.

But leaving those cases aside, the UN rapporteur's mandate doesn't include analyze Palestinian attacks against Israelis or internal Palestinian violence, and also doesn't have a rapporteur for that. Obviously, the mission itself is biased against Israel if it will not look at the overall situation of human rights in Israel and Palestine, including human rights violations committed by Palestinians against Israelis and other Palestinians.

Palestine is occupied by Israel. It does not nor can it have or implement crimes against humanity or war crimes. Unlike Israel, Palestine has no army, navy, air force or Einsatzgruppen snipers.

[wat0n]

No, instead there are Palestinian armed militias which deliberately kill and maim Israeli and Palestinian civilians (the latter if they oppose them), militias which act as death squads if they can (like Samir Kuntar did on 1979).

[Heinie]

No, instead there are Palestinian armed militias which deliberately kill and maim Israeli and Palestinian civilians (the latter if they oppose them), militias which act as death squads if they can (like Samir Kuntar did on 1979).

Quit pretending there is any equivalency between small, ineffective, acts of resistance to occupation by some Palestinians and the wholesale periodic massacres of civilians in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as well as the routine violations of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, by the IDF and "Border" Police.

[wat0n]

Quit pretending there is any equivalency between small, ineffective, acts of resistance to occupation by some Palestinians and the wholesale periodic massacres of civilians in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as well as the routine violations of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, by the IDF and "Border" Police.

Deliberately attacking an Israeli family and killing a 4 year old and the father in the process is not an act of resistance, and it is no different from the settlers who burned the Dawabsheh family in their sleep in Duma last year. They are both atrocities and should be treated as such.

Just because the Israelis don't let the likes of Kuntar to do it en masse and kill tens of thousands of civilians it doesn't make the said attacks irrelevant. Not that "relevance" changes anything as far as condemning crimes goes, it's not like the Duma arson changed the strategic picture at all either. It was as irrelevant as the 1979 attack on that front.

[Heinie]

Deliberately attacking an Israeli family and killing a 4 year old and the father in the process is not an act of resistance, and it is no different from the settlers who burned the Dawabsheh family in their sleep in Duma last year. They are both atrocities and should be treated as such. ...

The real terrorism of the Israelis is not to be confined to the hooligan acts of a bunch of religious hilltop youth fanatics. It is the state terrorism of Israel which uses all the American taxpayer funded military might against children and civilians in Palestine. Israel is a terrorist rogue Jewish state.

[wat0n]

Collateral damage is not really the same as deliberate targeting, so not really. If anything, attacks by Palestinian militias since the Second Intifada have led to higher civilian casualty ratios than the IDF.

It is interesting though that you refuse to acknowledge that the likes of Samir Kuntar as war criminals whose actions are worthy of scrutiny. Yet, you have no real problem with the arrest and trial of the Israeli settlers who committed the atrocity in Duma. Why? If you are so keen on investigating attacks against civilians, what about all of them are investigated, as opposed to only some? Indeed, doing so would provide a more accurate picture of what's going on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Heinie]

Collateral damage is not really the same as deliberate targeting, so not really. If anything, attacks by Palestinian militias since the Second Intifada have led to higher civilian casualty ratios than the IDF. ...

The Israelis target schools, hospitals, ambulances, children playing football on the beach, kids who get near to the Gaza prison fence, and civilian populations subjected to a brutal dehumanizing occupation. It is all documented and believed by the world except the American and English public. Nevertheless, the propaganda of the Israelis keeps up a charade that they are defending their right to exist and claim that only "Holocaust deniers" and "antisemites" criticize them.

[wat0n]

And yet as I said, the civilian casualty ratio arising from Israeli attacks is lower than that of attacks by Palestinian militias (as can be calculated from BT'selem's statistics on the matter). The facts don't really fit this narrative that Palestinian actions are not worthy of scrutiny while Israeli actions are, and they also do not fit the narrative that Israel targets civilians when carrying out attacks as one would expect the figures to be the other way around.

The funny thing is, no one mentioned Holocaust denial or antisemitism but you - is there a shoe that may be fitting you here?

[Rich]

Deliberately attacking an Israeli family and killing a 4 year old and the father in the process is not an act of resistance,

Of course its an act of resistance, that woulb be like saying that the firebombing of Hamburg wasn't an act of resistance against Nazi Germany, or Nat Turner's actions weren't an act of resistance against slavery.

[Heinie]

And yet as I said, the civilian casualty ratio arising from Israeli attacks is lower than that of attacks by Palestinian militias (as can be calculated from BT'selem's statistics on the matter). The facts don't really fit this narrative that Palestinian actions are not worthy of scrutiny while Israeli actions are, and they also do not fit the narrative that Israel targets civilians when carrying out attacks as one would expect the figures to be the other way around.

Not investigating acts of the Palestinian occupied people is no excuse for attempting to block scrutiny of the policies and brutality conducted by the Jewish state toward children and civilians.

The funny thing is, no one mentioned Holocaust denial or antisemitism but you - is there a shoe that may be fitting you here?

We know the routine of accusing anyone who criticizes the Israelis as being "Holocaust deniers", "antisemites", or both. Your question proves my point.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

The UN is a joke especially when it comes to issues like human rights where it promotes the slaughter of millions of unborn humans and turns a blind eye to torture and genocide.

I also don't need the UN to tell me that the Israeli regime is merciless and has no regard for human rights. There is so much talk in the west about dangers to security and our ways of life and cultures being destroyed, well it's already been done to the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis and it's unforgivable that it was allowed to happen.