Sorry I can’t let that just lie. Feeling that Israel is in the wrong is reason to deny her from having a chance to equally participate in the process? Feeling that Israel is in the wrong is reason to single her out for 26% of all human rights condemnations for such henious offenses as preventing children from attending thier usual school, while truly barbaric offenses in this world go unaddressed? and the governments that commit these atrocities have regional memberships, are elgible for all committees and the SC and go unnamed for human rights violations. But this is just because the GA impartially feel that Israel is wrong? And apparently doesn’t believe that any other government, no matter how horrific their record, is “in the wrong”.
Yeah, we’ll have to disagree on this one. ::rolleyes::
Just some additional factoids gleaned from Human Rights Watch:
While Israel has been repeatedly named by the UN for its alleged offenses, the following goes unnamed - torture in Egypt, death sentance for dissent in Iran, suicide bombers representing “a crime against humanity”, Nigera upholding a death by stoning verdict for a woman’s infidelity, Spain and Morocco routinely beating migrant children … Systemic human rights abuses by many countries, specifically many of the same countries who eagerly condemn Israel, go unaddressed and unmentioned.
So with this bloc preventing censure of each other in a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours fashion they were left to condemn Israel almost exclusively.
And who is going to be the next chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, the same Commission that Israel has not even been elgible to attend meetings of? Why that stalwart defender of human rights and liberty, Libya! HRW’s take on that is that the UN commission is, http://hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm
Hey Tamerlane have some chutzpah! If you are willing to call Cel-Ray poison, then be willing to take a stand on the fairness or lack thereof of the UN visavis Israel.
Why is the UN addressing “children” at all? This just makes the UN seem even more hopelessly irrelevent. Who cares how old someone is, really. Are not all human beings equal?
D Seid, you have failed to show a scrap of evidence that Israel are being unfairly criticized (if you actually read the UN resolutions most of them are perfectly reasonable), yes, some human rights abuses are not getting enough attention (for reasons that seem to be wholly unconnected to the fact that they are not Israel), but the solution to this is not to ignore Israel’s huge catalogue of abuses, but it is to bring to attention the abuses of the other countries too.
Zuma - Children need special protection, as they are the least able to provide protection for themselves. I find your reasoning a little bizarre, in nearly all countries there are huge bodies of laws specifically designed to protect children and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone question the fairness of this.
If it was true that in the United States a white man could murder a black man and get off with serving one or two years or even go free, but a black man injuring a white man got the death penalty, then that would be “unfair.”
If laws were made in the United states that were applied only to Blacks and Blacks were excluded from any process that made those laws, then that would be unfair.
Even if the Black man had committed murder, or did commit a crime.
I am not arguing that Israel has been without sin*. Israel consists of real people who are no more or less subject to human failings than anyone else. Hate exists on both sides of the Green line at this point. Some of what Israel has done is wrong, IMHO. Arab children should be able to attend their usual schools, for example. Schools should be funded equally in all districts, not less in Arab ones. I can read HRW reports on Israel and see their points for lots of what they accuse Israel of. And disagree with some of it. Minimally I respect HRW as “fair” because they apply the same, perhaps occassionally unrealistic, standards to everyone. They condemn the Palestinians even more strongly that they condemn the Israelis (“crimes against humanity”). They condemn other Arab nations. They condemn the United States. They don’t only pick on Israel and routinely give Arab nations or peoples a pass.
The UN is not fair. It singles out Israel for condemnation for relatively mild offenses while leaving systemic abuses by others unmentioned. It denies Israel a voice in the process. This is exactly the equivilent of the hypothetical Black American situation above.
*But “huge catalogue”? Nah. Not even in the running for serious human rights violations.
WE cant judge the bias reflected by the resolution without reading its text.
We are each showing our own biases about the UN by the opinions we are expressing here!
There is a fair and level reason the UN might have passed a resolution regarding the Palestinian children: their own mothers have advocated their strapping on explosives and taking their own lives! If the resolution implores the Palestinians to no longer destroy their children in this way, then no anti-Israeli bias is expressed.
If you fail to recognize that Israel has consistentally commited human rights violation after violation for the past 35 years, then you might think their treatment unfair. But Israel are one of the worst and most consistent human rights abusers and the UN General Assembly resolutions reflect this.
DSeid: My honest answer is I’m not certain. Well, I’m certain about Cel-Ray, which is foulness squared ;). But my opinion on whether UN is an unfair broker vis-a-vis Israel is mixed.
I do think you and Izzy make some compellling arguments regarding the intense focus on Israel vs., say, Myanmar/Burma ( which certainly gets its share of condemnation, but probably relatively less intense scrutiny Israel ). I agree that the Arab numerical superiority, Muslim sympathy, and even the amorphous “third-world” solidarity ( anti-perceived western imperialism, fair or unfair in categorization or not ) plays a part in this increased scrutiny.
However I also think there is a unique historical element ( the unusual nature of the state of Israel vis-a-vis its recent and contentious establishment ) and unusual strategic element ( including a legacy left over from the Cold War when this was a particularly tense proxy struggle ) that makes some of this focus natural.
And, I am not at all certain whether all this adds up to the U.N. being a de facto unreliable broker. Lots of resolutions that focus on Israel being brought by member states as part of a democratic process, does not mean at the end of the day that U.N. negotiators or peacekeepers are going to be irredeemably biased in favor of the Palestinians. It does mean you can be suspicious that this might be the case. But I remain unconvinced ( or at least uncertain ) of whether this is actually the case.
In part this stems from my belief that internationalization has some real upsides to it - I, for example, remain staunchly in favor of a fully internationalized Jerusalem under U.N. auspices ( perhaps as a new capital for that organization ) and completely ( and yes, permanently ) outside of Israeli or Palestinian control.
Interesting. Except I’m imagining how New Yorkers would feel if New York were turned over to U.N. jurisdiction. Who would defend the New Jerusalem from foreign takeover? U.N. troops? Like in Rwanda?
Really? Worse and more consistently worse than Algeria, China, Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, or Vietnam? And if you look at Israel over the whole course of its existence, are you saying it was a more consistently worse abuser of human rights than such states as Hoxha’s Albania, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mengistu’s Ethiopia, Mobutu’s Zaire, or the USSR?
I mean, that’s not exactly a defense of Israel’s human rights record, but it just doesn’t help the real case to be made against Israeli policies to engage in that sort of reckless hyperbole. It really does just sound like anti-Israel bias, rather than legitimate criticism. (Now, if you want to compare Israel to India, Turkey, or for that matter the United States, you would have a much more reasonable case.)
Not happy. But then New York isn’t the crossroads for three major religions, is it? In point of fact I expect neither the Palestinians nor Israelis to accept such a thing. I just think it is the best practical solution ( and I say practical even though the chances of it ever happening is very, very low ).
Who would take it over? Israel? Palestine? Jordan? Those are the only three contenders I see as being capable of such a thing, considering proximity. The Palestinians have not the force, especially if Israel moved to prevent ( starting perhaps another war, but oh well - that’s what deterrent means ). Jordan is unlikely to intervene and would be most hampered by logistics. It, to, is incapable of pulling such a thing off under Israel’s nose. Israel would be bound, as a democratic society, by force of treaty. If they violated it, one response might be to them committing such an act in defiance of U.N. authority would be to treat them like Iraq vis-a-vis Kuwait. Even if such a thing were vetoed in the security council, overwhelming world pressure would likely cause an eventual internal fracture in the internal Israeli body politic ( which is nothing if not internally divided ) and a retraction.
I don’t consider foreign invasion much of an issue.
But again, I don’t consider this scenario to ever arise in the first place, as I doubt either side would ever accept internationalization.
I was going to post something along the same lines. Israel’s record really isn’t stellar, but it is way above many others. Much as I find certain actions by the Israeli government /military questionable, counter-productive, or outright wrong, they are still miles above many of the petty dictatorships that dot the world.
Well Tamerlane, thanks for your honest answer. I still like Cel-Ray.
I would thnk that the natural historical focus would apply to Palestinian offenses as well as Israeli ones.
And while it may be true that the UN, in fact, could potentially be an honest broker, there is no evidence that they would be. All Israel has to go on is the track record. Based on that they can only conclude that there is little likelihood of getting a fair hearing.
Rogg, see Duck Duck’s post of 12-28-2002 04:39 PM. She was kind enough to post the draft resolution. No mention of anything other than Israeli wrongs. The US’s response said it well
Israel’s human rights abuses fit in with the first clique of countries that you mentioned (though as someone, who has lived in Turkey, I have to tell you they too belong in the first group). Israel is one of the worst human rights abusers (a trend that has held since the start of the occupation), though generally not to it’s own citizens, but to the protected persons under it’s control. If you compare the real-term suffering caused by Israel’s policies with those of Saudi Arabia’s policies the two countries don’t even compare.
All the regimes that you mentioned as worst than Israel are now defunct and therefore irrelevant. Israel has no right what so ever to be in Palestine and it is it’s occupation that create the conditions which causes suicide bombers. There is a clear relationship between Israel and the Palestinians of oppressor and oppressed and as such Israel are always likely to be judged more harshly in comparisions of policy.
The only thing I have against Israel is it’s occupation. It is completely within Israel’s power to end and yet it’s elected leaders contrive to make the situation worst.
I honestly don’t know how to argue with someone who thinks Israel’s human rights record is as bad as that of Myanmar or Iraq or North Korea. For whatever reason, you appear to be blinded by a hatred of Israel. I don’t think this sort of “criticism” will really do any good, though. Something more rational might actually hit home with people, but this will simply be dismissed as blatant propaganda.
I didn’t say Israel’s human rights record was as bad as Iraq, Myanamar or North Korea, but Israel is still one of the worst human rights abusers (certainly the worst western democracy)and AFAIK the only country that has a human rights group that is primarily set up to deal with it’s abuses.
Israel is a major human rights abuser, there is no point burying your head in the sand and denying it. Few countries have willfully caused such a large population displacement as Israel, few countries have placed an entire nation under house arrest, among western democracies Israel is the only one that practices legalised torture and summary executions.
There are minor variations, but all four governments are your basic “western democracy”. Elected officials in the Executive Branch, elected representatives in the Legislative Branch, and appointed higher-level judges in the Judicial Branch.
“Summary” executions means “quickly”, and the meaning is “…and without a trial”.
Russia, Turkey, and Mexico all are on Amnesty International’s official shit list as having summary executions–quick informal executions without trials.
As for “legalised” torture, no, obviously none of them has “legalized” torture, although it apparently is winked at by the respective Powers That Be, but I’d like to see a cite for the fact that Israel has legalized torture.
AI reports only that Israel is “practicing” or apparently “officially tolerating” torture, the same way that Russia, Turkey, and Mexico are “practicing” or apparently “officially tolerating” torture, but I don’t see anything that says it’s actually “legalized”. I would think that if torture were actually legal in Israel, AI and HRW would be raising holy hell about it. But I don’t see that.
I do, however, see lots of websites saying that what the IDF is doing “amounts to legalized torture”. Well, I’m sorry, but for purposes of debate, saying “amounts to being legalized” isn’t the same thing as actually being legalized. If we were talking about the legalization of marijuana, it wouldn’t be the same thing to say that the authorities winking at personal use of marijuana in some localities means that it’s “legalized” there.