The UN Commission of Inquiry's footnotes betray how they lie

It happens again and again. A major institution, whether the UN, Amnesty or HRW, issues a report that asserts what it considers facts, it refers to a footnoted publication, and the footnote proves that they are lying.

Here is an example from the latest UN Commission of Inquiry report. It finds that Israel's "occupation" is unlawful under international law.  It says:

The occupation of territory in wartime is, under international humanitarian law, a temporary situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty. Occupation as a result of war cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory.

The footnote to this points to the  International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commentary of 1958 on article 47 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The wording of that commentary makes it clear that Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" which is the linchpin of the entire argument.

It says:

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. ...As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty.

What state is Israel occupying? If there was no state there, there is no occupation. The UN report's own footnote betrays that the assumptions behind the entire report itself is false.

The commentary emphasizes that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the people, not the State. Israel agrees with this and its High Court rulings have always upheld the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Conventions even without the existence of a Palestinian state in the territories it controls. 

However, the text itself makes it clear that there is no occupation if there is no previously existing State that had legal title to the land - and there wasn't one. It sure isn't Jordan, whose annexation of the West Bank was illegal by virtually every yardstick. It cannot be the "State of Palestine" because we are told - by the UN - that the territories have been occupied since 1967 and no one claims that the "State of Palestine" existed before 1988 at the earliest. 

I have yet to find an international law expert say the exact date that "occupied territories" of 1967 became "occupied Palestinian territories." But the UN retroactively says that the territories that Israel won in a defensive war have been "Palestinian" since 1967 - they even have had a "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

Israel also has the absolute right to protect its own soldiers and citizens from harm that comes from the territories, under the same Geneva Conventions. As always at the UN and with other modern antisemites, a question of competing rights is being treated as if only one side has human rights, and they assume that Jews simply do not have such rights.

The UN's fast and loose definition of "occupation" is made clear in footnote 10:

For the purposes of the present report, “the territories that Israel occupies” and equivalent terms are a reference to East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan, Gaza and the West Bank outside East Jerusalem. 

Israel doesn't occupy Gaza by any definition of the term that existed in any legal manual or article before Israel's withdrawal from the territory in 2005. Those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza without having a single soldier there have literally made up a new definition of occupation to apply to Israel only. Essentially, the UN is admitting - not for the first time - that it doesn't care about the legal definition of occupation to begin with; it applies the label to Israel without any regard to what it means. 

Which is this entire report in a nutshell. If Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" under the legal definition of occupation then there is no "occupation" that can be declared illegal. The UN decided to make the declaration of illegality first, and tried to justify it afterwards, all while pretending to give an impartial legal analysis.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

09/13 Links Pt1: The Palestinians and the World Do Not Need Another Corrupt, Failed Terrorist Arab State; Fatah boasts: Arafat deliberately started the intifada terror campaign

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: The Palestinians and the World Do Not Need Another Corrupt, Failed Terrorist Arab State

The truth, however, is that neither the Palestinian Authority leadership nor the Palestinian people is ready for statehood. And the responsibility for that fact lies squarely with the ruthless and failed Palestinian leaders.

The Palestinian bid to obtain UN recognition of a Palestinian state comes at a time when the PA appears to be losing control over some parts of the West Bank, where gunmen belonging to several groups have replaced the Palestinian security forces... [and] are responsible not only for terrorist attacks against Israel, but also the growing scenes of anarchy and lawlessness....

Abbas himself has long been praising and glorifying Palestinians who carry out terrorist attacks....

Abbas, who is unable (and unwilling) to rein in a few hundred gunmen in two major Palestinian cities in the West Bank, wants the United Nations, its member states and the rest of the world to believe that he is ready to run a state of his own.

If Abbas cannot send his officers to confiscate an M-16 rifle from an unruly gunman in Jenin or Nablus, how can he be trusted to prevent the future Palestinian state from turning into a launching pad for regional terrorism?

Abbas wants the UN to grant the Palestinians the status of full member state, but cannot provide any guarantees that the aspired-for state would not be turned into a terror entity that is armed and funded by Iran's regime and its proxies.

Abbas wants the UN to recognize "Palestine" as a state when he literally has no control over half of the Palestinians... If Abbas dares to go to the Gaza Strip, Hamas will hang him at the entrance to the area on charges of "collaboration" with Israel.

Abbas is seeking full UN recognition at a time when he continues to block general elections for the PA, arrests and intimidates his political opponents, refuses to share power with other Palestinians and muzzles freedom of expression.

More than they need a state, the Palestinians need good leadership. They need to rid themselves of the corrupt leaders who have deprived them of international aid and led them from one disaster after the other since the early 1970s, when the PLO was expelled from Jordan for undermining the kingdom's sovereignty.

[T]he Palestinians' biggest tragedy by far has been failed leadership and more failed leadership. It radicalizes them toward Islamic fundamentalism and deprives them of elections, freedom of expression and international aid. The UN member states would be doing a great service to the Palestinians if they asked Abbas about the absence of freedom of speech and a functioning parliament under his regime.

They would also be doing the Palestinian people a huge service if they asked Abbas about torture in Palestinian Authority prisons and the continuing crackdown by his security forces on human rights activists and journalists. And they should definitely ask him what measures he has taken to end financial and administrative corruption in the PA.

These issues are more pressing for the Palestinians than another worthless document by the UN recognizing a fictitious Palestinian state that is already marked by the intrusion of other brutal radical Islamist dictatorships.

MEMRI: Semi-Frozen: The Middle East's Intractable Conflicts

The term "frozen conflict" came into vogue in recent decades to describe a variety of border conflicts between Russia and neighboring countries, often over breakaway regions like Abkhazia or the Donbass.[1] There are also historic conflicts like Kashmir or the Arab-Israeli Conflict that go on for decades, sometimes hot and sometimes cold, that seem to also be "frozen," neither conclusive war nor outright peace, but an uneasy, volatile reality in between.

But aside from the old conflict over Palestine, the Middle East seems to have engendered new conflicts in recent decades that are, at least, semi-frozen, lasting for a decade or longer. Often extremely violent and damaging to the future of nations, they also simmer down to situations approaching some type of wary truce, mere political turmoil or low-grade instability only to flare up again. This seems to be the case in places like Libya, Yemen, and Iraq, all three countries where the overthrow of a longtime brutal dictator unleashed forces that have not yet played out years later.

Of course, the region is flush with conflict. In Lebanon and Syria, one side (Hezbollah and Assad) is more or less victorious and dominant, though there is still some opposition on the ground. Morocco and Algeria are increasingly at loggerheads, though not at war. In Sudan, political crisis and societal turmoil could lead to open conflict between rival groupings inside the military regime. Transnational Salafi-Jihadism and Iranian-inspired terrorism still exist in the region and still claim victims.

But it is the cases of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen that are particularly haunting and costly to the future of the region. All three countries had been ruled by long-standing dictatorships that while they may have provided some of the aspects of stability, were still very volatile regimes. Two of them, Saddam's Iraq and Qaddafi's Libya, were actually major "exporters" of instability, promoting terrorism globally, repressing local citizens internally and attacking their neighbors.

Iraq has been at war, albeit sometimes at relatively low levels, since the Americans overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003. But even before that was the Kuwait War of 1990-1991 and the Iran War of 1980-1988. On top of that were internal conflicts, the regime's decades-long war against the Kurds, the savage repression of a Shia insurgency in 1991, and then after the American forces left in 2011, an increasingly sectarian Iraq under Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the war against ISIS beginning in 2014. That war greatly increased something that had already existed, Shia paramilitary groups, which echoes today in the ongoing conflict between the militias and parties closest to Iran against those arrayed with Muqtada Al-Sadr.[2] The open armed clashes in Baghdad and Basra of August 2022 have ebbed thanks to the mediating efforts of Iraq's prime minister and of the Shia clerical authorities in Najaf, but the political crisis continues.[3]

The American overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 essentially dethroned Sunni power in Iraq and handed it over to the long-oppressed Iraqi Shia. Today's clashes in Iraq are less about good versus evil than an internal civil war within different factions of the Iraqi Shia political establishment, all of whom in one way or another, have colonized, subverted, and become parasites on the Iraqi state.[4] A 40-year-old Iraqi citizen alive today knows nothing but war and violent political turmoil inside the borders of his country.

Moscow’s invitation to Hamas could be meant as warning to Israel, analysts say

Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh arrived in Moscow on Sept. 10 at the head of a senior delegation from the terror group for talks with Russian officials. Analysts speculate that Moscow’s invitation to Hamas, like an earlier one in May, is meant to send a message of dissatisfaction to Israel.

“The Russians typically use meetings with Hamas to signal displeasure with Israel, perhaps in relation to Ukraine,” Hillel Frisch, senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), told JNS.

A noteworthy aspect of the May meeting is that it came a month after Israel Prime Minister Yair Lapid, then foreign minister, accused Russia of war crimes in Ukraine, specifically in relation to alleged atrocities committed outside Kyiv. Of the current meeting, Frisch said it was unclear what specifically Russia may have found objectionable about Israeli statements or actions.

Anna Geifman, senior researcher at Bar-Ilan University’s department of political science, told JNS that it might be a general warning, a way for Russia to tell Israel that if it takes a “wrong step” it will strengthen relations with the region’s hostile actors. “The message may be: ‘If you become our enemy, we’re going to deal with your enemies,’ ” she said.

For Geifman, the important point is that this isn’t something new. “The Russians have always played the anti-Israel, or anti-Western, card whenever it was convenient for them, from the Soviet days. They’ve always talked to terrorists. It’s not even a question of talking—it’s collaborating,” she said.

Read More

The UN Commission of Inquiry says Israel's legal basis is UNGA 181. That is not true at all. (But they are lying for an anti-Israel reason.)

UN investigator Miloon Kothari gave a half-hearted, obviously insincere apology for his statements from over a week ago that the "Jewish lobby" controlled social media and his questioning of Israel's legality altogether, saying "I would go as far as to raise the question as why are they [Israel] even a member of the United Nations." 

His response to that was, 

I also wish to clarify that my comment on Israel's membership of the United  Nations was made to highlight the fact that every member of this body should uphold. and respect findings and recommendations issued by it. in accordance with relevant UN General Assembly resolutions. What I wanted to highlight is the non-compliance of Israel with UN decisions related to its obligations under international law, a concern the Commission extensively covered in its first report to the Human Rights Council. At no place in the interview did I question the existence of the State of Israel. On the contrary, in several instances, during the media interview in question, I have defended the existence of the State of Israel. This is fully consistent with the position of the Commission, as also stated in our first report and stressed in the letter of our Chair to the President of the Council: “The Commission does not question the status or United Nations membership of either of the concerned states of its mandate. The foundations for the legality of the State of Israel, alongside that of the State of Palestine were laid out by General Assembly resolution 181 and are not and never will be in question by this Commission” I did not intend to suggest that Israel should be excluded from the United Nations.

He is asserting that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 is the legal basis for the State of Israel.

This is not remotely true.

First of all, General Assembly resolutions do not have the status of international law. 

Secondly, you can read Resolution 181: it did not declare the Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. It recommended the Security Council implement the provisions listed there and suggested that if either or both states declare their independence then the UN should treat their application for membership with sympathy.

When the Arabs rejected the resolution, it became a dead letter. It is valuable in the sense that it showed that the UN overwhelmingly supported a Jewish state in Palestine, but it is has no legal weight.

Some people claim that Israel itself has used UNGA 181 as its legal basis in its Declaration of Independence. It is true that Israel's Declaration of Independence referred to the resolution as onne of many reasons supporting the right of the Jewish people to a state, but that is not the legal basis for it. The Declaration says:

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

Resolution 181 was one of many pieces of evidence showing that Jews have the right to a state of their own. It was not the legal basis for that state.

So what is the legal basis for the State of Israel?

This 2004 legal analysis notes:

Sir Lauterpacht, a renowned expert on international law and editor of Oppenheim’s International Law, clarified that, from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem,⁷ Lauterpacht wrote that to be a binding force, the “Partition Plan” would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda,⁸ that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Lauterpacht explains:

“… the coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence – especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations.”

Reviewing Lauterpacht’s arguments, Professor Stone added that Israel’s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation” for its birth does not reside with the United Nations’ “Partition Plan,” which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:

“… The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.”⁹

That is Israel's legal claim to statehood - surviving and being recognized as a state. And if the COI doesn't know that basic fact, it is incompetent to do anything. 

But it does know the truth, and it is lying for a specific reason.

Kothari is making two wrong assertions here: that Israel's legal foundation is based on Resolution 181, and also that the "State of Palestine" has the same legal basis. This is doubly absurd: not only is 181 not legally binding, but the Palestinian Arabs of the time rejected it - which is the exact reason it cannot be legally binding!  They cannot turn back the clock and say that, sorry, we now accept UNGA 181 decades after we ripped it up.

It seems that the Commission making up the claim that 181 is the legal basis for Israel in order to pretend that Palestinians have an equal claim to nationhood as Israel does!

That is a breathtakingly cynical twisting of international law to create a legal basis for Palestinian statehood - and once you realize that this is a lie, one may wonder what exactly the legal basis for a nonexistent State of Palestine is to begin with?

This analysis shows that this commission is pretty much founded on lies. 

(h/t Myths and Facts)

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Yair Lapid's excellent letter to the UN Secretary General points out the hypocrisy of the UN

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid wrote an excellent letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in response to the statements by one of the members of the Commission of Inquiry, Miloon Kothari, that were antisemitic, claiming that the "Jewish lobby" controlled social media.

Significantly, Lapid's letter does not only call out the antisemitism of that statement. It also points out that Kothari's suggestion that Israel does not belong in the United Nations altogether is also an example of antisemitism - according to the words of Antonio Guterres himself!

But more than that, he points out that the commission itself was biased from the start, and its reaction to this episode only solidifies how biased it is.

As is often the case, the Prime Minister's Office stupidly did not release the letter in a way that is could be easily copied and pasted - it only released a photograph of the letter. This is simply unforgivable. The basics of public relations are ignored and only people who make a great effort to view the letter and quote it can do so.

So I am reproducing it here.

Your Excellency,

I am writing to you to demand the immediate removal of all three members of the COI tasked with investigating Israel, and the disbanding of the Commission. The COI has been fundamentally tainted by the publicly expressed prejudices of its leadership, who do not meet the basic standards of neutrality, independence and impartiality required by the United Nations.

In a recent interview (July 25th), one of the commissioners, Mr. Miloon Kothari, made several outrageous comments, including some which are clearly antisemitic.

During the interview, Mr. Kothari said, “We are very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by- whether it is the Jewish lobby or specific NGOs, a lot of money is being thrown in to try to discredit us.” He further questioned Israel’s right to exist as an equal member of the community of nations, in an unacceptable and cynical attempt to discredit the very legitimacy of the one and only Jewish state. He stated, “I would go as far as to raise the question as why they are even a member of the United Nations.”

These antisemitic remarks are a stain on the entire United Nations and are not befitting of a person with such a position of responsibility. As such, they were firmly condemned by representatives of the United States, France, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Austria, the European Union and others.

Instead of taking a moral stance and repudiating these comments, Ms. Navi Pillay, who chairs the COI, chose to defend and excuse them, in a public letter sent to the President of the Human Rights Council on July 28th. She doubled down on the Commission’s support for Mr. Kothari’s comments. Pillay’s claim that the comments were taken out of context are false and were even rejected by the President of the UN Human Rights Council. I urge you to listen to Mr. Kothari’s interview and judge for yourself.

I recall your principled comments at a New York conference in 2017, that “a modern form of antisemitism is the denial of the right of the State of Israel to exist.” Furthermore, you pledged to take a stand “in the front line of the struggle against antisemitism, and to make sure the United Nations is able to take all possible actions for antisemitism to be condemned, and if possible, eradicated from the face of the earth.” You stressed that "Israel needs to be treated as any other state, with exactly the same rules."

Excellency, I call on you today to honor your word in this egregious case, to set the record straight. This cannot stand. Slurs about a “Jewish lobby” that acts to “control” the media, are reminiscent of the darkest days of modern history.

The fundamentally flawed nature of the COI has been widely discussed, and a group of 22 nations, led by the United States, issued a joint statement during the June HRC session expressing their deep concern about this. This latest shameful episode is a further example of its flawed and biased nature.

The fight against antisemitism cannot be waged with words alone, it requires action. This is the time for action; it is time to disband the Commission. From Mr. Kothari’s outrageous slurs to Ms. Pillay’s defense of the indefensible, this Commission does not just endorse antisemitism — it fuels it.

I therefore ask you to take all necessary measures to bring about the immediate resignation of Ms. Pillay and the other commissioners, and the disbanding of the Commission.

Sincerely,

Yair Lapid

I cannot find the full text of Antonio Gutteres' 2017 speech to the World Jewish Congress where he said  “a modern form of antisemitism is the denial of the right of the State of Israel to exist.” Arguably, the more important statement was where he said "Israel needs to be treated as any other state, with exactly the same rules." This commission, by its very existence and the fact that it is the only open-ended commission in UN history, violates that rule and is prima facie evidence of the UN's inherent antisemitism. 

Gutteres has also said, “You can be absolutely sure, as secretary-general of the United Nations, I will be in the front line of the struggle against antisemitism, and to make sure the United Nations is able to to take all possible actions for antisemitism to be condemned, and if possible, eradicated from the face of the earth.”

It is past time to turn these words into action.

If the fight against antisemitism is to have any meaning at all, this commission of inquiry must be disbanded. But there is no procedural method to accomplish that - antisemitism is baked into the UN and in its rules allowing something like this to begin with. All we have left is to expose the hypocrisy of a commission that is supposedly meant to advance human rights when the UN's leader has said, explicitly, that "Antisemitism threatens all people’s human rights. It is a menace to democratic values, to social peace and stability. "

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

UN COI "expert" really said that social media is controlled by the Jewish lobby and pro-Israel NGOs

We've written previously about the kangaroo court, open ended "commission of inquiry" of the UN Human Rights Council designed to declare Israel a violator of every law known to man plus a few that they will make up themselves. 

One of the members of the commission, Miloon Kothari, gave an podcast interview with Mondoweiss (naturally) that was so absurd that it is beyond parody. He spouted explicit antisemitism. He spread lies about international law. 

It is something to hear.

The goal of this commission is to gather evidence to take Israel to the International Criminal Court and possibly expel it from the UN.

Kothari complained about how the US was working against the obvious bias of the commission, saying that it was very disrespectful for the US to point it out.

You might know at this session of the Council when we presented our report, the United States, which is you know, become a member of the Council again, circulated a statement signed by 22 countries objecting to our mandate and that actually shows great disrespect for the body that the United States is a member of.  Because once you're a member of a body and a body has adopted a mechanism, you have to, you have to respect it. 

....We had overwhelming support of the UN Member states. the US got, you know, 22 states signed, but that's 22 out of 193. That's not very much.

Also I think that it's not only governments, but we are very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by whether it's the Jewish lobby or it's very specific NGOs. A lot of money is being thrown into trying to discredit us.

According to Kothari, the majority must always be right. And Jews control social media and they are throwing a lot of their Jew money at trying to silence the esteemed UN commission that is beyond reproach or criticism.

That's not even an exaggerated version of what he is saying.

Kothari also says the "occupation" has been illegal from the beginning. Even if you say that Israel occupies the West Bank, occupations aren't illegal. There is no concept of an illegal occupation in international law. Kothari's ignorance of the basics of the international law that supposedly is the basis of this inquiry says volumes. 

And then he says, "I would go as far as to raise the question is why are they [Israel] even a member of the United Nations?"

Listening to this podcast, this is a very good question.  Why should any decent country give legitimacy to what is so obviously a joke?

Kothari did say one thing that was 100% accurate, though, even though he meant it in a different way:

If people feel that we are biased, then we are biased. But but for us, that's that's the job we've been given to do. And that's what we're doing. 

Exactly. The job they were given was to be biased, and that is precisely what they are doing.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Palestinian UN representative calls for the US to be expelled from the UNHRC

The UN Human Rights Council has released the initial report of the permanent Commission of Inquiry that is designed to delegitimize Israel. It is the only permanent commission of inquiry in the UN.

The commission is headed by Navi Pillay who has pre-judged Israel to be guilty of a host of crimes over the past 15 years before even the pretense of investigation, making her the ideal lead for this kangaroo court.

A consortium of 22 nations, led by the US, signed a letter to oppose the obvious bias of the commission:

Resolution S-30/1 established a COI of open-ended mandate with no sunset clause, end date, or clear limitations connected to the escalation in May 2021. For this reason, many of the Council’s members at the time expressed fundamental concerns when resolution S-30/1 came up for adoption.

To be clear, no one is above scrutiny and it is this Council’s responsibility to promote and protect human rights the world over. We must work to counter impunity and promote accountability on a basis of consistent and universally applied standards.

We believe the nature of the COI established last May is further demonstration of long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the Council and must stop.

We continue to believe that this long-standing disproportionate scrutiny should end, and that the Council should address all human rights concerns, regardless of country, in an even-handed manner. 

The Palestinian Authority's deputy foreign minister and Palestinian observer to the UN, Ibrahim Khraishi, gave a speech to the UNHRC denouncing the letter - and said that because of this letter, the US should be expelled from the UN Human Rights Council!

There is a joint statement prepared by America with the occupying power inciting against the commission, its report and its work, which exposes the double standards practiced by other countries that demand the necessity of supporting the work of other investigation committees emanating from this council in different parts of the world.

This policy pursued by America, which undermines the legal and human rights system, disqualifies it from being a member of this Council. Therefore, we call on the General Assembly to suspend its membership in the Council.

Yes, the PA is saying that the US is guilty of double standards for opposing the UN's double standards.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More