23 September 2010
Source/Link: Just Journalism
On the June 23 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted Resolution 14/1, calling for an investigation into the events upon the Mavi Marmara, which left 9 Turkish nationals dead. Israel, which had boarded the ship in question, refused to co-operate with the investigation, citing its concerns that the UNHRC was prejudiced against the state, and had already decided that Israeli soldiers had acted unjustly. Today, there was widespread coverage of the UNHRC’s announcement that it had found Israel guilty of war crimes.
In order to evaluate the legitimacy of Israel’s concerns, it is important to note several points about the UNHRC and Resolution 14/1.
1) Despite being adopted several weeks after Israel had released video footage of its soldiers being physically assaulted aboard the Mavi Marmara, Resolution 14/1 stated that Israel was guilty of unjustified violence, before the investigation had begun:
‘The Human Rights Council…[c]ondemns in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces against the humanitarian flotilla of ships, which resulted in the killing and injuring of many innocent civilians from different countries’.
Whilst it is true that the UNHRC Report, generated by a fact-finding Mission, states in its Introduction that it 'did not interpret its task as proceeding on any such assumptions' as those cited in the above resolution, it is at least arguable that the report's methodology as well as its conclusions -- which were extremely hostile to Israel -- were conceived in the interest of certifying that original UNHRC resolution. The questionable motives of the UNHRC in commissioning this report and overseeing its production deserved greater scrutiny at least equal to what has been written about Israel's own military and civilian investigations into the flotilla.
2) The UNHRC has a reputation for singling out Israel, at the expense of investigating alleged human rights violations by other states, as highlighted by Just Journalism here. The UNHRC has been criticised by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and his predecessor, Kofi Annan, for having a disproportionate focus on Israel/Palestine. The UNHRC was responsible for the investigation by Judge Richard Goldstone into the 2008 Gaza war, which accused Israel of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. The investigation’s original mandate focused solely on Israel’s conduct during the war, and one of the four members had already publicly declared her belief that Israel was guilty of war crimes before the investigation began, bringing into doubt the UNHRC’s ability to conduct non-partisan investigations into Israel’s actions.
3) In light of these concerns, Israel is co-operating with a different UN inquiry, under New Zealand's ex-prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and Colombia's ex-president Alvaro Uribe, which was established by Ban Ki Moon. Israel has also set up both a civilian inquiry with a wide ranging mandate, monitored by international observers, including Lord Trimble, and a military inquiry to investigate the incident.
The UNHRC’s announcement that Israel’s actions ‘demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence… [which] betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality…[and] constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law’ was reported by the BBC News website, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. All of the coverage emphasised the UNHRC’s conclusions, with varying levels of explanation given of why Israel does not regard them as credible.
1) None of the coverage mentioned the fact that the inquiry’s resolution already pronounced Israel to be guilty, therefore precluding any possibility that it might come to a different conclusion. Instead of quoting from Resolution 14/1, journalists simply noted that Israeli officials regarded the result as pre-determined. Two articles cited Andy David, a spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, who stated that the UNHRC ‘blamed Israel prior to the investigation and it is no surprise that they condemn after’, but no further explanation was given for this claim.
3) In light of these concerns, Israel is co-operating with a different UN inquiry, under New Zealand's ex-prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and Colombia's ex-president Alvaro Uribe, which was established by Ban Ki Moon. Israel has also set up both a civilian inquiry with a wide ranging mandate, monitored by international observers, including Lord Trimble, and a military inquiry to investigate the incident.
The UNHRC’s announcement that Israel’s actions ‘demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence… [which] betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality…[and] constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law’ was reported by the BBC News website, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. All of the coverage emphasised the UNHRC’s conclusions, with varying levels of explanation given of why Israel does not regard them as credible.
1) None of the coverage mentioned the fact that the inquiry’s resolution already pronounced Israel to be guilty, therefore precluding any possibility that it might come to a different conclusion. Instead of quoting from Resolution 14/1, journalists simply noted that Israeli officials regarded the result as pre-determined. Two articles cited Andy David, a spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, who stated that the UNHRC ‘blamed Israel prior to the investigation and it is no surprise that they condemn after’, but no further explanation was given for this claim.
However, Harroon Siddique in The Guardian, Jon Swaine and Adrian Blomfield in The Daily Telegraph, the BBC News article and Reuters in The Financial Times did not cite this statement, and therefore gave no indication that the UNHRC had already pre-judged the incident upon the Mavi Marmara.
2) There was a variety of responses to the issue of the UNHRC’s institutional bias against Israel.The Independent and The Guardian article by Haroon Siddique made no reference to the problem, while the BBC News article simply stated that Israel considered the body to be ‘biased politicised and extremist,’ without giving any additional information.
2) There was a variety of responses to the issue of the UNHRC’s institutional bias against Israel.The Independent and The Guardian article by Haroon Siddique made no reference to the problem, while the BBC News article simply stated that Israel considered the body to be ‘biased politicised and extremist,’ without giving any additional information.
The Daily Telegraph noted that it has denounced the organisation as being ‘biased against the Jewish state’, before later explaining that the UNHCR has ‘courted controversy for its excessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, citing its frequent condemnations of Israel but its relative silence on the conflict in Sudan. The Financial Times stated that ‘[m]any nations believe the council, on which Islamic states and their allies have a majority, focuses on Israeli treatment of Palestinians at the expenses of other rights issues.’
Chris McGreal, writing in The Guardian, described how the body ‘has been accused of a disproportionate focus on Israel’, but disingenuously explained that the reason why it is viewed with scepticism is because ‘it is dominated by the developing world’, when it is their political outlooks, rather than economic status, that prompts scepticism about their even-handedness of issues of human rights.
3) The Independent failed to mention that Israel is cooperating with an independent UN inquiry, while The Guardian’s Haroon Siddique went as far as to argue that Israel ‘has fiercely resisted demands for an independent international inquiry’.
The coverage shows that, even when a body has a reputation for bias, and there is clear evidence that its findings are pre-determined, reports that allege that Israel has conducted human rights violations will still be cited in a largely uncritical fashion. While Israel’s concerns might receive a few references, the emphasis of the articles will still be on the claims that have been made, rather than the motivating factors behind them.
The coverage shows that, even when a body has a reputation for bias, and there is clear evidence that its findings are pre-determined, reports that allege that Israel has conducted human rights violations will still be cited in a largely uncritical fashion. While Israel’s concerns might receive a few references, the emphasis of the articles will still be on the claims that have been made, rather than the motivating factors behind them.
Note:
The time has come for the United States to bow out of the United Nations! Time to kick the UN out of America and let them hold their hate-feasts in one of their Arab countries. The United Nations is an insult to anyone truly concerned about freedom and democracy.
But oh, it gets even better! America's State Department has appealed to the UNHRC regarding Arizona's immigration law i.e. Federal laws! Yup, that's right ... our own government is appealing to an organization that would not recognize "Human Rights" unless it were the rights of Jihadist and Suicide bombers! (Can't make this stuff up fast enough! See below!)
Past time to reign in America's elite government leaders and either get them to resign or bring up the laws of "Treason"!
Bee Sting
Obama to Muslim world: "We are not at war with Islam"
| Obama Labels AZ Immigration Law as Human Rights Problem |
The battle over immigration and the challenge to Arizona's sound and reasonable immigration law has reached a new low. President Obama's State Department has filed an unprecedented report with the United Nations Human Rights Council citing Arizona's immigration law as a human rights problem in this country. That's right - the Obama Administration, which is challenging the AZ law in federal court, is now appealing to the United Nations - and to some of the most repressive countries in the world - actually citing the Arizona law as an example of human rights abuses in this country. It is a comparison that is deeply troubling. How can the President compare AZ's law - which protects the state's borders and residents - to a human rights abuse? There's no shortage of legitimate human rights abuses that need to be investigated - including the murder and torture of Christians around the world because of their religious beliefs. To compare AZ's immigration law to a human rights problem is simply absurd. This is just another example of President Obama's disturbing philosophy of placing the United States under international review. Despite past presidential administrations repeated refusal to legitimize the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama Administration was quick to subject the U.S. to review under the Council. This position has met heavy criticism. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is quoted as saying, “‘Without meaningful membership standards, that body will remain nothing more than a rogues’ gallery, and our participation will have the net result of legitimizing its biased actions.’” The Human Rights Council devotes a majority of its efforts to condemning Israel, while ignoring some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The current Council is made up of 47 countries, with less than half of its members considered to be “free” countries according to credible human rights organizations. The Council harbors some of the worst human rights offenders in the world. The Obama Administration must not be permitted to get away with this tactic. As you know, we're engaged in the legal fight to defend AZ's immigration law and have filed amicus briefs with the federal district court and now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of 66 members of Congress urging the appeals court to uphold the constitutionality of AZ's measure. By including the AZ immigration law in this U.N. report, the Obama Administration sidesteps the judicial process accorded by the U.S. Constitution and places the duly enacted law before an international body for review. This move undercuts American sovereignty, the well-established principle of federalism, and the popular will of the people. Most Americans don't support the President's position on this issue and according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 61% of Americans support a law similar to the Arizona measure in their own state. So now President Obama, clearly not satisfied with challenging the AZ law in our federal court system, is appealing to the international community - hoping to generate opposition against the AZ law on a global scale. It's time to put a stop to this effort. We're standing with AZ Governor Jan Brewer in demanding that the State Department revise its report - and REMOVE any reference to AZ's immigration law. As she puts it: “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok.” Our legal and legislative teams in this country are working with our international affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice, to prepare a report urging the U.N. Human Rights Council to disregard the inclusion of the AZ immigration law because it falls outside the realm of human rights. We've produced a legal memo outlining our position on this issue. You can read the memo here. As we continue to support the AZ law in court, we're now demanding that the State Department REMOVE the AZ immigration law from its UN report on human rights problems. Stand with the ACLJ and have your voice heard on this critical issue. Sign on to our Petition demanding that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton retract this damaging report - REMOVE AZ's immigration law from this report. Sign on to our Petition - President Obama: Stop You Assault on America. Add your name here. We will keep you informed on developments on this front. Stay in touch with us and get the latest information on our daily radio broadcast, Jay Sekulow Live! |
| Posted: 9/20/2010 12:00:00 AM |
