US quits UN human rights council for Israel - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14926125
The Guardian wrote:Nikki Haley says council is ‘protector of human rights abusers’ that targets Israel in particular and ignores atrocities elsewhere

The US is withdrawing from the United Nations human rights council, the Trump administration announced on Tuesday, calling it a "cesspool of political bias that targets Israel in particular while ignoring atrocities in other countries".

The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said she had traveled to the council’s headquarters in Geneva a year ago to call for reforms, to no avail.

“Regrettably it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded,” Haley told reporters at the state department. “Human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council.”

She added: “The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny and the council continues politicising and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks.”

“For too long the human rights council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.”

The UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, expressed regret about the US withdrawal. The organisation’s top human rights official, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said in a tweet: “Given the state of human rights in today’s world, the US should be stepping up, not stepping back.”

Haley argued the US had spent a year in pursuit of reforms while the council’s flaws deepened. She pointed to the election of the Democratic Republic of Congo to council membership in the past year, despite the US reform campaign, as proof that the body could not be fixed. She also noted the council had failed to hold a single session on Venezuela, which is a council member, or Iran, despite its ruthless crushing of opposition demonstrations.

“When a so-called human rights council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name,” the ambassador said.

Haley also pointed to the continued existence of “agenda item 7”, a permanent fixture on the schedule, exclusively devoted to the discussion of rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said the US decision to leave was “regrettable”.

Johnson, who had called on Monday for agenda item 7 to be reformed, said in a statement: “The United States’ decision to withdraw from the human rights council is regrettable.

“We’ve made no secret of the fact that the UK wants to see reform of the human rights council, but we are committed to working to strengthen the council from within,” the foreign secretary added.

However, Haley criticised countries that expressed concern about the council but remained members, suggesting those countries lacked courage. “Almost every country we met with agrees with us, in principle and behind closed doors, that the human rights council needs major dramatic, systemic changes. Yet no other country has had the courage to join our fight,” she said.

The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, appearing alongside Haley, said: “Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled. President Trump wants to move the ball forward. From day one he has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another, and that’s precisely the problem at the human rights council.”

The Trump administration had been signalling its intention to leave the council for some months, but the announcement came while the US itself is under intense criticism for its own human rights, because of the administration’s policy of forcibly separating young children from their parents when apprehended on the Mexican border.

“Trump’s withdrawal is especially disturbing given his persistent praise for despots and dictators with abysmal human rights records, not to mention his administration’s cruel mistreatment of immigrant families seeking asylum,” the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.

Advocacy groups accused the US of withdrawing from its global obligations to protect human rights.

“The Trump administration’s withdrawal is a sad reflection of its one-dimensional human rights policy: defending Israeli abuses from criticism takes precedence above all else,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said.

“The UN human rights council has played an important role in such countries as North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and South Sudan, but all Trump seems to care about is defending Israel. Like last time when the US government stepped away from the Council for similar reasons, other governments will have to redouble their efforts to ensure the Council addresses the world’s most serious human rights problems.”

The Guardian
#14926143
noemon wrote:“The Trump administration’s withdrawal is a sad reflection of its one-dimensional human rights policy: defending Israeli abuses from criticism takes precedence above all else,” Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said.

“The UN human rights council has played an important role in such countries as North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and South Sudan, but all Trump seems to care about is defending Israel. Like last time when the US government stepped away from the Council for similar reasons, other governments will have to redouble their efforts to ensure the Council addresses the world’s most serious human rights problems.”


Human Rights Watch once again demonstrated its anti-Israel bias.

It is also worthwhile to ask the question
"What exactly has the "Human Rights Council" achieved in North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and South Sudan?"

As far as I know, absolutely nothing, except some impotent statements after another talking session in Geneva or wherever else it is nice to meet followed by sumptuous dinners with salmon and mayonnaise. And the representatives from Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and of other enlightened countries flying in and out in business or first class.
The "Human Rights Council" has certainly not helped the United Nations regaining a modicum of credibility. No moral authority left.
They will continue to meet of course, the gravy train will not stop, but they might end up with only people from dictatorships and banana republics in attendance.
#14926151
It takes a Sikh Indian, Nikki Haley, to call the Islamic bluff.

The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said she had traveled to the council’s headquarters in Geneva a year ago to call for reforms, to no avail.

“Regrettably it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded,” Haley told reporters at the state department. “Human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council.”

She added: “The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny and the council continues politicising and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks.”

“For too long the human rights council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.”

Haley argued the US had spent a year in pursuit of reforms while the council’s flaws deepened. She pointed to the election of the Democratic Republic of Congo to council membership in the past year, despite the US reform campaign, as proof that the body could not be fixed. She also noted the council had failed to hold a single session on Venezuela, which is a council member, or Iran, despite its ruthless crushing of opposition demonstrations.

“When a so-called human rights council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name,” the ambassador said.

Haley also pointed to the continued existence of “agenda item 7”, a permanent fixture on the schedule, exclusively devoted to the discussion of rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.




Free Balochistan (occupied by Pakistan).

Image
#14926189
The UN has succeeded as a "realpolitik" body, doing otherwise is often accredited as the cause of failure for its predecessor the League of Nations. Unfortunately, a lot of people in the UN seem to be putting their "ideals" (virtue signalling) ahead of the reality when it comes to Israel. Palestinians are not going to peacefully accept Jews.
#14926196
I love the timing on this. The UN calls out the US for splitting up families at the border and the US shrieks, "What about Venezuela?!? What about Iran?!? This is so unfair!!!"

Nikki Haley is truly a skilled diplomat.
#14926201
AFAIK wrote:I love the timing on this. The UN calls out the US for splitting up families at the border and the US shrieks, "What about Venezuela?!? What about Iran?!? This is so unfair!!!"

Nikki Haley is truly a skilled diplomat.

Nikki Haley had announced a year ago that the US would withdraw from that Council if it would not reform.
This has nothing to do with splitting families at the border.
#14926204
Ter wrote:Nikki Haley had announced a year ago that the US would withdraw from that Council if it would not reform.
This has nothing to do with splitting families at the border.


No, it is about the UN refusing to play by US rules and the US throwing their toys out of the pram. Though some of the nation's within the UN human rights council are questionable, the US trying to pretend it considers human rights in any of its decision making is laughable at best. Perhaps the world's biggest hypocrites are better off out.
#14926207
B0ycey wrote:No, it is about the UN refusing to play by US rules and the US throwing their toys out of the pram.

That is a subjective assessment.
I quoted a fact about the US issuing a notice to the Council a year ago to get its act together or proceed without them. Having singled out Israel to be discussed in every single meeting, with a fixed agenda point, whilst bringing up any other country only if they feel like it and if it is politically acceptable to them, demonstrates their bias.
B0ycey wrote:Though some of the nation's within the UN human rights council are questionable

:lol: Zimbabwe, Iran, Saudi Arabia .... and you only call it "questionable"?
I think you practice the British humour called "the understatement".
#14926209
British FM Boris Johnson just announced at the UN Human Rights Council that unless they get rid of their special agenda item targeting Israel alone in every session—a treatment he called “damaging to the cause of peace”—the UK “shall move next year to vote against all resolutions” introduced under that label.

#14926210
Ter wrote: :lol: Zimbabwe, Iran, Saudi Arabia .... and you only call it "questionable"?
I think you practice the British humour called "the understatement".


I agree. These countries have a shocker of a record on Human Rights.
#14926211
This body is acting in a virtual world. The Human Rights language is used to duped the gullibles

Palestinian rep just gave speech @UN_HRC on "right to participate in peaceful protests" days after their riot police crushed huge protest in Ramallah, beating dozens of protesters including young women, arresting wounded from the hospital, smashing phones & journalist cameras.



Arab Spring in Palestine (West Bank)

Journalists Beaten, Cameras Destroyed: Palestinian Police Break Up anti-Abbas Protest in Ramallah
Dozens beaten and arrested, including foreign journalists, in breakup of demonstration against Abbas's economic sanctions on Gaza

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-new ... -1.6175290

#14926215
The US, the British, they have only one vote but the Muslim-majority countries, all 57 of them always vote as a block. Some banana republics and dictatorships of various kinds always join the Muslim countries because they are eager to vote against the US and Israel, thus in effect creating a permanent majority.
This has destroyed the credibility of the United Nations in general and many of their subsidiary agencies like the Council on Human Rights.
I am really sorry to use bad language, but fuck the UN, fuck it bigly.
#14926216
Ter wrote:The US, the British, they have only one vote but the Muslim-majority countries, all 57 of them always vote as a block. Some banana republics and dictatorships of various kinds always join the Muslim countries because they are eager to vote against the US and Israel, thus in effect creating a permanent majority.
This has destroyed the credibility of the United Nations in general and many of their subsidiary agencies like the Council on Human Rights.
I am really sorry to use bad language, but fuck the UN, fuck it bigly.

This is what happens when you try to create a 'democratic' world order. You probably aren't going to like what the majority vote for. Lol.
#14926219
Ter wrote:I am really sorry to use bad language, but fuck the UN, fuck it bigly.


Yes, Fuck the body that created Israel in the first place in 1948 and gave generous boarders to the country.

Ter, your country never respected the generous UN boarders they gave you. Neither does Israel seem to respect the Temple Mount is protected from Jewish intrusion by the UN because the UN believes an "International incident"(WW3 most likely) could begin there.

Ok the UN has changed and become way more left-leaning, pro-islam and left-wing over time, but they still gave you Israel back in the first place Ter.... At least respect that fact.

If the UN's credibility has been "destroyed" then maybe the credibility of their 1948 resolution in the first place has also been tarnished.... Have you considered this Ter?
Last edited by colliric on 20 Jun 2018 08:19, edited 3 times in total.
#14926220
@Potemkin
This order started during the Cold War, when the Soviets and their allies along the non align movement (mainly the Islamic Arab world) utlized the Palestinian cause to spread division and disarray in the Western world. The Apartheid accusation started before Israel "occupation" in 1967.
Last edited by noir on 20 Jun 2018 09:45, edited 2 times in total.
#14926221
colliric wrote:Ter, your country never respected the generous UN boarders they gave you.

@colliric Just to clear up a misunderstanding: I am not an Israeli citizen, never was, never will be.
And a boarder is a person, especially a lodger, who is supplied with regular meals.
a border is the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another.
colliric wrote:Neither does Israel seem to respect the Temple Mount is protected from Jewish intrusion by the UN because the UN believes an "International incident"(WW3 most likely) could begin there.

If I remember correctly, the Muslims built their mosque on the place the Jewish Temple stood.
The Israeli Authorities do not allow Jewish Israelis to pray there.
If the roles were reserved, the Muslims would most probably have destroyed any Jewish monument on that place already.
What is your problem exactly ?

edited to add: Muslims built a mosque on the place of a Hindu religious site in India a couple of centuries ago. A Hindu crowd of thousands swooped on that mosque, the Babri Mosque, and destroyed it completely. The world still exists.
Last edited by Ter on 20 Jun 2018 08:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14926222
All the terrorist methods today were first popularized in Palestine. The Muslim communities took the knifing, suicide bombing and car ramming from televised Pallywood images.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

Umm yes, but much earlier than you thought....

colliric Just to clear up a misunderstanding: I am not an Israeli citizen, never was, never will be.
And a boarder is a person, especially a lodger, who is supplied with regular meals.
a border is the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another.

Yes, sorry for my misspelling. You are a hardcore Zionist so surely you can understand my mistake concerning your citizenship.

If I remember correctly, the Muslims built their mosque on the place the Jewish Temple stood.
The Israeli Authorities do not allow Jewish Israelis to pray there.
If the roles were reserved, the Muslims would most probably have destroyed any Jewish monument on that place already.
What is your problem exactly ?


Yes they would have, sadly we agree on this point. However of cause the roles are not reversed. The mosque and dome of the Rock are there instead. It is not benificial for world peace to change this situation, which as "The Temple Institute" proves is indeed an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are a practicing Jewish believer right(though obviously not Anti-zionist Ultra-Orthodox), even though not an Israeli?
Last edited by colliric on 20 Jun 2018 08:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14926223
@Ter
If the roles were reserved, the Muslims would most probably have destroyed any Jewish monument on that place already.
What is your problem exactly ?


They are already doing it under "Israeli occupation". The Israeli "occupation" is nominal. In reality the Islamic Wakf (trust) is controlling there. And they're destroying the remnants of King David and King Solomon of the Israelites in the Temple Mount

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Islamic_Waqf

Last edited by noir on 20 Jun 2018 10:55, edited 1 time in total.
#14926225
This complain is legit, in a sense Israel is getting ganged on in the UN. Do not get me wrong, Israel does violate human rights but so do the palestenians. UN mostly blames ISrael though which is not a way to reach a solution to the conflict.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Indeed. It is called racism. :lol: But we were d[…]

Is magic being resisted by the selection of a corr[…]

Congratulations. You are wrong. Back to the sam[…]

Is it elitist, if the structure of socialism consi[…]