Goldstone and goose feathers

Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous United Nations report blaming Israel for intentionally targeting civilians during the recent Gaza conflict, conceded in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on April 1 that Israel did not do so. He also conceded that Hamas was guilty of such conduct. I'm reminded of the story that opens Joseph Telushkin's Words That Hurt, Words That Heal (one of my favorite books). In it, spreading slander is compared to scattering the feathers from a pillow to the winds. Collecting the feathers is impossible, as is repairing the damage done by the slanderous words. Goldstone lent his name and prestige to a genocidal hatchet job; one op-ed now cannot remedy the consequences.

Unpleasant surprises on Mideast trips

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden hasn't been the only VIP to meet with an unpleasant surprise during a Mideast trip. He was outraged by an Israeli announcement regarding housing construction in Jerusalem which has led to a serious crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Destruction rather than construction was the problem for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and top EU diplomat Lady Catherine Ashton. They were in Gaza when a rocket launched from there killed a Filipino worker in Israel. However, since Hamas said it hadn't launched the rocket, the two were free to condemn the attack without having to actually name a perpetrator.

Nor for that matter, do they appear to have acknowledged Hamas' recent contribution to peaceful dialogue: in a TV interview last month, a Hamas official called Jews bacteria who need to be exterminated. It's nice to know the UN and EU have high standards, and that we're doing our best to match them! (Thanks to MEMRI and Daily Alert.)

Hezbollah arming in South Lebanon

A senior U.S. official has expressed concern that Hezbollah rearmament in southern Lebanon may be the prelude to a new outbreak of war. I always thought Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a big mistake when he allowed a UN peacekeeping force, under European leadership, to patrol the Israeli-Lebanese border. At least on paper, their job was to keep precisely this from happening. However, since they never patrolled at night ... (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

The dangers of foreign aid

Here are two articles that highlight the difficulties and dangers associated with foreign aid for the two countries of highest current interest, Afghanistan and Haiti.

In Afghanistan, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has ignored its own procedures to throw money at the UN agency in charge of development projects there. Result: maybe $10-20 out of every $100 in aid actually make it to the announced destination; meanwhile, AID and the UN agency are the subjects of numerous reports on malfeasance.

As for Haiti, the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens argues that the worst thing we could do would be to provide more aid for reconstruction, once the humanitarian emergency is past. Haiti has received massive assistance for years, creating a culture of dependency and a corrupt and useless government. Any new aid 'surges' would only perpetuate those problems and make them even worse.

Sorry I missed it

In a debate at Brandeis University, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold asked South African judge Richard Goldstone, author of the new UN report accusing Israel of war crimes during the Gaza conflict, what Israel should have done differently to protect itself.

Goldstone responded that that was a decision for Israel to make, although he thought they perhaps should have conducted undercover commando raids. He then suggested someone at Brandeis write a research paper on the topic. No, I'm not making this up.

If you want to see Gold's excellent presentation, here's the video. At least he got to give his side of the story; when Eye of the UN's Anne Bayefsky criticized the Goldstone report at a UN media event, UN officials cut the mike and escorted her off the premises. Just think: our taxpayer dollars support those guys!

The Goldstone Report

Late last month, a group headed by South African judge Richard Goldstone presented its report to the UN Human Rights Council on human rights violations committed during the recent Gaza conflict. From the outset, the exercise assumed that the lion's share of these violations were committed by the Israelis.

Lo and behold, that was indeed the conclusion of the report. Max Boot summarizes the report here, (no, I haven't read it myself, since it is almost 600 pages long). In his view, if the investigation had been conducted during World War II, the group would either have recommended that Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler be put in the dock together, or, more likely it would have put Roosevelt in the dock alone.

As you can imagine, most Israelis were outraged. Here, thanks to Caroline Glick, is a video that pretty much sums up their response.

So what is the impact? The original plan was to forward the report to the UN Security Council for action - presumably to punish Israel. The United States condemned the report strongly, perhaps because U.S. soldiers could be accused of the same war crimes as the Israelis, since they too face jihadists hiding among civilian populations. The EU, on the other hand, described the report as 'worthy of consideration.'

The United States also pressured the Palestinians not to lobby for referral to the Security Council. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas caved then, under strong domestic criticism for giving in to U.S. pressure, reversed himself.

What's in a phrase?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has for years been trying to gain international acceptance for the concept of 'religious defamation': that freedom of speech cannot be used to scrutinize or criticize a religion (Islam).

Having joined the UN Human Rights Council, the United States sponsored a resolution on freedom of speech that aimed to find a compromise between the Islamic nations and the West. That resolution just passed unanimously. Egypt, a country notorious for suppressing free speech, was the co-sponsor.

According to the CNS News report: "The resolution drops the phrase 'religious defamation' but refers to “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.

Anne Bayefsky, in her analysis, criticizes the Obama administration for 'backing calls for limits on freedom of expression.' She says that 'other Western governments ... watched the weeks of negotiation with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs.'

Indeed, the 'compromise' language looks like it creates the proverbial hole big enough to drive a truck through. Such an outcome is definitely not in the U.S. interest.

A great speech?

Here's a speech, short and to the point, that calls for the international community to focus on the dangerous actions of Iran and North Korea and, for once, do something about them. The speech was made by French president Nicholas Sarkozy, to the UN Security Council.

There is a problem, of course: Sarko says now is the time to decide what to do; that if we want a world without nuclear weapons, we can't let the international rules be violated. But all he's talking about is sanctions.

Why anyone would think sanctions would dissuade the Iranians and North Koreans from pursuing nuclear weapons is a mystery to me. Yet that's the only thing the international community, led by the United States, can come up with.

Human rights travesty

On September 29, the UN Human Rights Council will launch itself into another paroxysm of anti-Israeli venom, with the presentation of Richard Goldstone's investigation of "all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people" during the recent Gaza conflict.

Goldstone's report will be followed by one the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Navi Pillay, also on Gaza. As Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN reports, "Pillay's 80 paragraph report devotes 66 paragraphs to Israel and 8 paragraphs to Hamas. Her recommendations mention only Israel and never name 'Hamas.' In fact, she suggests that ... 'Hamas has also made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law.'"

The United States just joined the Human Rights Council, which in true UN Orwellian style is dominated by some of the world's worst human rights offenders. Just what will the U.S. representative will say in response to these reports? I'm sure most of the MSM won't tell us, but Eye on the UN will.

Muslim governments and human rights

Egyptian liberal Magdi Khalil analyzes here the strategy of Muslim governments aimed at reducing the overall level of international human rights standards, while restricting any criticism of Islam or of their policies.

He recounts how Muslim members of the UN's Human Rights Council, which control 26 of the 53 votes on the Council, consistently "use a strategy of obfuscation and blackmail to prevent the rest of the world from discussing problems rampant in Islamic states." (Thanks to MEMRI.)

All Muslim governments belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which, like the EU, seeks to have its members vote as a bloc in international organizations like the UN. Increasingly, the OIC is succeeding in this goal, particularly when it involves human rights standards or anything that can be construed as criticizing Islam.

Who is damaged by this: anyone at risk of having his/her human rights violated; Western governments bullied or snookered into lowering their standards; and Muslim governments seeking to provide better protection for their citizens.

Germany's invisibility cloak

Germany, like the United States, was among those countries that boycotted the Durban II conference, as reported in this earlier entry. Now it seems that Germany has nevertheless signed on to the Durban II outcome document and allowed itself to be listed in the conference report as attending the conference. In other words, Germany pretended to combat antisemitism - but only until media attention moved on to the next story. Bravo, Angela! (Thanks to Eye on the UN.)

A human rights travesty

The United States has now joined the UN's Human Rights Council, one of the goals set by the Obama administration. Why this should be such an achievement is hard to see: the Council has done nothing but condemn Israel while blocking any investigation of serious human rights abusers such as Belarus, Liberia or Iran.

This is hardly a surprise, since 26 of the 47 Council members are from Islamic states; in addition, China is a prominent member. Why, one wonders, do U.S. taxpayers want to fund such activities? The Obama administration wants to reform the Council from within, yet the chances of that happening are non-existent.

Perhaps UN ambassador Susan Rice could spell out the advantages of closer cooperation with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which dominates the Council. OIC members in 1990 agreed to a sharia-compliant human rights declaration that makes a mockery of UN human rights. (Thanks to Eye on the UN.)

Islamic human rights

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Saudi-backed group that includes 57 Muslim countries, issued the Cairo Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. The Declaration forbids genocide, guarantees everyone access to justice, and states that all individuals are equal under the law.

There is, of course, a caveat: Article 24 states that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in the Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah." Other articles, such as the one on freedom of expression, contain explicit restrictions.

A principal shortcoming of the international human rights movement has been its failure to challenge the Cairo Declaration in any serious manner.

Update on Durban II

As the Huffington Post reports, Iranian President Ahmedinejad's speech to the Durban II conference was so awful that large numbers of Western diplomats walked out. (Watch the video - this is an unusual scene for a UN conference.)

I'm glad they walked out, but I do wonder just what it was they were expecting. After all, Ahmedinejad has never made a secret of his views.

Honor roll

At the last minute, the United States announced that it will boycott the Durban II conference on racism (actually, an antisemitic hatefest), which opened today in Geneva. Israel, Canada and Australia had already said they would not attend; Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden will also stay away.

The United Kingdom, Ireland and the Czech Republic will be represented, but only at a junior level. Belgium is busy trying to round up EU members to attend, while France has announced that it will be there "in order to articulate its standpoint on human rights issues," according to a French spokesman. The French will have to compete with Holocaust denier and would-be Israel-destroyer Iranian President Ahmedinejad, the featured speaker on opening day.

In 2001, the United States and Israel were alone in walking out of the first Durban conference. This time, the United States made its decision "with regret," and despite "deep dismay" on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Negotiating for Durban II

The dynamics of the current negotiations over the text to be adopted at the April 20 Durban II conference, as described by Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, make for unsettling reading.

-- The United States keeps quiet, so as not to tip anyone off about whether it will attend.

-- The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) pushes its longstanding goal of delegitimizing Israel, adding new accusations against the West, including a new charge of 'anti-Arabism,' to create additional negotiating room for itself.

-- The EU does its best to go along with the OIC, squashing any protests by individual EU member states.

-- Any interests that Israel or Jews have are ground up in the process.

As Bayefsky puts it: "Watching the U.N. conduct the business of human rights is revealing. It teaches us how negotiations between fascists and democrats proceed. Democrats “show restraint,” while fascists don’t care who they offend or what they say. And more often than not, Jews and the Jewish state are the political football. The farthest thing from this playing field is true concern over the protection of human rights."

My bet is that the Obama administration will indeed announce at the last minute tht it will attend. It will choose the deadest point of the news cycle to do so, and will cite some breakthrough in the negotiated text. The EU will be delighted, since U.S. attendance gives it all the cover it needs. The OIC will say nothing - just push for further concessions during the conference itself. Just please don't ask me what this charade has to do with human rights.

Joining the UN Human Rights Council

The Obama administration has decided to compete for election to the UN's Human Rights Council. The United States will most likely win; we will then be well-positioned to legitimize the efforts of countries like Libya, China and Iran to attack Israel while covering up their own human rights abuses.

You can also expect the administration to claim victory at the Council: we will for sure cite occasions when we have succeeded in changing the wording of a resolution, or perhaps even keeping one or two anti-Israel resolutions off the table. It is highly unlikely, though, that we will ever be able to point to a case in which we actually protected human rights.

If we don't kick up too much dust, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the EU members of the panel will be happy - after all, we'll be providing them cover and respectability. And we will imagine we are currying favor with the Organization of the Islamic Conference; we'll overlook the OIC's tendency to pocket any concession while demanding more.

Gee, what an outstanding use of my taxpayer dollars!

A sickening exchange

Anne Bayevsky of Eye on the UN has obtained the transcript of a conference call between a senior State Department official and various human rights and UN organizations regarding U.S. participation in the Durban II conference and in the work of the UN's Human Rights Council. The transcript comes at the end of this article from Pajamas Media (preceding portions describe the politics and issues involved). These NGOs want the United States to engage - to be a 'player' once more at the UN. If that means pandering to gross human rights violators, well, that's not a problem.

Essentially, the Obama administration is trying to maneuver around a rather large obstacle: to curry favor in the UN, the United States must abandon many of its principles. Among other things, it must agree to turn the concept of human rights on its head. That doesn't appear to bother the administration or these NGOs, but difficulties arise when the U.S. public catches on to the game, as it did with the Durban II negotiations.

The administration backed off Durban II but reaffirmed its desire to participate in the work of the Human Rights Council. Expect outrageous U.S. positions as the United States tries to curry favor with Iran, Cuba and Libya, leading lights in the Council.

Italy pulls back from Durban II

Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has announced Italy's withdrawal from the Durban II negotiations, citing 'aggressive and anti-Semitic statements' in the draft final text. A foreign ministry spokesman said Italy would not participate unless the document was changed. (Thanks to Smooth Stone.)

This sounds a lot like the U.S. position. Canada and Israel, on the other hand, have definitely said they will not attend the Durban II conference. The other EU member states continue to waffle.

Don't forget - the evils of Durban II are not not restricted to attempts to de-legitimize Israel. The Organization of the Islamic Conference wants the Durban II conference to approve the resolution, passed last December by the UN General Assembly, that makes 'blasphemy' (eg criticism of any kind) of Islam illegal in international law. The OIC could then argue that this concept has gained worldwide approval - another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech and religion. See this earlier entry for details.

Sneaky music

Recently, I reported that the State Department withdrew from the negotiations over the UN's Durban II conference. Well, according to Anne Bayevsky of Eye on the UN, the withdrawal wasn't absolute. Rather, it was conditioned on whether a better text could somehow be produced. Since the purpose of Durban II is to demonize Israel, it's hard to see what this means, except that the door is still open a crack.

The State Department also promised to 'participate' for the first time in the UN's Human Rights Council, a travesty dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC is happy to support any human rights that are consistent with sharia law; at least that's what its Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam states. The Council, in its brief existence, has passed numerous anti-Israeli resolutions - but no other resolutions condemning individual states.

A month ago, President Obama sent a letter to the OIC proposing closer cooperation. The letter's contents were not made public. Perhaps because they would have provoked public outrage?