UNHRC is following in the footsteps of the UNCHR.

The speaker is a representative of UN Watch a pro-Israel organisation with close links to the neocons and AIPAC. While most people would accept that Assad, Ahamadinejad, and Khaddafi use the appalling treatment of the Palestinians to justify antisemitism, and to draw attention away from their own repressive regimes, this does not mean that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is any less appalling or any less condemnable. The UN has condemned Israel on many occasions precisely because on a daily basis Israel steals Palestinian land, and subjects the Palestinian people to appalling abuses. Pro-Israel groups like UN Watch would like to argue that none of these abuses occur and that UN resolutions are purely a result of antisemitism - this is simply not true.

Although they advocate a “just application of UN Charter principles,” UN Watch's preoccupation with Middle East affairs is almost exclusively focused on violations committed by Islamic extremists and anti-Semitism. Among the 13 joint letters and statements posted on its website between April 2004 and September 2006, nearly half are concerned with issues of anti-Semitism and threats to Israel. Not one mentions abuses committed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories or Lebanon.

Irregardless of UN Watch's objectives, one thing is clear. The UNHRC nor the UNCHR before it could effectively deal with any human rights abuses, instead of offering constructive discussion of human rights issues, it was and in many ways still is a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. But that has more to do with political power plays in the UN then any real care about what the hell goes on the in the world. See UN inaction during the Israel-Lebanon even though 2 resolutions were passed. Not to mention the numerous ones passed by the UN previously.

The UN is powerless. Am afraid the unilateral actions of many nations is the result of that. How exactly do you run a Human Rights commission with dubious membership in the first place? How exactly do you have a security council of 5 members who each counter voted on another, usually the trisect of US and Russia and China.

I'm the first person to admit that the UN has some great flaws, is sometimes "a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism", and is in need of major reform - including the security council which is a relic of the Cold War.

There are two major causes of the UN's ineffectiveness. The first is the unilateralist attitude adopted by the US - particularly under the current administration. The second is that anytime that the the UN adopts a resolution condemning Israeli action the US will automatically veto the resolution (thanks to the power of AIPAC) regardless of whether the condemnation is justified or not. The un-objective use of the veto by the US in support of oppressive, unjustifiable and illegal Israeli government policies has severely damaged international perceptions of the UN. When Israel illegally steals Palestinian land, subjects the Palestinian people to daily abuse and humiliation, and collectively punishes the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, the US automatically vetoes any UN resolutions condemning these inexcusable actions. It is not just the Arab or Islamic states that support such resolutions - very often it is only America and Israel who condemn the resolution. The unobjective use of the American veto in favour of Israel is undermining the entire UN. For many people it symbolises the need for UN reform - particularly reform of the security council.

The problem with this clip is that while there are important objective criticisms to be made of the UNHRC and the UN in general, UN Watch is not actually making them. The speaker carefully disguises pro-Israeli government policy propaganda as objective criticisms of the UNHRC - this is why the Council President rejects the speech as inadmissable.

Irregardless ... that's a double negative!

*ducks back out of debate*

After I saw this video, I went to the UN site and searched for every UNHRC resolution that I could find(in total that I have found: 12). I printed all of them out, and started reading. I can't make a definitive claim(IANAL), but it seems that most of the resolutions would only concern Israel indirectly - it seems that most of them are resolutions about specific actions that they want to see stop - like "Enforced Disappearance."

As such, this video disturbs me, as it seems to be just a singly biased view of the UNHRC's resolutions, using the President's claims of "this is inadmissible" as "this is being covered up" for people who are unlikely to actually read the actual UNHRC's resolutions(just my thoughts).

As such, if you'd like to read them yourself, go here: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/mainec.aspx and select Body: Human Rights Council, and Type: Resolution.

Like mentioned above, IANAL, so all of this is just the little bit that I am able to understand and read, so please read there and inform me if I have misinterpreted anything.

Expired in Queue - 4 day limit.

interesting... if a bit wild. *save

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Tuesday 27th March 2007 (save called by gold star member bamdrew)

we should just let sweden be in charge of pointing out human rights violations.

also down vote for prowar Israel lobby. They won't be happy until 50% of the US defense budget goes to buying them tanks and nukes.

An upvote for discussion piece.

it sad that UN feels that sensorship is the way to go. I mean what is the UN if not a place to express conserns.

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty.

That is all I really have to say. Thank you.