Israel's leaders are tragically over-confident because they assume we will always be there to give them all the weapons and money they need (not to mention our dependable veto of any anti-Israel measure voted on in the UN Security Council). They don't seem to even entertain the possibility that our support will one day end, but it most assuredly one day will.

that day is drawing near with China/Russia sitting back and just humming a nationalist tune.

Engage Iran and it won't be long...

The Iranians have "Martyrs' Gardens" where the tens of thousands they lost in their war against Iraq are remembered. In the center of these "Gardens" are fountains in which blood red water constantly flows. They are, my point is, not a people likely to give up and surrender their independence to the dictates of others, not without making one hell of a fight first. For Israel, or for Israel with the United States, to preemptively attack Iran would be insane. Yes, the Russians and Chinese might be drawn in too, but the Iranians alone would hardly be fun and games.

can go **** itself. it is made up of regimes that are anti-Semitic, anti Israel and major violators of human rights themselves.

No one should take anything they say seriously, until they stop allowing authoritarian regimes that routinely violate human rights on to the council.

It is always easy to see the other guy's human rights violations. As to our own . . .

“Self knowledge is always bad news.” ― John Barth, Giles Goat-Boy.

But in this case the outright anti-israel bias shown by the UNHRC in their unparalleled zeal to demonize Zionism and Israel should be seen for what it is: an abuse of the power given to the group and a betrayal of their constituents, the victims of ongoing oppression around the world.

Their bias is so obvious and absolute that any attempts to minimize it are laughable.

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Israel's policy toward Palestinians is hardly a subject that can be laughed-off that easily.

But Israel's policies regarding Palestinians are numerous, varied and in no way indicative of a single, overarching ideology. The history between Jews and Palestinians is complex and tangled. Policies are influenced by issues as small as local Jerusalem politics and as macro as the Cold War.

No one denies that the Palestinians are being oppressed or that they have been callously used by larger powers to advance self serving agendas for decades. But Israel's policies wrt the Palestinians ultimately exists because of actions taken by everyone. And because those policies directly affect life within Israel, you know that they are not undertaken lightly. None of those policies exist without cause. Whether those causes justify the actions is a matter up for debate.

In contrast, the UNHRC isn't a state and it isn't making any decisions based on threats to its security or sovereignty. It has a clearly stated mission and its decisions and processes are publicly available for scrutiny. It's responsibility is to the public at large. Not to any specific group or nation.

That the HRC's perversion of its mission and abuse of its station harms the credibility of the UN and itself is bad enough. But because of their fixation on Israel those who are in real need of help will be ignored. Which is really the worst part of this scandal.

Isn't that a little like complaining about the tall weeds growing in a neighbor's front yard, when one has numerous broken-down cars parked on his own. Israel really does need to improve her treatment of Palestinians, both those who live in the West Bank and Gaza and those who are Israeli citizens. Even a little step or two in that direction would reap enormous benefits for the State of Israel (not to mention quieting many of her critics).

Improving the standard of living for Arabs wouldn't do anything to quiet Israel's critics because their criticism isn't resultant from Israeli actions in the first place. Case in point: following the signing of the Oslo accords Israel altered many policies improving Palestinian lives. Was there any decrease in criticism or terrorism aimed at Israel? What about when Israel left gaza? The truth is that Israel has offered countless policies that benefit Arabs over the decades yet they have had no discern able effect on anti-Israel rhetoric. Because the two things were never coupled to begin with.

And I don't see why Israel's record on human rights should prevent them from demanding that the group charged with investigating abuses refrains from basing their decisions on racism.

Imagine if the nypd used the law solely as a tool to arrest and jail black people. Arguing that the people arrested were still guilty of their crimes is hardly a reasonable validation.

...single piece of evidence supporting my assertion that most criticism of Israel has nothing at all to do with either its current or historical policies WRT the Palestinians, would be noting the Palestinian policies enacted by OTHER nations and how the rest of the world received them.

By any reasonable benchmark Israel has demonstrated greater militarily leniency towards the Palestinians and done more to raise their standard of living than any other single state. They are one of the only mid eastern states to allow its Palestinian inhabitants full citizenship with equal rights under the law.

Jordan has annexed more disputed land, (the whole west bank and east jerusalem), claiming it for itself (since abandoned), than Israel ever even discussed. It has stripped more Palestinians of citizenship, leaving them stateless and unrepresented, than anyone else. And it has killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has over its entire 65 year conflict.

All this yet no one is making any demands for restitution, retribution or justice of Jordan, are they? Nor were they doing so back when Jordan was actively doing these things! This is because no one REALLY cares about the Palestinians beyond their role as useful ammunition to be expended against Israel.

How often have you heard critiques of Israel's blockade against gaza? Now how often have you seen those same criticisms leveled publicly against Egypt, the other nation blockading gaza? Have you ever? Even once?

That is a rather important difference. Israel's leaders would put many problems behind them if they were to also "abandon" any claims to the West Bank.

People said the exact same thing about gaza I remember. Can you please point out the positive changes to the usually highly negative portrayals of Israel following the pullout?

Look, if Israel is critiqued because of how it treats Palestinians then why aren't all the states who oppress them far worse also targeted? Why target Israel at all when far more legit targets exist?

Can you demonstrate ANY evidence of causation in the correlation between human rights abuses (or the opposite), and condemnation (or positive feedback?)

Gaza is a prison for one and a half million people, and the IDF is their jailer.

...you might describe Gaza as a prison. Albeit a prison with only three walls, which begs the question, if a jail is missing a wall can it even be described as a jail at all? (Answer: Yes, but only in Israel's case. Hahaha.)

But let's look at the situation there immediately following Israel's withdrawal. Far from being a prison, Israel had done everything it could to prime Gaza for success. It co-ordinated the withdrawal with the PA. It removed itself from all security roles that did not directly have to do with Israel; such as the Egyptian border which was manned by the EU under an arrangement with Egypt, the PA and Israel. A greenhouse infrastructure costing hundreds of millions of dollars was donated by American-Jewish philanthropists to give the Gazans an immediate, turnkey way of generating jobs and tax revenue. Export of the fruits and vegetables through Israel would benefit both states and strengthen economic bonds. And Gazans with jobs in Israel were granted easy cross-border access through the Erez crossing.

This complete and unilateral withdrawal was expensive, controversial and politically divisive. The costs to Israel both in money and political capital were enormous. Yet despite this, later on the very same day that the withdrawal was finalized the first rocket from Gaza flew over the border into Israel. Less than a year later Hamas was elected as Gaza's government, who immediately rejected all ongoing agreements between Israel and Palestine.

But this is not the response we were told to expect. "Israel must make a grand gesture" we were told. "Something that will demonstrate their commitment to peace and provide the Palestinians the opportunity to do the same." Which is exactly what the withdrawal provided. In return Israel reaped increased terrorism, an empowered Hamas and the annulment of every agreement they had with Gaza. The average Palestinians living in Gaza reaped chaos, civil war, religious extremism and a renewed commitment to oppression, both by Israel and their own government.

Yet now you're telling me that Israel would solve many problems if they simply withdraw from the WB?! By all means, please explain your reasoning behind that theory! I await your elocution with baited breath!!!

Why do you state that Israel is their jailer and not Israel AND Egypt?

Actually, why describe it as a prison at all given that inhabitants of Gaza can pretty much enter and leave without restrictions? Men between 18 and 40 need a permit. Everyone else can come and go at will.

It's been like that for 18 months now yet you still describe it as a prison run by Israel... why?

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Except that Egypt continues to abide by its treaty obligations with Israel, and questions and searches anyone wanting to enter or leave Gaza. The extended wait and hassle at border checkpoints is legendary. At checkpoints controlled by the IDF, the process is even more restrictive and serves to prohibit all but a few individuals from traveling. No one, of course can approach the Gaza coast without being detained and redirected to an Israeli port. Gaza is a prison.

You mean the agreement between the PA, Egypt, Israel and the EU that set the rules for that crossing? They are certainly NOT following them. Those rules specifically require the PA to police gaza's side, which they can't bc Hamas threw them out.

and questions and searches anyone wanting to enter or leave Gaza

Like at an airport?

Gaza is a prison.

Call it whatever you want. Hyperbole hardly strengthens your case.

More importantly, you've been ignoring my more significant questions to quibble over semantics. The fact remains that Israel DID make sacrifices that gave the Palestinians a lot more freedom and autonomy. They used it to attack Israel, resulting in their current situation.

So where were all the accolades immediately after wiyhdrawal? You insist that taking steps like that will have a positive effect for Israel. So why didn't it in the past?

Nothing is allowed to fly into or out of Gaza; in fact, the Gazans have broken up the the runways of their disused international airport. The crushed pavement is employed as material to make concrete instead (gravel is one of the things which cannot be imported through the checkpoints).

Israel greatly eased the restrictions in 2010 and one of the things specifically allowed now is concrete, asphalt, cement and aggregates. It has been your position that criticism of Israel is directly tied to its actions yet here you are, critiquing Israel for actions that it corrected YEARS ago. If what you say is true then why were you even unaware of the easement? Shouldn't the easing of restrictions get the same press as items that cast Israel in a negative light? Obviously not.

That said, you are still ignoring my main points. Quibbling over exact restrictions in Gaza is totally besides the point. I do not disagree that the blockade creates a harsh reality for Gazans. However, I am talking about the period of time BEFORE the restrictions and the blockade was enacted. To ignore the sacrifices Israel made and the positive impact it had in Gaza because it does not fit a specific narrative is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You are asking Israel to do in the West Bank essentially the same exact thing it did in Gaza. But those actions in Gaza resulted in Hamas being elected and a sharp rise in terrorism. What incentive does Israel have to repeat history like that in the west bank? NOTHING you predict now came true the last time it was attempted.

The import of gravel into Gaza is still restricted by Israel. Only a tiny fraction of what is needed to make enough concrete just to repair damage the IDF has caused is allowed to enter.

Israel should get out of the West Bank because it is violating international law by staying there. That is the same reason Israel should lift its blockade of Gaza. Both, actually, constitute crimes against humanity as well as being violations of the United Nations' Charter on several other grounds, etc. etc.

Wow.

That is the classification under which international law places such practices as using weapons of war against civilian refugees and applying collective punishment to entire populations. There are, of course, many more examples, but life is short.

Crimes against humanity with mere war crimes. CAH is the most heinous classification available; an act must meet several specific benchmarks that you failed to list before it can be considered a possible CAH.

Regarding Israel, it was most recently accused of committing CAH during the last Gaza war by Richard Goldstone's UN report. Since then he has recanted and withdrawn his accusations against Israel. It should be noted that his accusations against Hamas still stand.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Despite this fact you seem entirely uninterested in any CAH accusations aside from those leveled against Israel.

War crimes, if brutal, deadly and frequent enough, do rise to the level of crimes against humanity, especially when they are perpetrated against a civilian population (as in Gaza and the West Bank). That is why aggressive war is considered a crime against humanity in an of itself.

Is your position that Israel is only guilty of brutal, deadly and frequent war crimes, ones which do not rise to the level of being crimes against humanity? That is some defense!

"Aggressive war" is not a crime against humanity. It seems pretty clear at this point that you aren't really aware of what constitutes a CAH.

Is your position that Israel is only guilty of brutal, deadly and frequent war crimes, ones which do not rise to the level of being crimes against humanity

Well, it is my contention that any state engaged in a war will undoubtedly commit some war crimes. It is inevitable. There is no question that Israel falls into this category. As do the Palestinians, for that matter.

Are Israel's war crimes especially brutal, deadly or frequent? Not compared to most any other state. Especially the Palestinians, who engage in systematic war crimes targeting Israeli civilians. A practice shunned by Israel.

You seem disturbingly comfortable ignoring the real definitions of these terms in favor of assuming that your own ideas are the accepted ones.

Making war on civilians is cowardly and odious, particularly so when the purpose is to so weaken and terrorize those civilians that their land can then be seized by the aggressor.

There is a newly coined term for what the current government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians: "Neoliberal Zionism."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201321094433931990.html

Up until now I had been operating under the assumption that you were a well meaning, if perhaps grossly misinformed, individual who sought genuine solutions to a complex conflict. But this last post is so incredibly ridiculous, it places you firmly in tin foil hat wearing conspiracy land.

Now, Israel is in no sense waging war on Palestinian civilians. Nor does your reasoning make any sense seeing as how we've been discussing gaza which the Israelis just withdrew from, the opposite of taking over. Land Israel does covet in the WB isn't inhabited. If Israel wants land it is more than capable of taking it. The people you are accusing Israel of waging war on live in gaza; a place Israel went to considerable trouble to withdraw from entirely. Nothing you wrote in your post makes any sense at all.

The icing on this absurd cake is your link, which has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. It's about bedouins in the Negev. These people are Israeli citizens, not Palestinians, and the land in question is part of pre 1967 Israel. Undisputed land. Now while there's plenty to criticize about that issue, it is totally unrelated to anything in this thread.

My link has to do with" Neo-liberal Zionism," as exemplified by the treatment given to an indigenous people whose land some fatcat real estate mogul whats to develop for a big juicy profit. Simply put, the government of Israel is far more concerned about shekels than it is people even its own people (if they happen not to be Jewish, that is). What goes for the Bedouin who have desirable land also goes for Palestinians with desirable land.

As to your opinion of me: I have already said your insults have no substance; in fact, coming as they do from someone like you, they count as compliments in my book.

The Bedouin thing is its own entirely seperate issue and I'd rather avoid getting sidetracked any more than we already have. That said, the Bedouin issue is a fair bit more complex than you've been led to believe. It's anything but cut and dry. Just because the bedouins historically travelled throughout the Negev for countless generations does not entitle them to rightfully claim the whole thing as Bedouin land. Israel, like most countries, has planning laws. Even if someone feels entitled to a parcel of land, they can't simply move there and build a village without so much as applying for a permit. These villages were illegally built on state owned land. Like it or not, the bedouins are citizens of Israel and are subject to its laws just like the Jews are. Just because the Bedouin live in the Negev doesn't mean the Negev belongs to them.

I'd like to point out that Israel has forcibly relocated Jewish settlements on several occasions as well. Those villages would be getting demolished no matter who inhabited them.

using weapons of war against civilians is not in and of itself a crime. The criminality of such an action hinges upon intent. If soldiers purposefully targeted civilians without any compelling military need, THEN it constitutes a war crime. Isolated incidents though, do not even come close to meeting the standard of a crime against humanity.

So, in short, no, it does not appear that you know what the definition of a crime against humanity actually is. I find it telling that despite my challenge you did not even bother to Google the term before making up an answer out of thin air. It is unsurprising that you know neither what constitutes a CAH or are able to give a real-life example of one.

That is a clever distinction, but it would never stand up to the scrutiny of international law. Using weapons of war in a systematic policy aimed at the maiming and murder of helpless civilians is a crime against humanity. As a matter of fact, so is employing such violence to drive an ethnic minority off its land, so the land can be occupied and annexed by a different ethnic or national group.

Sad, really. I am certain the vast majority of Israelis do not want their government using such methods. I'd even bet most realize such actions are ultimately self-defeating. Hmmmm?

It IS the actual law.

Using weapons of war in a systematic policy aimed at the maiming and murder of helpless civilians is a crime against humanity. As a matter of fact, so is employing such violence to drive an ethnic minority off its land, so the land can be occupied and annexed by a different ethnic or national group.

Of course all of those things constitute CAH. Notice the intent aspect meets the standard I noted.

But Israel isn't doing ANY of those things so your point is moot. The head of the latest UN fact finding mission cleared Israel of any charges of CAH in the gaza war. None of which even approached the absurdity of the conspiracy theories you've been buying into.

See... This is what happens when people don't bother to learn real history before hitting the loony sites. Since you don't know what's happening you'll believe literally anything.

Oh really, is "loony" how you dismiss all critics who challenge your vision of the God-given "exceptionalism" of Israel's right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from land needed for Netanyahu's next illegal West Bank settlement? You can use such verbal tactics all you want, nothing can change the debt Israel will one day have to pay for its treatment of a weak and nearly defenseless neighbor.

My vision of the God-given "exceptionalism" of Israel's right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians? When did I ever say anything remotely like that? Never, that's when.

But then, nothing else about that statement is any less untrue. Israel has no policy of cleansing Palestinians to build new settlements. God given or otherwise.

In fact, Netanyahu has yet to build even a single new settlement at all. Parts of a settlement Israel's courts deemed to have been built on private Palestinian owned land were demolished. Perhaps you're thinking of that. Or confusing Netanyahu's expansion of existing settlements with building new ones. There's a big difference between the two.

Either way, Palestinians are not being cleansed to make room for them... or are even being cleansed at all in fact. You just posted conspiracy theories entirely lacking any kernel of truth. They're outright fabrications.

So you asked how looney they are? They're outright lies is what they are. My question to you is, are you aware that your posts are completely untrue when you write them? Or are you just willing to believe anything you hear as long as it is anti-Israel?

Wow. Do you know what a crime against humanity even is? What, praytell, do you find Israel guilty of that falls under that category? Systematic rape? Genocide? Enslavement?

Now then, as far as "international law" goes, while there are certainly some who disagree, most impartial legal observers are in agreement that the blockade is perfectly legal. As is the occupation in the west bank. Can you even name what statute is being violated? Generally speaking, occupations and blockades are not illegal.

I notice that you still aren't touching my main point with a ten foot pole. Not that I blame you. I've seen your type a million times before. You demand that Israel make all kinds of concessions with the promise that if only Israel would do what you say, everything would be fine. You hold Israel to an impossible standard and whenever Israel does take a step in the direction you advise, and it turns out to create more terrorism and bloodshed, you are then the first person to scream and pout that Israel has no right to defend itself against the violence created by instituting your ideas in the first place.

You are a perfect example of the "Israel can do no right" crowd. When faced with evidence of the fact that Israel is held to a double standard you simply ignore it and refuse to answer. See, that is why you are prattling on about gravel while ignoring the key issues I raised several times already. I suppose discussing anything more relevant than gravel makes you uncomfortable. If I were trying to defend your POV I would be careful not to veer away from gravel-related discussions either.

If you are that offended by the facts, you are the one who should review what constitutes a "Crime Against Humanity." While you are at it, look into how many United Nations' resolutions the modern State of Israel has chosen to ignore. That is the same modern State of Israel which demands violent aggression against other nations, because they have ignored United Nations' resolutions! The World at large agrees with me on these points.

Finally, call me whatever names you want, your double standard in regard to Israel's "exceptionalism" renders you a flawed judge of others. In your case, I will consider the source . . .

While you are at it, look into how many United Nations' resolutions the modern State of Israel has chosen to ignore.

UN Resolutions are not laws, nor are they indicators of laws. Nor does Israel demand aggression because anyone else is violating UN resolutions. So that is just nonsense.

But on that subject, why is it that Israel has more resolutions against it than the rest of the world put together? Could any fair process lead to such a result for ANY state, let alone a democratic, liberal one such as Israel?

The World at large agrees with me on these points.

You have not yet made a point.

If you are that offended by the facts, you are the one who should review what constitutes a "Crime Against Humanity."

If you are going to make an accusation like that, you should at least be able to make a specific case. What crime against humanity do you believe Israel is guilty of, specifically?

Finally, call me whatever names you want, your double standard in regard to Israel's "exceptionalism" renders you a flawed judge of others.

Then why are you so afraid to engage me in honest debate? Are you so incapable of defending your POV that you refuse to even try? Or would you merely like to drone on more about that horrific gravel situation that's got you all riled up?

I said you need to read the posts I've already put on this string for the responses I've already made. Any question you have which is not answered there is self-explained, and requires no comment from me.

You have yet to give a response based on factual information. I took the time to refute every comment of yours that was based on uninformed propaganda, offering solid replies rooted in factual information and accurate history. You simply never offered any reality-based argument to support your beliefs.

What is sad to me is how comfortable you seem to be holding beliefs based entirely on hateful propaganda. There's more than enough sources of accurate historical information out there, and its interesting stuff to boot. Perhaps you're more comfortable with your belief that blames Israel for all aspects of this conflict. It's certainly simpler to blame one side than the complex, ethical minefield that is the actual history.

But if you're up for it you never even touched my main argument. In 2005 Israel completely withdrew from Gaza. It left helpful systems and infrastructure in place and all its borders were open, without serious restrictions, for trade, Israeli employment, fishing, etc. the immediate response from Gaza was rioting, looting and attacks against Israel.

Earlier in the thread you wrote this:

This was a case of Israel making big concessions to the Palestinians, asking nothing in return aside from abstaining from violence. Why didn't this action bring Israel ANY beneficial response? The withdrawal brought nothing but increased suffering for both nations. And if you were Israel, what would you do to (or have done) to ensure a better outcome? You oppose the blockade. Ok. But you oppose military action as well. Occupation I'm sure you opposed before it ended, right?

So what do you recommend Israel do at this point that would best benefit both nations? (Please bear in mind Israel's obligation to its citizens takes precedence. Any acts that puts them at unreasonable risk would be unsatisfactory.)

I'm curious as to where you're getting all of this untrue, hateful propaganda about Israel. I'm assuming you don't really read books on the subject considering your shockingly misinformed knowledge base. I'm guessing you mostly learned this garbage from websites. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. What's your favorite book and/or website on this subject?

Q: What is the definition of chutzpah?

A: Someone who breaks up the runway of his airport to turn into gravel and then complains that Israel isn't allowing any flights.

The already existing ban on air travel is why they decided to break up the runways, because they were serving no useful purpose. See?

Destroying an airport because there's a temporary ban on air travel would be beyond short sighted. It would have been moronic beyond measure.

Which is why you deserve to know that your explanation is totally incorrect. Seriously dude, when are you going to start looking up this stuff before posting it? You are obviously making assumptions, and they NEVER end up being right.

Gaza's airport was damaged by the IDF back in 2001, during the intifada and has been inoperable ever since. Gazans dug up the undamaged tarmac to get at the gravel underneath for use in construction like you mentioned. But the airport was inoperable anyway.

The air travel ban is imposed on the small airstrip, not the airport.

Actually, though your joke was pretty good, the distinction between reasons why no one can fly into or out of Gaza is sort of meaningless. Israel is still the reason, and Gaza is still a prison, a prison maintained by policies of the Israeli government.

You cast little or none of the responsibility for gaza's present situation at the feet of the Palestinians themselves, and the actions they took?

You seem unwilling to acknowledge Egypt's role in restricting gazan's freedom of movement as well. I have no idea why that is either.

If it was an important difference then wouldn't we have seen a huge international outcry against Jordan prior to it withdrawing their claim?

Which happened in 1988.

Maybe because the Jordanian military wasn't forcibly occupying the territory. The IDF was doing that.

Not only that, but look what their military did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem

At some point, (if you're being honest that is), you are going to just have to come to terms with the fact that all of this international criticism that's aimed at Israel, in many or most cases (not ALL, obviously), really has very little to do with how the Palestinians are being treated. That isn't to say it has NOTHING to do with it, but rather that the Arab world is tolerant of abuses heaped upon the Palestinians just so long as the perpetrators aren't non-Arab and especially not non-Muslim.

Likewise, anti-Zionism isn't based on groundless anti-semitism. Rather, the Arabs are quite tolerant of the Jews so long as they know their place and don't do anything instigatory, like demand their own homeland/state in land the Arabs consider theirs by right.

There's an old Arab proverb: My brother and I against one another. Me and my brother against my cousin. My brother and cousin and I against our neighbor. And so on. What this means in real-life is that it is not so much the crime that matters but also who committed it. Thus, even severe Arab abuse of Palestinians barely warrants a yawn while a verbal insult from a Jew would spark an intifada.

Imagine that you began to notice that the police only pulled over drivers who were obviously Jewish. Worse, that they often arrested these drivers for speeding instead of just writing a ticket; and that their jail terms were often harsher than what non-Jews convicted of murder would get. Imagine that you saw non-Jews driving drunk and committing vehicular manslaughter without even bothering to stop, as the police paid them no mind. In fact, the police were themselves often the very worst offenders. No one could change anything because legally Jews have been prevented from qualifying to become officers themselves. Worst of all, anyone pointing out this blatant inequity would be excoriated as a racist and supremacist, who is demanding that he be excluded from the law, that Jews should be allowed to speed and drive over pedestrians with impunity.

That is a creative analogy, however, it does not stand up to even casual scrutiny:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/20/us-syria-iran-northkorea-un-idUSBRE8BJ16J20121220

Yet it is ALSO quite accurate. Your link was about some general assembly resolutions recently passed. It did not mention the UNHRC.

Interestingly, while the GA was condemning Syria, the HRC is allowing Syria to run in the election which determines who the free chair on the council goes to. The last chair's inhabitant, Libya, was recently forced out. Before that Iran sat in it.

Israel, of course, is prohibited from even running for the position.

has several members that don't even recognize Israel's right to exist.

Very true, there are some who do not. That is, however, even more of a reason Israel should show up and defend its actions in the court of World opinion. By staying away, she only confirms those fanatics in the correctness of their radical stance against her, as well as sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of those who are still her friends.

By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE
Published: January 29, 2013

GENEVA — Israel became the first country to withhold cooperation from a United Nations review of its human rights practices on Tuesday, shunning efforts by the United States and others to encourage it to participate.

Representatives from Israel did not appear at a session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday for a report by the council as part of what is known as the Universal Periodic Review process, in which all 193 member states had previously participated.

Israel’s mission to the United Nations in Geneva informally notified the Human Rights Council this month that it wanted to delay its participation but did not follow up with a formal request for postponement, creating uncertainty about its intentions. The uncertainty led to intense behind-the-scenes discussions to persuade Israel to reconsider its position.

“We have encouraged the Israelis to come to the council and to tell their story and to present their own narrative of their own human rights situation,” the United States ambassador to the council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, said last week. “The United States is absolutely, fully behind the Universal Periodic Review, and we do not want to see the mechanism in any way harmed.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/world/europe/israel-to-boycott-un-human-rights-review.html?_r=0

I am not an enemy of Israel, though I do dislike her current leaders and abhor some of their policies. It is also true I believe very strongly that those leaders are making a terrible mistake by boycotting this Human Rights Review. I understand they don't think some of the UN Human Rights Council members are qualified to be on that panel, and while they may be more right than wrong in their opinion, it makes no difference. Boycotting the review entirely will be seen by most of the World as tantamount to pleading guilty as charged. Surely going to the review and actively defending their policies would have been a strategy more likely to benefit their country? The Netanyahu government, one must conclude, has committed a serious error.

Boycotting the review entirely will be seen by most of the World as tantamount to pleading guilty as charged.

Why would that be the case?

Surely going to the review and actively defending their policies would have been a strategy more likely to benefit their country?

Doubtful. The UNHRC is a corrupt, discriminatory organization that exists primarily to produce formal papers that attack and demonize Israel. There's nothing to be gained by engaging with them. To do so would be to legitimize their critiques, which currently lack all credibility.

should not boycott the review? So are you by extension saying that the US under Barack Obama is antiIsrael? Israel IMO only makes itself look guilty or above the law in a way of speaking by doing this

you do realize the US who is at present on the UNHRC said that Israel should not boycott the review?

Sure. Not because they believe doing so would benefit Israel though. The official line is that they are afraid that Israel's refusal to participate now will henceforth make it easier for other, smaller states to do likewise in the future whenever they fear negative repercussions, thus damaging an existing system for auditing human rights policies within individual states.

In reality, the US has committed to working with the UNHRC. Should Israel refuse to play along it makes the US look foolish. It's just about saving face for the US. It's stupid.

So are you by extension saying that the US under Barack Obama is antiIsrael?

Please. You can do better than that, can't you? I mean, really... That's just sad, is what that is.

All I'll say in response is that it seems fairly obvious to me where the US stands. The U.S.'s public record of criticisms lodged against the UNHRC is extensive and quite varied in approach if not position. The US has tried all sorts of ways to deliver the same message to the UNHRC in the hope of influencing their unchanging discrimination against Israel. They left. They stopped financial support. They ceased even being observers. Now they're returning to try and change the system from within. One thing remains painfully obvious... It's not the US who is dictating the UNHRC's anti-Israel policies.

Israel IMO only makes itself look guilty or above the law in a way of speaking by doing this

To who? Everyone knows why Israel's refusing to participate. And they're aware that it's not because Israel fears the repercussions of a fair hearing. Israel should not willingly participate in a show trial with a pre-determined outcome merely to avoid embarrassing the US.

you do realize the US who is at present on the UNHRC said that Israel should not boycott the review?





Iran is a smaller country Saudi Arabia is a smaller country? North Korea is a smaller country China is a smaller country? well if you say so
because Israel is setting precedence for them or anyone else to boycott what is really going on here maybe that Israel is attempting to delegitmize any and all work done by the UNHRC, while crying loudly that the UNHRC ids attempt to delegitimze Israel damn the consequences

So are you by extension saying that the US under Barack Obama is antiIsrael?

your answer to the prior question does lend a tone to this onebut the best you can do is this



in other words the usual wail of "they don't like us"

and then for the finale'

Israel IMO only makes itself look guilty or above the law in a way of speaking by doing this



to who? to most of the world-expecting those that do not care in any event whether out of ignorence or simple bigotry or those who are spoon fed from Western news outlets such as Fox oh and it is not the US who will or should be embarrassed by this move

in other words the usual wail of "they don't like us"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is "us"? The UNHCR?

The US isn't seen as anti Israel for being in the UNHCR because it has consistently sought to alter the groups anti Israel bias.

Your comment makes no sense.

What is the alternative to engagement for Israel? I sincerely see nothing but further isolation and loss of international standing to come from non-engagement. If there is a justification in international law for building settlements on West Bank lands, and one assumes Israel's leaders think there is, then why not appear and offer that defense as convincingly as possible? Even if some members of the Council won't bother to listen, the World will be listening.

If Israel goes and participates in the proceedings it grants legitimacy to a process that has been created for the sole purpose of condemning israeli policies and delegitimizing Israel as a sovereign state. The reason that Israel is the state under scrutiny is not the result of any of Israel's actions. Rather, it's the reverse. Israel has been repeatedly investigated for the purpose of collecting ammunition to condemn it. This is not an example of a state being investigated in the service of human rights. Rather it is an example of human rights being used as leverage against a state who is seen as an enemy of the nations comprising the council.

The UNHRC was not established for the,". . . sole purpose of condemning Israel." It is body which carries out periodic reviews of all UN member states, in regard to their human rights records and policies, with an eye to encouraging more respect for those rights. That is, in my opinion, a quite laudable purpose and we should support those efforts any way we can, including using our influence to convince other nations to participate with the Council and, thereby, strengthen its effectiveness. I mean no offense, but your claims of victimization are a bit over-stated in this case.

However this is not one of them.

The UNHRC was not established for the,". . . sole purpose of condemning Israel."

I never said it was. While the intent behind the UNHRC's creation is commendable the execution of its stated goals leave much to be desired. The extent to which this group has singled out Israel for disproportionate amounts of ridicule couldn't be overstated if I tried. Here are some examples.

As of 2010, Israel had been condemned in 32 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006. The 32 resolutions comprised 48.1% of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council.[59] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[60] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern.".[60]

The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry

At the UNHRC's opening session in February 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the council's "structural bias" against the State of Israel: "The structural bias against Israel – including a standing agenda item for Israel, whereas all other countries are treated under a common item – is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together."[96]

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post subsequently revealed that the UNHRC was "poised to adopt six resolutions ... condemning Israel," noting that it was the highest number of resolutions ever to be adopted against Israel in a single session. Human rights activist and Hudson Institute senior fellow Anne Bayefsky accused the UNHRC of failing to remove antisemitic propaganda distributed by the IHH during one of its sessions. The material in question was an illustration depicting Israel as a sinister Nazi octopus seizing control of a ship.[97]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#section_2

I suggest you read the entire article. The degree to which the UNHRC actively ignores its stated mission in pursuit of condemning Israel is truly astounding.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/israel-palestinians-settlements-update-idUSL5N0B06KO20130131

Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:38pm EST

* Israel refused to cooperate with U.N. investigation

* U.N. report-Israeli settlements are "creeping annexation"

* Says settlements prevent a viable Palestinian state

* Israel rejects report, while top PLO official welcomes it

By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA, Jan 31 (Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators called on Israel on Thursday to halt settlement expansion and withdraw all half a million Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank, saying that its practices could be subject to prosecution as possible war crimes.

A three-member U.N. panel said private companies should stop working in the settlements if their work adversely affected the human rights of Palestinians, and urged member states to ensure companies respected human rights.

"Israel must cease settlement activities and provide adequate, prompt and effective remedy to the victims of violations of human rights," Christine Chanet, a French judge who led the U.N. inquiry, told a news conference.