‘The UN Has Inverted Right and Wrong’, Says Expert.(INN).
It’s time to re-think the United Nations, which turns Israel into a villain, says human rights scholar Anne Bayefsky.
The United Nations has been a “major disappointment” in the 21st Century and has “inverted right and wrong,” human rights scholar and activist Anne Bayefsky.
The UN “was founded in the middle of the 20th Century to offer a new world order based on peace and security and protection of human rights, and it has inverted right and wrong so that Israel becomes the villain and the victims become those who are some of the most intolerant people in the region,” said Bayefsky.
She said that a “re-thinking” about the organization is in order, adding, “I think there is some mistaken belief on the part of democracies that the UN is some kind of harmless talking shop and that the kind of anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, anti-Americanism that goes on at the United Nations won’t have its effects. But it does.”
Two weeks ago, noted Bayefsky, “the major committee that’s been tasked with drafting a comprehensive convention on terrorism for the first time in history ended once again – as it has done year after year – in disarray, because they can’t agree to define terrorism. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation believes that there should be an exception clause for so-called ‘legitimate struggle.’”
She mentioned the remarks this week of Richard Falk, the United Nations Human Rights Council-appointed “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Falk implied that the Boston terror attack was a justified response to U.S. policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
“This isn’t harmless talking,” stressed Bayefsky. “When people don’t understand the difference between right and wrong it encourages terrorism to the detriment of both Israel and the United States.”
I’d call it the final betrayal, but it’s happened so many times before that who knows when the final betrayal will really be. The United Nations is currently holding an exhibit in its own headquarters that depicts ‘Palestine’ as including the entire State of Israel.
On November 29th the General Assembly granted “Palestine” the status of “non-member observer state” under the pretense that the move brought the world closer to a two-state solution. But that same evening Palestinian UN representative Riyadh Mansour opened an exhibit entitled “Palestine – Memories Dreams Perseverance.” The political message is not subtle, with the works bearing titles such as “homeless,” “delirious in exile,” and “to Jerusalem we travel.”
The emblems of a long list of Palestinian terrorist organizations include the familiar shape in which Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are all combined into the only and only Palestine.
Here is a close-up of the logo on the cover page of Abbas’s speech:
It’s a perfect fit with the message now embedded in the UN public exhibit.
|(The Senate made the right choice Wednesday in rejecting the CRPD,
writes former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.)
Who should make the critical health-care decisions for a child with a disability? A well-meaning, but faceless and distant United Nations bureaucrat, or a parent who has known, loved, and cared for the child since before birth?The answer should be obvious, and today the Senate made the right decision by rejecting the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).The reason I have so strongly opposed CRPD is also simple. Karen and I have experienced first-hand as we care for our little blessing, Bella, that parents and caregivers care most deeply and are best equipped to care for the disabled. Not international bureaucrats.
CRPD—whatever its intentions—has many troubling aspects.There is not a clear definition of “disability” in the treaty, which means some committee at the U.N. will decide after ratification who is covered—an example of what is at the heart of the problem. CRPD gives too much power to the U.N., and the unelected, unaccountable committee tasked with overseeing its implementation, while taking power and responsibility away from our elected representatives and, more important, from parents and caregivers of disabled persons.Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.How would this new standard play out in a battle between a single mom fighting a stubborn school district for special-education services for her disabled child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? That landmark legislation signed by President George H.W. Bush made it clear that parents—not government officials using a “best interests of the child” standard—are ultimately in charge of their child’s education. Because of the bill, countless parents have won their fights against public schools that failed to provide adequate services for their special-needs child. CRPD could have changed all that.I also oppose CRPD because our nation has been the worldwide leader when it comes to protecting the disabled. We should be telling the U.N., not the other way around, how to ensure dignity and respect for the disabled.Finally, the treaty doesn’t accomplish the principle purpose that its advocates say it will. Supporters of CRPD argue that the United States needed to ratify this treaty in order to give our nation a seat at the table in advocating for the plight of the disabled abroad. I believe that CRPD supporters have done a huge service by shining a spotlight on the gross violations of human rights and human dignity in many nations that have a horrible track record when it comes to caring for the disabled. It is also true that disabled Americans—including some of our wounded warriors—face difficulty when they travel abroad.
If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.However, the United States passing this treaty would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide.The United States—under the Americans with Disabilities Act—is the world’s leader in ensuring that disabled people, whether our citizens or foreign visitors, are able to be productive members of our society. There are no limits to what disabled persons can accomplish, in large part because of our legal protections for the disabled.If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.What will help is for the Obama administration and Congress to step up to the plate. We need to do a better job in exporting human rights and human dignity—particularly for the disabled—overseas. I believe that this administration has not done a good enough job of standing up to thuggish regimes on the issue of human rights and this would be a great place to start. This administration should leverage the billions we spend in foreign aid dollars to push recipients to ensure greater human dignity for the disabled.CRPD is not dead. Many of its supporters are pushing to bring it up in the next Congress. Our nation has a choice: ratify a document that may cause great harm to our country and at most will allow us a seat at a table at some U.N. committee with member countries that have horrific records on protecting the disabled. Or we can lead on our own on this great issue of human rights and dignity for the disabled. The choice is clear. We must continue to oppose CRPD.
It continues: Obama pressuring Netanyahu not to respond to ‘Palestinian statehood’ bid by building in E-1 (Jerusalem – Maaleh Adumim corridor)November 23, 2012
At least since 2005, there has been talk in Israel about building in E-1 (see map above), the area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. The advantages would be obvious. Building in E-1 and expanding the city eastward would be a lot less destructive to the environment than building westward. There is much more room to build to the east than to the west. And most importantly, E-1 would serve as a buffer between Judea and Jerusalem, precluding a contiguous ‘Palestinian state’ that reaches Jerusalem at that point. It is for that final reason that the United States and the ‘international community’ have opposed Jewish building in E-1. In fact, Israel has built some infrastructure in E-1, but backed off opening a police station there that would have asserted Israeli control.
Now, it’s happened again. JPost reports this morning that one of Israel’s possible responses to a unilateral declaration of a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet with UN approval would be construction on E-1. And the Hussein Obama administration is ‘urging’ (read: threatening) Israel not to do it.
In the meantime, the Europeans have not yet decided how they will vote at the UN on Thursday (yes, this Thursday, the annual day to deprecate Israel and call for a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet.
I’d like to know what kind of threats Obama made to Netanyahu concerning E1 building and if this does not see the light of day there is a little thing in Israel called Democracy. Bibi could lose power to the right… and that would be the end of Obama’s leverage. Obama might of won the election, but he got caught as a tyrant with the Benghazi riot. When the public knows the president blamed a Youtube video and asked for censorship to cover up his own sins, Obama is in no position to take the higher ground with a country he claims friendship with.
oh… but it is diplomacy right? We are merely dealing with moderates… just like the Muslim Brotherhood… and the MoveOn.org and Think Progress people will not stop pushing that idea. They will tell you that you are the radical for having a position, when their position is the radical silencing opinion.
(israelmatzav.blogspot.com)Just how sick is the United Nations? Consider this: On Thursday, they held a moment of silence in memory of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.
Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, president of the 193-nation assembly, called for a “minute of silence” before the start of a routine meeting at 3:00 p.m. EST in the half-empty UN General Assembly hall.
“It is my sad duty to pay tribute to the memory of the late Kim Jong-il, Secretary-General of the Workers Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army, who passed away on Saturday, Dec. 17,” he said.
The minute of silence lasted for 25 seconds before Nasser proceeded with the scheduled meeting. The United States, European Union member states and Japan were among the countries that boycotted the tribute to Kim Jong-il.
North Korea’s UN mission made a similar request to the Security Council, but Western diplomats said it was rejected.
“We didn’t think it would be appropriate,” a diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Several Western diplomats said Pyongyang’s request for Kim to be honored was highly unusual. They voiced surprise that Nassir had granted it and added that their delegations would most likely boycott the moment of silence in the assembly.
Speaking at a news conference, Nasser cited “protocol” as the reason for agreeing to the request from North Korea, a full UN member. One diplomat said the reason for granting the request was probably because Kim was an acting head of state.
A reminder: North Korea is under UN sanctions because of its nuclear program (and ought to be under them for being a nuclear proliferator), and many of its people eat grass because there is nothing else to eat. That the United Nations considers Kim worthy of emulation speaks volumes as to the mentality that pervades the organization.