Israel severs ties with UN Human Rights Council

Post Reply New Topic

So if one country isn't overseen correctly, then that gives all countries the right to do whatever they want behind closed doors?

The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.

The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.

With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.

Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?

Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.

Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.

The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation?

The UN needs a massive overhaul to say the least, but as it stands now it does have a measure of power.

If the US left the UN, it would *help* the UN< seeing how America has a veto.... something that no country should have. Ever.

If the US left the UN, it would *help* the UN< seeing how America has a veto.... something that no country should have. Ever.

The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.

The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.

With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.

Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?

Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.

Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.

The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation?

The U.N. wouldn't have nearly as much money, either.....
I can see your concern about power in the UN since the U.S. contributes 22% of the money and Canada only 3.2%. Who should have the most power, Sri Lanka?

If you support the US having a veto then lets try a little thought experiment shall we? Lets say a Democrat in the U.S. Congress had the power to veto whatever he wanted (hypothetical mind you, don't just dismiss this as impossible and not even think about it). Wouldn't you be screaming and kicking that he shouldn't have that power every time he shot down a bill?

No democratic organization should *ever* have vetoes involved. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how much money you put in.

If you support the US having a veto then lets try a little thought experiment shall we? Lets say a Democrat in the U.S. Congress had the power to veto whatever he wanted (hypothetical mind you, don't just dismiss this as impossible and not even think about it). Wouldn't you be screaming and kicking that he shouldn't have that power every time he shot down a bill?

No democratic organization should *ever* have vetoes involved. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how much money you put in.

And according to almost every UN resolution that tried to pass, Hamas has a free pass to fire rockets into Israeli civilian areas without consequence, despite being confirmed in fact finding missions too.

I don't blame Israel for getting out of the UNHRC or anything else U.N.
Their location in the world, the middle east if you haven't noticed, isn't real big on human rights in the first place. If they have to take the gloves off to deal with the people that would exterminate them all at the first opportunity then so be it.
You do what you have to do, plain and simple.

If I had it my way the U.S. would be out of the U.N. and the U.N. would be out of the U.S.