23 Mar 2014, 2:08 pm
Max000 wrote:
Jono wrote:
chris5000 wrote:
Jono wrote:
chris5000 wrote:
you can add the united states to the list too they actually invaded two country's and currently occupy one still. they also fund terrorist groups to fight proxy wars. the united states created and actively funds al qaeda. the same group that they used to start the war in Afghanistan they are funding in Syria.
The United States is far better with regards to human rights than most of the countries Tequila has mentioned which are still on the UNHRC. In fact, I would much rather the United States stayed on because at least they counter the bloc voting of those countries which is consistently a vote in the wrong direction with regards to human rights, just to serve their own interests. Plus, the vast majority resolutions created by that lot is against Israel, while human rights abuses anywhere else get's far less attention, this by the way is to take attention away from themselves in order to cover their own asses.
they vote against israel because israel has a ton in common with nazi germany and actively use chemical weapons on civilian populations
warning gore
http://i.imgur.com/kEhV6aJ.jpg
What a crock of sh**. Why should the majority of resolutions focus around Israel but there has not even been a single resolution against Zimbabwe or Iran or ,for that matter, a lot of other countries that have had far worse human rights abuses than Israel have also not received any resolutions against them from the UNHRC. Look, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't be called out if they do break internal law but the function of UNHRC is supposed to be to focus on human rights issues wherever they occur in the world, not spend a disproportionate amount of time on a single country.
Oh, by the way. Your comparison of Israel to Nazi Gemrany is hyperbole.
If the shoe fits. It was Russia and China that have vetoed resolutions against Zimbabwe and Iran. The same way the US does resolutions against Israel. The US, Russia, and China all need to GTFO of it. Then everything would be fine.
You don't seem to understand. Whoever vetoed those resolutions is besides the point. How many resolutions has there been against Israel since the creation of the UNHRC in 2003? Answer: 45. How many resolutions have there been against Zimbabwe and Iran? Answer: 2 or 3. How may resolutions have their been against Sudan (despite the fact that a genocide was committed there). Answer: 0. In fact, discussion of Israel has been voted to become a permanent feature of ever council meeting:
Wikipedia wrote:
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. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.
So tell me, why should Israel have a special discussion group instead of them focuses on all human rights issues equally, wherever they occur? Even previous secretary generals of the UN have criticised the UNHARC on this point:
Quote:
In 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well".
On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."
On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."
If the UNHRC were really about human rights, they wouldn't create a special discussion group for one country while ignoring others, or if as in the case here, consider them a minor concern. The mere fact that Zimbabwe is even on it, means that the UNHRC is bogus, they are not about human rights whatsoever.
