(Video) Antisemitism at UN "Human Rights" Council - March 2012

Eye on the UN..
Anne Bayefsky..
info@eyeontheun.org..
27 March '12..



The blood libel -- the UN's idea of human rights


***the UN "Human Rights" Council in action***


Geneva  - March 2012



For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.


Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand 
.

Bayefsky - Meet the UN's anti-Israel 'anti-discrimination' czar, Navi Pillay

Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org
August 10, 2011

For Immediate Release:

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on NY Daily News.

The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to block further defections from the UN's racist "anti-racism" bash scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already announced a boycott of "Durban III," a UN event designed to "commemorate" the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was "disappointed" with these pullouts, labeling them a "political distraction."

The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city's mayor asked her to "rescue the name of Durban," given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.

Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states - Israel. It calls Palestinians "victims" of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an "outcome document" that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed "mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word 'reaffirm' carries those paragraphs into this document."

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the "anti-racism" crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II - which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.

Pillay's enthusiasm for the Durban "anti-racism" agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having "made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law." After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, "I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone's report and its recommendations." Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.

In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on "situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of great concern" around the world - and made only two pleas to the council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: "I urge the council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade" - which would stymie Israel's ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And she made this plea: "I urge the Security Council to support the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" - that is, the Goldstone report.

After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: "The clearest manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel." She could have easily determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel's parliament, in the diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.

The antagonism between Pillay's political priorities and the interests of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden. On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to know "the precise facts surrounding his killing" for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, "counterterrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law" means "you're not allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings." And this requirement would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their "stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they could."

Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case, and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an "important event . . . to combat discrimination." Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.

For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Bayefsky - UN Negotiators in New York Produce New Durban III Outrages

Anne Bayefsky
Eye on the UN
For Immediate Release:
July 28, 2011



This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News.


Member states of the U.N. General Assembly are busy hammering out how to slam Israel and restrict human rights like free speech at “Durban III” – the racist “anti-racism” event to be held in New York on Sept. 22.

With the recent pull-outs by the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands added to the previously declared boycotts by the United States, Canada and Israel, negotiations at U.N. Headquarters continued Thursday over how offensive the final declaration of Durban III can become without more countries following suit.

The Durban III conference will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the conference held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. That event produced the Durban Declaration, which accused just one country on earth of racism, namely Israel. No negotiations, therefore, can hide the fact that Durban III is a commemoration – in the words of the authorizing General Assembly resolution – of a conference and an outcome remembered most notably for its overt anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the U.N.’s idea is that since the General Assembly hall in September will be filled with heads of government already present for the Assembly’s annual opening, more than a hundred world leaders will embrace the Durban Declaration and its racist-Israel mantra for the first time. Durban I sported only a handful of such leaders – like Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro -- while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the only one to attend Durban II.

On the table Thursday was a draft of a “political declaration” to be adopted by the General Assembly at the end of the day on Sept. 22. Negotiations proved to be a toxic combination of U.N. members either pursuing a contorted cover-up strategy or preferring more open Israel-bashing.

The co-chairs from Cameroon and Monaco made the agenda painfully obvious. They insisted that the 2011 declaration will “not re-open previously agreed text” since their “mandate is clearly not to renegotiate the Durban Declaration.” On the contrary, Durban III will have the Durban Declaration “at its core.”

Some people might have to believe Jimmy Carter, but you don't

Shmuel Rosner
Rosner's Domain
24 December 09

A couple of quick notes on Carter's apology to Jews (on which I also wrote a more lengthy Hebrew piece for this coming weekend):

1. Jewish organizations have to congratulate him and pretend to believe him. Jewish writers don't.

2. Jewish politicians and Israeli politicians have to act as if he means what he says. Jews with no political aspirations don't.

3. For him to deny that it's all about the grandson's race - namely, to deny the obvious reason for his mea-culpa - is just Carter being Carter.

4. And don't start with the maybe-he's-sincere unless you can reasonably explain why now, what happened so suddenly, so out of the blue, that had precipitated this apology. Carter might be annoying, but he isn't stupid, and is often cynically calculated. Think about possible motives. If you can't find one, it might be a sign that Carter is playing the most banal of political games.

4. Just a couple days ago, Carter wrote an article for the British Guardian. The situation in Gaza is intolerable, he explains, "Without ascribing blame to any of the disputing parties".

5. My guess: grandson or no grandson, it will not take long before Carter goes back to his old habits and says something soooo outrageous that no apology will be able to fix.

(Read full post)

.

The UN Kicks Out a Leading Critic

Joe Klein
frontpagemag.com
25 November 09

The United Nations security department briefly detained a leading UN critic, Anne Bayefsky earlier this month and then escorted her out of the building after stripping her of her accreditation pass. Ms. Bayefsky, who is affiliated with a UN-recognized non-governmental organization and is an accredited United Nations observer, also happens to be a human rights watchdog who for years has publicized the rank hypocrisy at the UN when it comes to dealing with Israel and its terrorist enemies.

Her offense was that she dared to approach a microphone outside of the General Assembly hall in the press area and denounce the one-sided Goldstone Report on Gaza that the General Assembly had just endorsed. In her two minute comments, she criticized the General Assembly for passing a resolution that “doesn’t mention the word Hamas.” “This is a resolution that purports to be even-handed; it is anything but”, she said.

That is a pointed statement but hardly an incendiary one. Apparently, even two minutes of straight talk was too much for the UN Palestinian representative who complained to UN security. Ms. Bayefsky was whisked away by security and reportedly held for a time in the UN’s security office before being forced to turn in her pass and leave the building.

“The Palestinian ambassador is very upset by your statement,” Ms. Bayefsky recounted the U.N. security chief telling her as the reason for these drastic actions. The Palestinian, who himself has only observer status at the UN, was reported to have been overheard asking whether UN security had “captured” Ms. Bayefsky.

Ever since this disgraceful episode happened, the UN security and press offices have been constantly changing their stories. They have been spinning a bunch of mistruths to cover up for the fact that the UN establishment went along with a Palestinian-inspired effort to censure free expression at UN headquarters.

The cover up went into high gear last week when I asked at a daily press briefing the status of Ms. Bayefsky’s case. I was told by the deputy spokesman for the UN Secretary General that everything was fine. In his words, Ms Bayefsky’s “credentials and the credentials of her organization are not changed at this stage. She belongs to a non-governmental organization. It’s possible in the future that there could be a review, but at this stage there has been no removal of credentials from that non-governmental organization or from Ms. Bayefsky.” (Emphasis added)

It turns out that was not true. Her credentials were lifted and she was barred from the UN premises.

(Read full article)

Related: Banished at Turtle Bay
.