Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories
Oh my, isn't that fascinating? The selection of a Jewish academic to monitor Israeli response to Palestinian overtures. Well, not quite like that; rather to monitor brutal Israeli treatment of innocent Palestinians. And since the individual selected is an academic of great esteem - an emeritus professor at Princeton University, one Richard Falk - one can be assured of neutral, well-rounded and completely fair conclusions to emanate from his resourceful custodianship of that office.The 47-member UN Human Rights Council, of which Canada is one member, made the selection of this highly esteemed academic. And when the appointment was formally announced in the austere chambers of moral relativity, cheers rang out. How peculiar, how utterly unanticipated. But then, perhaps not? For the appointment of this singular official to oversee events in the volatile region appears to be a serendipitous one for those in the community who are overtly anti-Israel.
Canada was not pleased with this selection. The Canadian representative had the audacity to question the candidate's commitment to impartial and objective treatment of the position. Hardly surprising, since the candidate, now the officer-holder, has likened Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the position of Jews under Nazi Germany. What? A Jew! Well, why not? This is a man of stern moral convictions, and he is obviously convinced.
So he does most certainly not bring an open mind to the position. His mind is intractably closed, but it is in that position as a result of his appraisal of the relations between Israel and the Arab community over a prolonged period of time. He remains adamantly critical of Israel, as an occupying force, a brutal entity visiting misery and worse on Palestinians - fondly creating a situation where it is possible they might attempt to annihilate the aspirations as well as the mortality of that captive population.
Little wonder then that Arab and Islamic states were so rabidly keen to see this man named to the post. One that carries a mandate to investigate "Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law". The fact appears to be he holds the opinion that Israel is guilty as charged. Why then carry on with the dry little fiction of an appointment and investigation? Simply produce his oeuvre of opinion.
As, for example, his breast beating about how painful it is for him as a Jew to be compelled to report the "...ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as 'holocaust'. Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.
"The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. If ever the ethos of 'a responsibility to protect', recently adopted by the UN Security Council as the basis of 'humanitarian intervention' is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering."
Marius Grinius, the Canadian delegate, expressed the opinion of his government: "Canada has serious concerns about whether the high standards established by the council ... will be able to be met by this individual", as the council went about its determination to endorse Mr. Falk, among a group of additional monitoring appointments. And isn't it just too rich that it was Canada who introduced to the United Nations the 'responsibility to protect' ethos?
And isn't it just too deliciously ironic, to the point of maddening excess, that the Human Rights Council, replacing its discredited predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, is largely comprised of countries whose poor human rights record has marked the council. And that the very cadre of poor human-rights-observing countries has succeeded in dominating the council as a manoeuvre to deflect criticism from their own failings.
As well as to steer the council in the direction which most suits their own sense of self entitlement. Which, in a nutshell, is to state, time and again, that violations of human rights occur nowhere in the world - other than in one single nation, outstanding for its egregious abuses - Israel.
Oh, well done indeed. Professor Falk will perform outstandingly well in this theatre of the absurd.
Labels: Justice, Political Realities, United Nations
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, March 27, 2008
<< Home