On November 28, 2006, the UN Human Rights Council rebuked Israel for its settlement policy, which constituted a violation of international law and human rights.
As reported by Al Jazeera at the time,
The United Nations human rights council has called on Israel to dismantle its settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, and to confiscate the arms of Jewish settlers. The council voted 45-1 on Monday in favour of a resolution submitted by a group of Muslim countries. Canada opposed the motion, while Cameroon abstained. The resolution urged Israel to "stop immediately the expansion of the existing settlements" and prevent any new installation of settlers.
It also called on Israel to "reverse the settlement policy in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan". The text demanded the disarming of settlers, and called for "serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers".
For its part, Israel, which is not a member of the human rights council but holds observer status, decried the resolution as a "distraction technique to the real issues, which must be resolved". Itzhak Levanon, Israel's ambassador to the UN, said: "All those who will vote for this resolution are perpetuating the conflict instead of pushing for a solution."
http://english.aljazeera.net/...
Canada, under its current right wing conservative leadership, was the only country to vote against the Resolution.
Where was the United States on this measure? It had no vote.
However, the United States, along with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel, had originally voted against the Council's creation, claiming that it would have too little power and that there were insufficient safeguards to prevent human rights-abusing nations from taking control. In truth, after the alleged abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantánamo Bay, there was some question as to whether the United States would have been able to muster the 96 votes from the General Assembly necessary to even gain a seat. That is how low in the area of human rights the United States has fallen since 9/11 after the Neoconservative takeover of US foreign policy.
Israel’s reservations are obviously related to its own long history of censure by the UN, as well as by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, for violations of international law and human rights abuses during its 40 year long military occupation of the Palestinian people while it colonized their lands.
Recently, Israel defied this UN sanction: rather than dismantling settlements, it recently announced the plan to build yet another new settlement, Maskiot, in the Jordan Valley.
After the UN Human Rights Council spoke, it was noted in several publications that Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized it for focusing only on Israel and neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises. Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on December 8, 2006 (International Human Rights Day), noting the Commission's "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. The Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well," he said.
Granted that Darfur situation is grave, should Israel, which taints its number one supporter, the United States with its human rights abuses, be given a free pass.
This recent article, The Embarrassment of the Wretched by Ran HaCohen, published at The Electronic Intifada, argues that pressure on Israel must continue, along with efforts to save the people of Darfur and other world crises.
A recurrent theme in anti-Palestinian propaganda (usually misnamed "pro-Israel") is "Don't Single Out." The idea is that evil should be addressed everywhere; the greater the evil, the greater the protest against it should be; and since there are worse cases of evil than Israel's, Israel should not be criticized. Not now, at least: perhaps after all other evils have been eradicated.
http://electronicintifada.net/...
One way for Israel to stop international criticism is to engage in actions that would reflect its seriousness about ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a fair and just manner. Speech is not enough. One such action would be the reversal of its intention to build this new settlement, Maskiot, in the Jordan Valley. When such actions are observed, the words of the Israeli PM will be believed. And there is historical precedence for this expectation. During the Oslo period, settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza actually doubled and had reached its highest point during the failed Camp David/Taba negotiations. The military occupation and settlement activity continued afterward.
Crossposted at Eternal Hope