“The US is the main UN’s sponsor (22% of the budget, $654million in 2015). The 57 Muslim Countries of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation hijacked the UN to pass 20 anti-Israel resolutions vs only one for Iran, Syria and North Korea in 2015…”
Obama could have prevented the UNHRC blacklist of Israeli companies
by Ezequiel Doiny
On May 24, 2016 JNS wrote “Israel slammed the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its adoption of a measure that calls for the creation of a database of businesses “involved in activities” in Judea and Samaria.
The 47-member U.N. forum adopted the measure with 32 nations voting in favor, none against, and 15 abstaining. The council asked that the list of businesses be updated annually, and that the council be informed of the “human rights and international law violations involved in the production of settlement goods.”
Danny Danon, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., called the database a “blacklist” and said the UNHRC is acting “obsessively” on the issue of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the UNHRC an “anti-Israel circus,” echoing longstanding Israeli criticism of U.N. bias.
Netanyahu added that the UNHRC “attacks the only democracy in the Middle East and ignores the gross violations of Iran, Syria, and North Korea….Israel calls on responsible governments not to honor the decisions of the council that discriminate against Israel.”
The US opposed the resolution but it could have done much more. Obama could have prevented the UN resolution by threatening the UN or the PA with economic sanctions as John Bolton revealed in 2012 when the UN changed the PA status “Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton blamed the Obama administration for failing to block the U.N.’s defacto recognition Thursday of a sovereign Palestinian state…Bolton said the Obama administration could have taken a page from the playbook of former Secretary of State James Baker more than two decades ago when a similar effort to change the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s observer status at the U.N. from an “entity” to a “non-member state,” the same status held by the Vatican.
“We’ve been through this before. We did this 20 years ago and defeated the Palestinians,” Bolton said. “And this is how we did it. Secretary of State Jim Baker issued a statement saying he would recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.
“If the administration had simply done what Jim Baker did 20 years ago, this thing would have been deader than a doornail,” Bolton added…” (3)
There are 7.5 million Chinese settlers in Tibet. Will the UN create a blacklist of Chinese businesses operating in Tibet?
On March 2015, Amb. Ron Prosor wrote in the NY Times “The United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. It was intended to be a temple of peace, but this once great global body has been overrun by the repressive regimes that violate human rights and undermine international security.
In 1949, when the United Nations admitted Israel as a member state, it had 58 member countries and about half had a democratic orientation. Today, the landscape of the organization has changed drastically. From 51 member states at its founding in 1945, the institution has grown to 193 members — fewer than half of which are democracies.
The very nations that deny democratic rights to their people abuse the United Nations’ democratic forums to advance their interests. The largest of these groups comprises members from the 120-member-strong bloc known as the Non-Aligned Movement. Since 2012, the bloc has been chaired by Iran, which has used its position to bolster its allies and marginalize Israel.
In March, the United Nations closed the annual meeting of its Commission on the Status of Women by publishing a report that effectively singled out just one country for condemnation: Israel. The commission apparently had nothing to say about the Sudanese girls who are subjected to female genital mutilation. It also had nothing to say about the Iranian women who have been punished for crimes of “adultery” by stoning. These oversights may have something to do with the fact that both Iran and Sudan sit on the 45-member commission.
Then there is the United Nations Human Rights Council (the body that replaced the Commission on Human Rights in 2006). Its membership includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — nations where you risk life and liberty if you express dissenting opinions. Yet these governments stand in judgment on the rest of us.
In 2007, Sudan chaired a committee overseeing human rights — even as its president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was being investigated for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, for which the International Criminal Court later issued arrest warrants. Saudi Arabia — a regime notorious for public executions and floggings like that, most recently, of the blogger Raif Badawi — sits on the Human Rights Council, despite regularly receiving the worst possible ratings on civil liberties and political rights from the independent watchdog Freedom House.
In 2013, Iran was elected to the committee responsible for disarmament — even as it continued its nuclear expansion, support for terrorism and the destruction of Israel. Last year, an Iranian served as a vice chair of the General Assembly’s legal committee, an inexplicable choice given that Iranian citizens are routinely denied due process and fair trials.
Knowing this history, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that, in the 2014-15 session alone, the General Assembly adopted about 20 resolutions critical of Israel, while the human rights situations in Iran, Syria and North Korea merited just one condemnation apiece. Day after day, member states turn a blind eye to the most deplorable crimes.
Iran? Just one hostile resolution for a nation that, on average, executes citizens at a rate of two a day for “crimes” that include homosexuality, apostasy and the vague offense of being an “enemy of God.”
North Korea? Just one negative resolution even though it has imprisoned more than 200,000 citizens, throws children into forced labor camps and subjects its population to food shortages and famine as a result of government policies.
Syria? Again, just one resolution for a government that has pursued a war against its own people that has caused the deaths of at least 220,000 men, women and children — many by torture, starvation, chemical weapons and barrel bombs dropped on markets and schools.
Christians now number among the world’s most persecuted religious groups in Muslim countries, yet this human rights crisis is almost completely ignored by the United Nations. Instead, Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and an area in the region where the Christian population is actually growing, often seems to be the only nation the United Nations cares about.
Nowhere is anti-Israel bias more obvious than in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. The council addresses the human rights abuses of all countries in the world under a program known as Agenda Item 4. That is, all countries but one. Israel is the only nation that is singled out for criticism by virtue of a special program, known as Agenda Item 7. A result, according to the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, is that more than 50 percent of all condemnatory resolutions are directed at the Jewish state.
Following last summer’s conflict in Gaza, the Human Rights Council established a Commission of Inquiry and selected William Schabas, a Canadian law professor, to chair the investigation. In February, Mr. Schabas was forced to resign after documents came to light revealing that, in 2012, he had done consulting work for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Surprisingly, this fact slipped Mr. Schabas’s mind during his vetting process.
It was clear from the outset that Mr. Schabas was not an impartial arbiter since he had a record of public statements suggesting that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former president, Shimon Peres, should face trial at the International Criminal Court. When Israel protested, however, the United Nations ignored it.
I am often asked how I can stand the tide of hatred aimed at Israel. Our response to the United Nations’ accusations is to speak tirelessly for those who are denied a voice in most of the Middle East — women, minorities, the L.G.B.T. community — and to fight daily efforts by totalitarian regimes to undermine democratic societies. Based on the fact that Israel is a thriving society, I believe we are winning.
Later this year, chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement will transfer to Venezuela, Iran’s ally. For the foreseeable future, we can expect more of the same.
The problem with the United Nations is that the leaders of many of its member states do not rule with the consent of the governed. Instead, they use the body as a forum to deflect attention from their own ruthless rule. In so doing, they turn a stage for courageous statecraft into a tragic theater of the absurd.”
According to un.org, during 2015 the United States was the maximum contributor to the UN regular budget — 22%, the assessed amount is $654 million. Nine countries (United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China) contributed 75% of the UN’s budget. Saudi Arabia contributed 0.86%.
The 57 Muslim States members in the UN supported 20 pro-Palestinian resolutions against the only Jewish State. The US, main sponsor of the UN, shares responsibility for the bullying against the Jewish State for continuing to provide funds to the UN despite its anti-Israel bias.
The Palestinians have automatic majority in any UN vote because there are 57 Muslim Countries (see members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation) but only one Jewish State.
When the UN votes for a Jewish-Muslim dispute such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is obvious that the dozens of Muslim Nations are going to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine and their vote is going to be biased.
To avoid religious bias in the UN, in any dispute involving different religions, the UN should weight the votes based on the religion of the Nation voting. Since the Jews have only one vote, the representative of all the Muslim Nations combined should have only one vote, the representative of all the Christian Nations combined should have only one vote, the Bhuddist Nations should have only one vote, etc…that way all religions will have a proper weight in the UN.
Israel is always condemned in the UN because all 57 Muslim Nations gang together against the only Jewish State. Not taking the nation’s religion in consideration in the UN vote is a FRAUD.This must change.
The Charter of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which was signed by all 57 member States says:
“In the name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful
We the Member States of the Organisation of Islamic
to be guided by the noble Islamic values of unity and fraternity, and affirming the essentiality of promoting and consolidating the unity and solidarity among the Member States in securing their common interests at the international arena;
to endeavour to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world while ensuring sustainable development, progress and prosperity for the peoples of Member States;
to enhance and strengthen the bond of unity and solidarity among the Muslim peoples and Member States;
…to support the struggle of the Palestinian people, who are presently under foreign occupation, and to empower them to attain their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, and to establish their sovereign state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (JERUSALEM) as its capital, while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein;
to create conducive conditions for sound upbringing of Muslim children and youth, and to inculcate in them Islamic values through education for strengthening their cultural, social, moral and ethical ideals;
to assist Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States to preserve their dignity, cultural and religious identity;
…To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions;
…To safeguard the rights, dignity and religious and cultural identity of Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States;”
source OIC: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
Below is a list of the members of the of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation Member States
Republic of AZERBAIJAN
Hashemite Kingdom of JORDAN
Islamic Republic of AFGHANISTAN
Republic of ALBANIA
State of The UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Republic of INDONESIA
Republic of UZBEKISTAN
Republic of UGANDA
Islamic Republic of IRAN
Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN
Kingdom of BAHRAIN
People’s Republic of BANGLADESH
Republic of BENIN
BURKINA-FASO (then Upper Volta)
Republic of TAJIKISTAN
Republic of TURKEY
Republic of CHAD
Republic of TOGO
Republic of TUNISIA
People’s Democratic Republic of ALGERIA
Republic of DJIBOUTI
Kingdom of SAUDI ARABIA
Republic of SENEGAL
Republic of The SUDAN
SYRIAN Arab Republic
Republic of SURINAME
Republic of SIERRA LEONE
Republic of SOMALIA
Republic of IRAQ
Sultanate of OMAN
Republic of GABON
The Islamic Republic of The Gambia
Republic of GUYANA
Republic of GUINEA
Republic of GUINEA-BISSAU
State of PALESTINE
Union of The COMOROS
State of QATAR
Republic of KAZAKHSTAN
Republic of CAMEROON
Republic of COTE D’IVOIRE
State of KUWAIT
Republic of LEBANON
Republic of MALDIVES
Republic of MALI
Arab Republic of EGYPT
Kingdom of MOROCCO
Islamic Republic of MAURITANIA
Republic of MOZAMBIQUE
Republic of NIGER
Federal Republic of NIGERIA
Republic of YEMEN