Geneva, June 2, 2010 – The U.N. Human Rights Council voted 32 to 3 to adopt an Arab and Islamic-sponsored resolution (click here for final amended text) that began by declaring Israel guilty of committing an “outrageous attack” in monday’s Intifada on the high seas, and ended by creating a probe to find the facts.UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights monitoring group in Geneva, praised the U.S., Italy and Netherlands for opposing the “deeply flawed” text, as well as Belgium, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, U.K., Japan, South Korea, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Zambia and Madagacar for refusing to support the resolution by abstaining or absenting themselves. Click here for full voting chart.“This is a highly politicized and inflammatory resolution that undermines the cause of peace and human rights by emboldening the Hamas terrorist group and its extremist supporters, including those who resorted to pre-meditated violence on the Marmara ship,” said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer. (See below for UN Watch speech during UNHRC debate.)“Not surprsisingly, the sponsors of the text include the chief military, financial and political sponsors of Hamas — Iran and Syria — along with such tyrannies as genocidal Sudan and dictatorial Libya.””By declaring Israel guilty before collecting facts, the resolution taints its fact-finding mission from the start with prejudicial bias, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice, common sense, as well the UN’s own Declaration on Fact Finding, which requires objectivity and impartiality.””Tragically, rather than contribute to defusing the Arab-Israeli conflict, the UN Human Rights Council has once again chpsen to throw oil onto the fire.”#####
_______________________
Following is UN Watch’s written version of the speech it delivered this morning to the Council, as submitted to the UN’s official record.
UN Watch Statementto UN Human Rights Council”Urgent Debate on the Raid on the Flotilla”Delivered by Hillel Neuer, 2 June 2010
Mr. President, this debate turns on one question: Was the flotilla humanitarian, or not?To answer this question, let us first examine the objective of the organizers, and then the means they used.Evidence of the organizer’s objective can be found in the path they chose, and the path they rejected.Israel, which in the past 18 months has delivered over 1 million tons of aid to Gaza, offered to receive the flotilla’s cargo in the nearby port of Ashdod, and, after inspection, to deliver it to Gaza. The organizers, however, rejected this offer. Because they wanted to create a political provocation; they were looking for a physical confrontation.Mr. President, is this a humanitarian path?Further evidence can be found in their state of mind, as demonstrated by their own words.Before the ships sailed, supporters chanted “Intifada, Intifada,” and “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammed will return.” One of them declared that the aim of the flotilla was either of two “good things… achieving martyrdom or reaching Gaza.”Mr. President, is this a humanitarian state of mind?Let us also examine the means they used: metal bars, knives, axes, and even guns.Mr. President, are these humanitarian means?No. This operation was organized by an extremist group, the IHH, with extensive and documented ties to terrorist groups. Their objective and means had nothing to do with humanitarianism.Now, seated around me here are representatives of some of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Let us ask them: Are these the ways of humanitarians?No, Mr. President, the resolution that is before us today – introduced by such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – is an insult to the world’s real humanitarians.Thank you, Mr. President.
