Resolutions Condemning Israel at 43rd UNHRC Session, June 2020

Following are the five resolutions singling out Israel adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council at its main annual session, which began in March but was suspended until June due to the Coronavirus. The Council adopted one resolution on Iran, one on Syria, one on North Korea, and five on Israel. No other country in the world was criticized in more than one resolution. The vast majority of the world’s worst abusers went ignored, with zero resolutions on China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and so forth.

Ensuring accountability and justice for all violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (A/HRC/43/L.36/Rev.1)
• One-sided text endorsing biased UN Fact-Finding Missions and their reports accusing Israel of war crimes, including most recent Commission of Inquiry on Gaza protests, effectively denying Israel’s right to self-defense.

• Ignores Palestinian terrorism and other violations of international law.

• Yes: 22 (Venezuela, Libya, Chile, Argentina, Qatar, Somalia…)
• No: 8 (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech, Fiji, Togo, Ukraine)
• Abstain: 17 (Bahamas, Cameroon, DRC, Slovakia, Marshall Islands, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Nepal. Netherlands, Poland, Spain)

____________________________

Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan (A/HRC/43/L.28)

• One-sided resolution, ignores Syrian rejectionism and sponsorship of terrorism.

• Ignores Israel’s provision of medical assistance to Syrian citizens in urgent need of medical care not available in Syria.

• Singles out Israel, no mention of Turkish occupation of northern Syria.

• Yes: 26 (including Libya, Qatar, India, Pakistan)
• No: 17 (including all western democracies and Brazil, Japan, Marshall Islands, South Korea)
• Abstain: 4 (Cameroon, DRC, Fiji, Philippines)

____________________________

Israeli Settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan (A/HRC/43/L.37/Rev.1)

• Unbalanced text ignores Palestinian terrorism and other violations.

• Yes: 36 (including Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain)
• No: 2 (Australia, Marshall Islands)
• Abstain: 9 (Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Czech, DRC, Slovakia, Togo, Ukraine)

____________________________

Human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (A/HRC/43/L.38/Rev.1)
Co-sponsors include Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, and “State of Palestine”

• One-sided resolution accusing Israel of multiple international law violations and condemns Israel for “excessive use of force.” While the resolution mentions terrorism and incitement, it does so in the context of condemning Israel, and does not attribute responsibility to Palestinian actors.

• Offers only a one-line condemnation of rocket attacks in a six-page resolution, fails to attribute responsibility to Hamas or other Palestinian terrorist groups.

Voting Result

• Yes: 42 (including Austria, Brazil, Czech, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain)
• No: 2 (Australia, Marshall Islands)
• Abstain: 3 (Cameroon, DRC, Togo)

____________________________

Right of Palestinian people to self-determination (A/HRC/43/L.39)

• Redundantly asserts a principle that Israel has already recognized. Out of hundreds of self-determination claims worldwide, resolution singles out one: the claim against Israel. Omits Palestinian obligation under the Road Map to dismantle terrorist infrastructure before a state is to be created

• Fails to recognize Palestinian rejectionism of Israel or Palestinian terrorism.

• Yes: 43 (including Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain)
• No: 2 (Australia, Marshall Islands)
• Abstain: 2 (Cameroon, DRC)

The post 43rd UNHRC Session: Israel Resolutions & Voting Results appeared first on UN Watch.

_______

I want to echo the thanks to UN Watch and all of you this morning for taking your time this morning to come and listen to this presentation. I asked to go last specifically because the theme of my comments really relates to how to assess the credibility of an opinion.
A report from a Commission of Inquiry is really nothing more than an opinion and trial lawyers learn very early that the value of an opinion is directly contingent on the quality of its foundation. And I think what we have seen thus far has started to demonstrate that the opinions which are reflected in this report are built on a fundamentally flawed foundation, so I want to talk about the flaws in that foundation.
And I think those flaws fall into three general categories: there’s an overall strategic flaw in the foundation and then there are flaws in the legal foundation and the operational foundation, and I’ll talk about each of them briefly.
Let’s start with the overall strategic issue. Whether or not the march of return qualifies as a declaration of war from a military operational perspective is really not that important, what’s important from a military operational perspective, as Colonel Kemp I think would agree is the situation that the forces confront at that moment in the operation, what their mission is and what the threat that they confront is. And that threat can manifest itself in a number of different ways and it may be motivated by a broader objective, but fundamentally what we have to look at is what did the forces on the ground face and what was their mission?
The Commission of Inquiry’s report is based on a fundamental premise that what the Israeli forces, security forces, confronted at that border was a civilian protest. And that fundamental foundation permeates all of the findings of the report. By characterizing or framing the event as a predominantly civilian protest, the COI distorts the reality of what was confronted.
The videos you just saw are an objective manifestation of that distortion, and if you distort the true nature of the security threat, then obviously it’s going to lead to second and third order distortions of what the forces confronted and why they were compelled to do what they needed to do.
What happened at that border I think, most rational observers would agree, was not an overall civilian protest, but the use of a civilian protest as a tactic in an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas and other organized armed groups.
My comments are developed in much more depth in a report that was just published by an organization I am affiliated with JINSA, the Jewish Institute of National Security in America. And if you just google “JINSA Hybrid War Task Force” you’ll find this report that’s endorsed by about 15 retired senior US military general officers and admirals.
That report recognizes that what happened at the Gaza border wasn’t just a civilian protest, it was the latest evolution of tactics used by a creative and adaptive enemy that seeks to accomplish two fundamental goals through those tactics.
One is to nullify the superior combat power of the Israeli Defense Forces. This is a consistent tactic by illicit organized armed groups in modern conflict. They know that they cannot match their superior opponents toe to toe. So what they’re constantly doing is seeking out tactics that will nullify the military advantages of their opponents, and I think some people would look at the images you just saw of putting bombs on balloons and kind of chuckle a little bit and say “well look at how primitive that is”.
But the irony is that what Hamas has figured out is that one of the best ways to nullify the advanced capabilities of modern militaries like the IDF is to use primitive tactics. Think of tunnel warfare, tunnel warfare is a primitive tactic that was used to completely nullify the advanced reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition capabilities of the IDF. And it proved pretty effective.
And so what Hamas has been doing, is they’re constantly adapting, so when the Israeli military comes up with a capability that nullifies the newest tactic they look for something new. What was this? This new tactic was to exploit these civilian protests to gain cover for their belligerent operatives in order to nullify the Israelis’ capability and advance advantages in actual combat. That’s the first objective they achieve.
And the second objective which was referenced by Colonel Kemp is to use these confrontations as a supporting effort to achieve their strategic informational objective, and that strategic informational objective is to delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world and to exploit the tendency of modern observers to rely on images as the principal touchstone of respect for law in the conduct of security and military operations.
Because it’s easy, it’s what I call effects-based condemnation. You just look at the consequences of combat and it’s an easy way to say who’s doing the right thing and who’s doing the wrong thing. Unfortunately, it’s distorted, and it’s frequently inaccurate, because in many cases, as Colonel Kemp noted, the actual infliction of civilian casualties is caused by the abuse of the civilian population by the non-state or illicit enemy.
When I was involved in our Gaza task force back in 2014, one of the generals that were involved in those presentations, General Mike Jones, a former, retired two-star general from the US Army, he made an observation that really hit this issue on the head. He said, “when I was a young officer in a tank unit, I was taught that information was a supporting effort to combat operations, what I learned about Hamas is it’s reversed. For Hamas, combat is a supporting effort to their information campaign”.
And what he meant by that was they know they can’t win in combat against the IDF, they don’t care, because what they’re trying to achieve is one of two objectives. One; inflict casualties on the Israeli forces and the Israeli civilian population, because they know how sensitive Israel is to those casualties, and two; compel Israel to engage in combat operations that result in legally permissible civilian casualties that the world will not understand or tolerate in order to use that to delegitimize Israel.
The fact that we are here today, presenting these critiques of this report from this Commission of Inquiry is all the evidence you need to demonstrate how effective Hamas is at achieving this strategic objective. The fact that this report is being issued, condemning Israel for conducting these operations proves that Hamas is getting out of this exactly what it sought to achieve. So my overall view of this report is not to simply say that it’s invalid because it rests on a flawed foundation, my overall lament is that it reflects a lost opportunity.
If this report had been prepared credibly, if it had looked at this situation through the realistic perspective of what it actually was, then the Commission of Inquiry would have had an opportunity to delve into some very important issues that are completely omitted by its overall factual distortion. For example, the report could have condemned the use of civilians as human shields.
When you read the report, and of course we’re waiting for the full report, but all indications indicate that that’s completely omitted from the condemnation and that’s tragic, because by omitting the exploitation of the Palestinian civilian population by Hamas, what this report is going to do is incentivize those type of tactics in the future.
When if we’re really concerned about mitigating the risk to civilians in contemporary armed conflicts, we should be condemning those activities as vigorously and aggressively as possible. The report could have done a more credible job of analyzing how a military, that’s in a position of conducting a security operation that blends aspects of conflict and policing should best balance the execution of those operations within those two paradigms.
Now interestingly, the report begins with what seems to be a credible legal foundation. It acknowledges, just as the Israeli High Court of Justice did, that what was happening on the border involved a combination of armed conflict and law enforcement activities. It acknowledges that within the context of overall armed conflict, an ongoing armed conflict, there will be aspects of the operation that are controlled by a law enforcement legal framework. And I think that’s a very positive acknowledgment by the Commission of Inquiry and I’m glad they did that.
Unfortunately what they do next is a distortion, because what they do next is they say that because it was a predominantly law enforcement scenario, only law enforcement authority could have been permissibly used. That, by the way, is how they get to the flawed legal explanation that explains away all the data that you just presented.
I’ll read for you the findings of the preliminary report. The Commission found that “at least 29 of those killed at the demonstration sites were members of Palestinian organized armed groups and mentions another 18 as inconclusive cases, yet since the law enforcement paradigm is the relevant framework, this cannot justify targeting them unless they were, at the time targeted, directly participating in hostilities or posed an imminent threat to life”.
That is a fundamental distortion of the legal authority to target your enemy in an ongoing armed conflict. In an ongoing armed conflict, if I make a determination that you are a member of the enemy organized armed group, as the report seems to acknowledge, I’m not required to wait for you to present an imminent threat to me.
The fact that you are a member of that group in that conflict alone provides international legal authority to engage in hostility against you. Now, by the way, I’m not saying that that’s what the authority was for IDF forces. My understanding, as best we can tell from publicly available information is that even with that recognition, the IDF was very restrictive in its ROE related to when it could target these individuals.
But the suggestion that as a matter of law because there is a law enforcement component to the security operations it somehow nullifies the conduct of hostilities component is fundamentally flawed and results in outcomes in the report’s findings that are simply not credible. But again, it’s the result of the framing of the report in a way that prioritizes this civilian nature of the operation and that’s the other flaw in the foundation, it’s operationally flawed.
The report fails to adequately account for the true nature of the security threat that the IDF faced. So let me go a little bit deeper on what I think is the legal flaw or the flaws in the legal foundation upon which this report rests. As I said, the report acknowledges that this was a hybrid application of what we might call an armed conflict legal authority and a law enforcement legal authority. That’s not remarkable.
There are many aspects of armed conflicts where the forces are going to be operating under a law enforcement or constabulary type framework, that happens in all sorts of military operations and predominantly arises when the armed forces are conducting security operations against civilians. Especially, civilian protesters.
But what was different here, is that these civilians were being used as cover for belligerent operatives of organized armed groups engaged in hostilities against the IDF forces. And that creates a much more complex scenario, that complex scenario means that the commanders on the ground have the difficult responsibility of identifying at what point the threat moves out of that law enforcement framework into more of a conduct of hostilities framework.
Interestingly, this reality and this complexity was not recognized by the Commission of Inquiry but it was recognized by the Israeli High Court of Justice when it issued its opinion related to the rules of engagement that the IDF were using in this operation.
I’ll read from the opinion: “Considering the fact that armed conflict occasionally involves various operational scenarios, it cannot be said that both of the paradigms are relevant at all times and in order to know which paradigm is applicable, it is necessary to examine the circumstances behind the concrete exercise of force”.
So just think about that for a minute, what the Israeli High Court of Justice acknowledged is that when you’re analyzing the legality of a use of force you have to drill down into the actual situation the commander confronted and you have to determine whether that use of force was being exercised in a law enforcement framework against a true civilian or were you using it against a member of an enemy organized armed group that was engaged in belligerent activity under the cover of the civilian protest, because that’s going to dictate the permissibility and the legality of that use of force.
Of course, the report of inquiry just brushes over all of that and that quote that I read about those 29 belligerent operatives is an illustration of why that is so dangerously flawed. Because what it essentially does is it says if you’re a member of an organized armed group and you want to nullify your opponent’s ability to attack you, what’s the best tactic? Get civilians to surround you, create what looks like a law enforcement disturbance and then, you’ve nullified their legal authority under the conduct of hostilities rules, to use force against you and you have to be treated like any other civilian involved in a peaceful protest which operationally doesn’t really make much sense.
So the report fails to address the legal authority to respond to enemy belligerent operatives, members of organized armed groups that are exploiting the civilian protest. It fails to acknowledge the authority to use force in the context of a civilian protest against clearly identified members of an enemy armed group or against other civilians who are engaging in direct participation in hostilities, a lost opportunity. That would have been a useful point of inquiry but it’s completely omitted from the report. It fails to condemn the pervasive use of human shields by an enemy armed group that exacerbates the risk to the civilian population when the other side is taking measures to mitigate that risk, again, another lost opportunity. And even if we strip all of that away, even if we accept the premise that the Commission of Inquiry’s report is based on that this was a purely law enforcement activity, there is still a lost opportunity and that lost opportunity is a much more deliberate and rational assessment of what qualifies as an imminent threat in this type of situation.
The report bases its findings on a per se rule that an imminent threat cannot exist until the hostile actor is in close proximity to the person being protected, either the soldier or the civilian that the soldier is protecting. And I think that is where the real operational flaw is exposed, because as Colonel Kemp indicated, what qualifies as an imminent threat when you’re trying to prevent a breach of a barrier that will result in an influx of hundreds, if not thousands of protesters is a very complicated question.
It’s too simplistic to say a threat can never be imminent until the barrier is breached. Until there’s a mass influx, although interestingly even the IDF SOPs indicated that for their forces, they should not assume that any breach of the fence triggered an imminent threat, they were even more restrictive.
I would assume that that meant that there had to be some level of influx as a result of the breach. When the Israeli high court of justice issued its opinion, it cited to US Army after-action reviews from operations in Haiti. And in those operations, the US military rules of engagement indicated that in a similar situation you could treat a breach of the barrier as a manifestation of an imminent threat.
So somewhere between those two extremes is operational reality. And the report omitted the opportunity, or lost the opportunity, to do a better assessment of what qualifies as an imminent threat, even in the context of law enforcement-based security operations when you’re facing a mass influx of angry protesters that are intermingled with belligerent operatives.
My view is that all you have to do is really contemplate how difficult it would have been for IDF forces to stem that breach and to restore the security fence without using high levels of force to even reach the point of breach, much less control the influx of hostile actors into Israeli territory to understand that it’s not irrational to treat the breach of the fence as the actual point of imminence that would justify an escalation of force.
The report also, I think, failed to account adequately for what qualifies as a legitimate escalation continuum of force. And, I was talking to Colonel Kemp about this as we walked over. When we were soldiers we were taught that at the point that you have to reach the level of using lethal force you use it for a lethal effect.
I think it’s remarkable that even at that point the IDF rules of engagement ostensibly required IDF personnel to use lethal force which is a rifle to produce a non-lethal result, a wounding shot. I can tell you that in 22 years of my military service, we were never given that rule of engagement we were taught that once you get to that point you use it for lethal effect. So even at that point the IDF was trying to mitigate the risk of lethal effects even when employing potentially lethal force.
The other problem is the report assumes ipso facto that every death was caused by an intentional act to kill, when in fact some of those deaths may have been collateral or incidental consequences of an otherwise lawful use of force.
My ultimate outcome, or my ultimate criticism of the report, is that it creates a perversion, it incentivizes illicit organized armed groups to continue to develop and implement civilian risk exploitation tactics because it means that every time a civilian is injured or killed in the conduct of their activities the blame will fall at the feet of the force that’s actually trying to implement obligations under international law.
It provides no reward for the side in the conflict that’s actually taking measures to mitigate civilian risk and everybody ought to stop for a moment and contemplate how dangerous that is. At some point, if you are constantly endeavoring to implement measures to mitigate civilian risk but all that ever happens is you’re automatically condemned for every civilian casualty it may produce a perverse disincentive to do that in the future.
We haven’t seen that yet, I hope that doesn’t happen but when military forces and security forces are trying in good faith to mitigate risks to civilians, that should be acknowledged and encouraged, not overlooked and dismissed.
So for me what is remarkable about this is that the report focuses on all the things that the IDF did and condemns them for doing them, but I think if you read our report that we just wrote for JINSA that most military professionals would look at a situation like this and be more surprised, not by what the IDF did, but what the IDF didn’t do under the circumstances. Thank you.

The post Renowned Law of War Expert Geoffrey Corn Testifies Against Biased UN Report appeared first on UN Watch.

Testimony delivered before the UN Human Rights Council by Dr. Einat Wilf
on behalf of the Women’s International Zionist Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, March 18, 2019.

My name is Einat Wilf. It is my distinct honor to speak on behalf of WIZO, the Women’s International Zionist Organization, a global, all-volunteer provider of social services in Israel for women, children and families of all backgrounds, equally.
I am a Feminist and a Zionist. A proud one. I will apologize for neither.
For millennia, women and Jews have been placed on a lower rung of the ladder of societies. They were forced to accept that they had no power to determine their fate. Others would do that for them.
Feminism and Zionism liberated women and Jews in the name of equality. Feminism and Zionism enabled us to say loud and clear: I refuse to be seen how you wish to see me, I am not your inferior, I can be so much more than I am allowed to be, and I will be free to make the most of my humanity.
Today I stand before you, a proud Jew and a strong woman, thanks to the efforts of Zionist and Feminist revolutionaries. I commit to continuing the revolution until this chamber and governments and people around the world stop trying to take us back to a dark time when we were powerless, defenseless, and at the mercy of others. No more.  

The post Dr. Einat Wilf testifies at the UN Human Rights Council appeared first on UN Watch.

Philippe Val, author, journalist, and former Charlie Hebdo editor, addressed the Rally for Equal Rights at the United Nations on March 18, 2019. Below is the English translation of his remarks. His original French speech can be heard in the video above. For links to other speakers’ quotes, videos and photos, click here.

__________

Good morning, friends; good morning, all.
I see an Italian flag there, and I’m going to make this short because there are a lot of speakers. I feel a deep dislike for the current Italian government; I believe I share that dislike with a great many European citizens. I think Italy is flirting with disaster.
Despite my disdain for the government, I continue to feel great love for my Italian friends, and for Italy herself, which, like all states that observe the rule of law, is like a second homeland for me. Nowhere do I hear talk of anti-Italianism; nowhere do I hear it said that Italy must be wiped off the map.
So, when it comes to Israel, obviously, one can criticize the policy of the Israeli government, but one also hears talk of wiping Israel off the map. This reflects a bias that shows how unwise we were to have put up so long with the term anti-Zionism, which was clearly a form of anti-Semitism, just as anti-Italianism would be a form of racism. I now believe that, all doubt having been removed, anti-Zionism is modern jargon that stands in for anti-Semitism.
The state of Israel is threatened on its borders; it is menaced by most terrorist organisations. It has a duty to protect its citizens. That cannot be forgotten. And now I would like to say that there are two types of votes to condemn Israel within the UN organization: there are votes by dictatorships and votes by states governed by the rule of law.
What do the votes and condemnations of the dictatorships reveal? These dictatorships, which are unable to run their own countries properly, which prefer corruption and personal enrichment over progress for their people, over building hospitals, over working for the public good, enrich themselves.
To be able to continue to exert their dictatorship, they rely on tricks that are as old as humanity: they find a common enemy that they can all hate, and Israel fills the bill. Israel is appointed to serve as an alibi, to create cohesion among the dictatorships, as well as popular cohesion, cohesion among people who have been duped and robbed by their leaders.
And I would like to say one thing very quickly, which is that as long as hatred for Israel is exploited by the leaders of these countries, Muslim countries will enjoy neither progress, justice, prosperity, or freedom. Anti-Semitism is the trap in which their dictators confine them. That’s what is revealed by the votes from the dictatorships.
Now, what is revealed when democracies condemn Israel at the UN? Most of the condemnations come from countries with large numbers of citizens of Muslim origin. And the politicians and shapers of opinion, acting out of demagogy and electoral calculation, are seeking to capture the votes of these Muslim-origin populations, whom they assume hate Israel.
They are unconcerned about the fairness of their condemnations of Israel, and even less so about living up to the ethical foundations of the United Nations. Such condemnations are political acts taken for domestic consumption—demagogy pure and simple.
The combination of these two betrayals—dictatorships betraying their people and democratic politicians betraying their voters—the confluence of these two betrayals has consequences that are very serious indeed. Simply put, the two types of condemnation are a catalyst for anti-Semitism.
The UN, set up after World War II to preserve peace among nations, is in the process of reigniting one of the major pieces of propaganda that triggered that tragic war—namely, anti-Semitism.
The struggle against anti-Semitism is a question of life or death for all states ruled by laws. That is why we will fight to end; that is why we will never surrender; and that is why we will prevail.
Thank you.

The post Philippe Val addresses UN Watch's Rally for Equal Rights at the United Nations appeared first on UN Watch.

• This Council invites representatives of non-democratic regimes, of countries, which are odious abusers of Human Rights, and of anti-Semitic NGOs to spread lies and false narratives; to openly incite against the only democracy in the Middle East.
• Hamas has its hand on the dimmer switch. When it suits their political interests, they raise the intensity and scope of these violent demonstrations. When they are having negotiations with international actors, when they receive Qatar’s cash money or deal with the PA that is calling them militias, they keep the demonstrations away from the fence.
• When you read the Commission of Inquiry report, you understand they got it wrong on the facts, got it wrong in assessing how the IDF acted, got it wrong on the law and got it wrong on understanding our legal system.

Full remarks, as delivered:
Shalom, Thank you Hillel, Thank you UN Watch.
Dear friends, All distinguished guests that are here with us, Welcome to Geneva!
Thank you to the people from Switzerland, and to all those who have traveled from across Europe to show their support for Israel and to say, “Enough is enough” with the UN bias against Israel.
Your presence demonstrates that we can and we must no longer tolerate double standards.
While we are gathering here to promote Human Rights, over there the UN is harming Human Rights. In fact, the Human Rights Council is undermining the very cause of Human Rights. It is an institution where cynicism and hypocrisy prevail.
While Antisemitism is raising its ugly head all over the world, this place is legitimizing discrimination against the one and only Jewish State, the State of Israel.
While we are gathering here today, the infamous item 7 is underway. At this very moment, the Council is again turning into an outspoken hostile arena against Israel and the Jewish people.
This Council invites representatives of non-democratic regimes, of countries, which are odious abusers of Human Rights, and of anti-Semitic NGOs to spread lies and false narratives; to openly incite against the only democracy in the Middle East.
The Human Rights Council, which is supposed to promote Human Rights, is further losing its credibility. Instead of being a multilateral forum to promote prospects of peace and understanding, it is legitimizing those, who actively destroy this goal.
Over this past weekend, two rockets were launched by the Hamas terror organization to Tel Aviv. Yesterday, a 19 year old IDF soldier was stabbed to death, a father of 12 and another soldier were severely injured by a Palestinian terrorist from the West Bank.
But this Council does not want to acknowledge, nor be confused with the facts.
Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in the summer of 2005, giving another chance for Palestinians to peacefully co-exist with Israel.  Yet, never missing an opportunity, the Hamas terror organization violently took over and turned Gaza into a hostile territory, where a thriving terror industry has developed, launching rockets and digging attack tunnels into Israel. 15 such terror tunnels were discovered by the IDF.
Over the last year, Hamas has been orchestrating violent demonstrations along the border fence with Israel, using its own civilians, including women and children, as human shields and human weapons against Israel.
Hamas has its hand on the dimmer-switch. When it suits their political interests, they raise the intensity and scope of these violent demonstrations. When they are having negotiations with international actors, when they receive Qatar’s cash money or deal with the PA that is calling them militias, they keep the demonstrations away from the fence.
For the last several days, violent clashes erupted in Gaza, as thousands took to the streets protesting against the Hamas and the cost of living. Hamas authorities targeted their own people as well and had imposed a blanket ban on media coverage, despite graphic reports of violence against the protesters, hitting them with batons and using live fire against them.
And so, last Friday, there were no demonstrations along the border fence.
The Commission of Inquiry on the Gaza border fence events – the COI – that was established by the council on Human Rights ignores all these facts.
The COI ignores the violence, the military involvement and Hamas’s control.
When you read their report, you understand they got it entirely wrong.
Got it wrong on the facts, got it wrong in assessing how the IDF acted, got it wrong on the law and got it wrong on understanding our legal system.
Since last March, about half a million demonstrators took part in these orchestrated demonstrations, serving as a guise for Hamas militants to try and penetrate the fence and storm into Israel, threatening the lives of Israelis, beginning with the 70,000 residents who live in immediate proximity to the fence.
The riots are part of ongoing hostilities against Israel, which included 1300 rockets fired by Hamas during the same period of the COI Inquiry.
But the COI chose to ignore the potential threat to the lives and safety of Israeli residents if a Palestinian mob were to infiltrate these civilian communities.
They described the demonstrations as peaceful, as a gathering for poetry readings, for folk dancing, for lectures.
Today, under item 7, this Commission of Inquiry falsely accuses Israeli soldiers of “crimes against humanity” and calls for their arrest-for defending Israelis from Hamas terrorists.
Is this merely incompetence to understand what has been going on near the fence, or a one sided, biased and anti-Israeli attitude from the very beginning?
Hamas congratulated the COI members for their work and adopted their recommendations… Do I need to add any other word to this theatre of the absurd?
DEAR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL,
Israel is soon to celebrate its 71^st anniversary, seventy years of achievements, against all odds.  We have established our country, a beacon of democracy, of innovation and pluralism. Israel is sharing its know-how to developing countries, offering humanitarian assistance wherever necessary. We are always ready to extend our hand for Peace and to expand our diplomatic relations with sincere partners.
At the very same time, we reiterate the need to guarantee security for Israel.
We live in a region where Iran – a state sponsoring terrorism that wants to become nuclear – is publically declaring its aim, to destroy the State of Israel.
Hezballah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon, is pushing an Iranian agenda to turn southern Lebanon into a base for attacks against Israeli citizens. The tunnels built by Hezballah and funded by Iran with its ongoing efforts to expand its military build-up, further destabilize the already volatile region.
Israel will continue to exercise its right to self-defense.
We will continue to offer the olive branch. We will be holding to our Defense Forces, our sons and daughters who protect our lives and ensure our ongoing miracle of Israel.
In a few days, the Jewish people and the children of Israel will celebrate the biblical holiday of Purim, to commemorate the bravery of Jewish Queen Esther to thwart Haman’s scheme of a genocide of her people.
The Iranian regime is the Haman of today and the State of Israel is the guarantee against all Hamans and anti-Semites.
From Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel, and here today- I say:
AM ISRAEL CHAI
THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL SHALL FURTHER THRIVE!
Above our heads, far in space, the lunar spacecraft Beresheet-Genesis is carrying our Bible and the flag of Israel to the moon.
Our 70-year-old country is the 4^th among all nations to launch a spacecraft to the moon.
So let me end my words by those of the beautiful Israeli song Haleluyah, that tells us to wake up every morning with a new song in our hearts as if we are just starting from Beresheet.
Thank you all.

The post Amb. Aviva Raz Shechter Speaks at UN Watch Rally Against Anti-Israeli Bias appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, March 18, 2019 — 

The post Clash at UN: Experts Refute Gaza Inquiry Findings appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, March 18, 2019 – National security expert and former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp today addressed the Rally for Equal Rights at the United Nations—see quotes below.
For links to other speakers’ quotes, videos, photos, livestream and more, click here.
Quotes on the UNHRC inquiry:

• I have first-hand knowledge of what Hamas and the IDF have done and I gave evidence to the Commission of Inquiry. I told them from my professional experience the reality on the border, and they did not listen to one word of what I said. This report is a tissue of lies, abuse, prejudice and distortion and is not worth the paper it is printed on.
• I told the UNHRC that Hamas’ objective is to slaughter and kidnap Israeli civilians on the border. Hamas is the only army in history deliberately enticing its enemy to kill its own people – that’s what Hamas tries to do with the violent demonstrations on the border. What they wanted was Israeli defensive action – which is what they saw – so Israel could be tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The United Nations has played straight into the hands of Hamas.
• The UNHRC has failed Israel and it has failed the Palestinian people. The reason it has failed the Palestinian people is because they’ve failed to condemn the oppressor of the Palestinian people – Hamas. Those are the people getting the pass by the UNHRC. The UN has played directly into the hands of Hamas and the UNHRC has become an instrument of Hamas terrorism.
• By failing to condemn the use of human shields, violent tactics on border and by condemning Israel, the UN is encouraging more of this by Hamas. In a few days time, Hamas is planning hugely increased violence, encouraged and facilitated by this organization here. They are friends of Hamas and they are friends of the instruments of terrorism.

Quotes on the legitimacy of the IDF:

• The IDF is one of the finest armies in the world. They are phenomenally professional people and put themselves in supreme danger. Day in day out, these soldiers put their lives on the line to come back and watch the filth poured out at them from the international media.
• When you see IDF Lt. Gal Keidan stabbed to death yesterday, Rabbi Achiad Ettinger killed and another soldier (Alexander Dvorsky) in critical condition, you can appreciate, honor and respect the sacrifices they make for the State of Israel – and not just for the State of Israel but for the whole world – because the IDF is at the forefront of all our fights against international jihad.
• On the Gaza border, the IDF took every possible step to prevent civilian loss on the other side. I’ve served in this situation for 30 years against riots and crowds trying to kill my troops. I thought, “What could the IDF have done more than it did?” I can’t think of anything. Nobody can tell you how Israel could have done it differently. If it had done any differently, the border would have been breached and thousands would have poured through into Israeli communities with the goal of killing and tearing them to pieces. If this had happened, the IDF would have had to kill many more than they had in the process of protecting the border. The IDF simply couldn’t have allowed them to get into the communities. They acted in a restrained way, putting their own lives on the line. They don’t deserve the vilification; they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Full remarks, as delivered: 
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a real honor to be speaking to you and thank you very much indeed for coming and spending your time here. Our cause is certainly made stronger by your presence and your support. Before I say anything I want to say “Shalom,” “Guten tag,” “Bonjour,” and that’s the end of my European languages. I can say “Hello” as well, but that is about it.
I want to also thank Hillel and his fantastic organization UN Watch, which has done so many brilliant things against this mob in here behind me over so many years. They are a very very important fighting organization in support of the Jewish state and may I ask you please, if you don’t support them, support them in every possible way you can. And I recognize being here today is not only supporting Israel, but supporting the wonderful UN Watch.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was on the border with Gaza a couple of days ago, and I’ve been there many times since this violence began about a year ago.
I’ve seen exactly what happens, I’ve not been sitting with the press. The IDF has allowed me to go right to the very front lines with the snipers, with the observers, and with the commanders so I can see for myself precisely what is happening and not have to listen to this nonsense and believe it, and I don’t anyway.
So I’ve got firsthand knowledge of what Hamas has done and firsthand knowledge of what the IDF has done, and I am going to tell you about that now.
I came here to your wonderful city of Geneva in December and I spoke then. I gave evidence to your less than wonderful Human Rights Commission’s Commission of Inquiry just inside that building there [points to the UN] for several hours. I told them, from my own professional experience what was the reality of what happened on the border.
They did not listen to one word I said. And in this report that they produced, nothing I said is reflected. This report is a tissue of lies, abuse, prejudice, and distortion. It is not worth the paper it is printed on.
I told them that Hamas’s objective was to do what it’s done with rockets and with attack tunnels burying underneath the borders of Israel to attack to slaughter and to kidnap Israeli citizens in the communities near the border. That it was Hamas’s objective to persuade the IDF to counter the attacks and kill their own civilian population.
Hamas is the only army in history—if you could call it an army—which has deliberately tried to entice its enemies to kill its own people, can you believe that? That’s what Hamas does, it’s what Hamas tries to do in everything it does. It’s what Hamas tries to do by these violent demonstrations on the border.
They had no idea that they would actually break through the border and carry out successful attacks against Israel, they wanted to but they didn’t expect to. What they wanted was Israeli defensive action that they saw so that people like this in the building behind me could condemn Israel for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for unnecessarily killing innocent civilians.
That is their plan, that is their objective and of course, many, many people, including media, human rights organizations, NGOs, universities, politicians, they all play straight into the hands of Hamas. I worked very closely with the IDF for many years—they are one of the finest armies in the world. I say one of the finest armies in the world, because obviously as a British soldier, the British army is the finest in the world. I know you’ll all agree with that.
They are phenomenally professional people, they work incredibly hard, and, in trying to save the lives of innocent civilians on the enemy side in Gaza, they put themselves at risk. They are in danger and they sometimes pay the supreme sacrifice. They are sometimes very seriously wounded.
I was there on the border recently with some of the incidents and watching and talking to young Israeli soldiers, nineteen years of age, eighteen years of age, day in day out putting their lives on the line to come back and watch on television the kind of filth that is poured out against them by the international media, it’s shocking.
When you see and when you hear about people like Staff Sergeant Gal Keidan, who was stabbed to death in Israel only yesterday. When you see that and when you see Rabbi Ettinger killed and another soldier shot, and now in critical condition, you can appreciate the danger these men are on day in and day out, in the West Bank—I’ll get into trouble saying the West Bank, so I mean Judea and Samaria—and in the Gaza border.
We can only, I think, honor and appreciate and respect the sacrifices they make for the state of Israel and not just for the state of Israel but for the whole world because they’re on the frontline of all of our fights against international Jihad.
They took every possible step to prevent losing lives of civilians on the other side. Every single thing you could do. I have served in this situation, I have commanded British troops facing rioting crowds with terrorists in among them armed with bombs and guns trying to kill my troops.
I have been in that situation, and I thought to myself amidst all the criticism, ‘What could the IDF do more than it didn’t do? How could the IDF prevent the loss of life in Gaza while still protecting their own civilian population?’ And I can’t think of anything.
I served in this kind of situation for 30 years, 30 years… I cannot think of anything. But the geniuses inside this building, they say Israel should have done it differently. But none of them can tell you how Israel could have done it differently. Nobody can tell you how Israel could have done it differently.
If Israel had done it differently, the border would have been breached, thousands of people would have poured through. They would have aimed straight for the Israeli communities just on the other side of the border with the intention of cutting them to pieces, shooting them, and kidnapping. And would the IDF have allowed that? No. So what would the IDF have had to do?
It would have had to kill many many more of them than it ended up killing in the process of defending the border because if you’ve got thousands of civilians breaking through and terrorists among them, you simply can’t let them get into those communities and there’s no other way of stopping them except by shooting them.
So really, they acted in a very restrained way, they put their own lives on the line. The IDF don’t deserve the vilification they get in here, they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ladies and gentlemen, this organization the UN Human Rights Council has failed Israel. It’s also failed the Palestinian people. The reason it’s failed the Palestinian people is because it’s failed to condemn the oppressors of the Palestinian people Hamas.
Hamas, as we speak now, as we’re here now, Hamas is shooting at genuine peaceful protestors inside Gaza, those are the oppressors, those are the people that are given a pass by this organization. Therefore it’s failing the Palestinian people by allowing the continued oppression of them by Hamas.
And the other final thing I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, is that the United Nations Human Rights Council, by playing directly into the hands of Hamas, by adopting and following their plans, the UN Human Rights Council has become an instrument of Hamas terrorism.
By failing to condemn the use of human shields, the use of violent tactics on the border, tactics that will entice Israel to shoot their own civilians, by failing to condemn them and by condemning Israel, they are playing right into that plan. They are encouraging more of this by Hamas.
In a few days time, on the anniversary of the beginning of this process, Hamas is planning hugely increased violence. That is being encouraged and facilitated by this lot in here, they are our enemies, they are friends of Hamas, they are instruments of terrorism.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The post Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp Speaks at UN Watch Rally Against Anti-Israeli Bias appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, March 18, 2019 – Author, intellectual and former Member of Knesset Dr. Einat Wilf today addressed the Rally for Equal Rights at the United Nations—see quotes below.
For links to other speakers’ quotes, videos, photos, livestream and more, click here.
Quotes on the ‘Right of Return’ and UNRWA:

• If you really want to understand how Israel is singled out and discriminated against at the UN, there is no better tale than two refugee agencies – one a great success and the other a terrible failure. The great failure is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees because each of its refugees found a home and moved on with their lives. Do you know which is the success? It’s called UNRWA, which started 70 years ago with several hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees from a war they waged to prevent the State of Israel into being.
• Today, UNRWA counts 5.5 million refugees from a war that ended 70 years ago. This is what it’s doing. Why is it doing it? Generation after generation, UNRWA allows Palestinians to continue to believe that they are still refugees from Palestine. And where do these refugees from Palestine live? In the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and in Gaza. Certainly by their vision, they live in Palestine. So if they live in Palestine, how are they refugees from Palestine? They know which Palestine they are refugees from – the Palestine from the river to the sea, the Palestine that will one day will be free. Free of what? Free of Jews, as they see it.
• Why does the UN allow UNRWA to perpetuate this lie that there are more than 5.5 million refugees, who posses a fictional right of return? There is no right of return, even if the UN General Assembly says it’s true. It does not exist. Israel is a sovereign country and has the right to determine who become its citizens.
• The UN thinks it made a mistake in 1947 – it made a slip thinking that there could be a Jewish State – oops! They didn’t think the Jews would survive a war of attempted annihilation by several surrounding Arab armies. But we survived and declared our independence. Ever since, the UN has tried to correct their mistake of the establishment of the State of Israel by letting Palestinians stand at Israel’s border to Gaza, telling them the war is not over. They say, “70 years after you tried to strangle Israel at birth, don’t give up – a little more and this will go away and you will return.” This is why they march on the border of Gaza in the name of return. Not in the name of an independent Palestinian state or for better conditions – they prefer to not have a state of their own in part of the land if the Jewish people also have their stake in another part of the land.
• This is what the conflict is about and every day, the UN betrays its mission by instigating war and telling them to keep fighting – they tell them that the war is not over. But you and I are here to say that the war is over, Israel is here to stay and the Jewish people live.

Full remarks, as delivered:
Thank you, thank you all for coming here, for standing up in front of this building, in front of these flags, and saying “enough is enough.” We demand no more and no less than being treated with fairness, with decency, with equality.
Now, if you really want to understand how Israel is singled out, discriminated against, at the United Nations, there is no better story, no better tale than the tale of two refugee agencies. One is a great success and one is a terrible failure. Can I tell you which is which?
The great failure is called the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Many many decades ago, it had tens of millions of refugees across Europe, across Asia, across Africa. Some of your grandparents, your parents, maybe you yourselves are refugees. And no more. There are no more refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees failed because they all found a home and moved on with their lives.
Do you know which is the success? It’s called UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. It started 70 years ago with several hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees from a war that they waged to prevent the state of Israel from coming into being. And look how successful UNRWA has become. Today it counts 5.5 million refugees from a war that ended 70 years ago. This is what it’s doing.
Why is it doing it?
This is absurd. Generation after generation after generation, it allows Palestinians to continue to believe that they are still refugees from Palestine. And where do these refugees from Palestine live? In the West Bank, under the Palestinian Authority. In Gaza.
Certainly, by their vision, they live in Palestine. So if they live in Palestine, how are they refugees from Palestine? Oh, they know, they know which Palestine they are refugees from—the Palestine from the river to the sea, the Palestine that one day will be free. Free of what? Free of Jews, in their mind. That’s the Palestine from the river to the sea.
So they live in Ramallah and they live in Gaza, but they view themselves as refugees from a Palestine that will replace Israel. And the UN supports that. Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, all the countries you come from, France—they fund that. They allow the Palestinians to continue to believe that. They live in Jordan, they are citizens of Jordan, they have never been displaced by war. They are wealthy business people and yet they are still refugees from Palestine.
Nowhere in the world, for no people, for no country, are people born in a country, citizens of that country, and somehow still refugees from another country in which they’ve never been. The UN allows this absurdity only against Israel. And in Syria and Lebanon, it counts a million refugees. Almost all of them left Syria and Lebanon.
Do you know who is a refugee? The multi-millionaire father who lives in Los Angeles of supermodels Bella and Gigi Hadid. He’s a refugee in UNRWA and Syria from Palestine. That’s a refugee?
Only Israel is singled out. Why? Why does the UN allow UNRWA to perpetuate this lie that there are more than 5 million Palestinian refugees who possess a fictional ‘right of return?’ There is no such thing, there is no ‘right of return.’ Even if the United Nations General Assembly says that, it’s not true. It doesn’t exist. Israel is a sovereign country and it has the right to determine who becomes its citizens.
So, why does the UN do that? Because the UN thinks that it made a mistake. In 1947, it let it slip that there should be a Jewish state. Oopsie! Mistake. They didn’t think that the Jews would win and survive the war of annihilation waged against them by the local Arab militias and five Arab armies.
But we survived and we declared our independence. And ever since, the UN has been committed to trying to correct that mistake of the establishment of the state of Israel. So it allows Arab Palestinians to continue to stand at Israel’s borders, in Gaza, in the Palestinian Authority, and it basically tells them, “The war is not over. 70 years after you tried to strangle Israel at birth, don’t give up! Don’t give up! A little more and this will go away. And you will return.”
This is why they march on the border of Gaza, never on the border of Egypt. And they march in the name of return. Not in the name of an independent Palestinian state. Not in the name of better conditions. They prefer to not have a state of their own in part of the land if it means that the Jewish people will have their state in another part of the land.
This is what the conflict is about, and the UN everyday betrays its mission by basically creating war, instigating war, and telling the Palestinians, “Keep fighting. The war is not over.” But you and we are here today to say, “The war is over. Israel shall stand.” Thank you.

The post Former MK Dr. Einat Wilf Speaks at UN Watch Rally Against Anti-Israeli Bias appeared first on UN Watch.

• The fact that we already know the results of this debate speaks to the integrity of the HRC. It speaks to the sincerity of the HRC that the agenda is already determined and it speaks to the fundamental flaws of the HRC that it singles out Israel on a permanent basis.
• The flaws of the UNHRC are materialized by criticizing one small democracy that is already struggling to survive, while ignoring true human rights abusers – a tremendous hypocrisy.

Quotes on the motivations of the UNHRC hypocrisy:

• This hypocrisy is motivated by one thing: anti-Semitism. It shows not just bigotry but intellectual and moral decay. Anti-Semitism is both a disease and the source of comfort for many.

Full prepared remarks:
Thank you very much for having me. And Thank you to Hillel for organizing this important rally.
Today the United Nations Human Rights Council will convene again to discuss a set of phony allegations against the State of Israel.
I think it speaks to integrity of the Human Rights Council that we already know what the decision will be before they even vote.
Among those deciding whether Israel has violated human rights will be representatives from absolute monarchies, one-party states, and military dictatorships.
I think it speaks to the sincerity of the Human Rights Council that its agenda is determined by those who respect its mandate the least.
There is a reason why this happens in every session, multiple times every year, no matter which countries are elected for membership.
The Human Rights Council has what it calls “Agenda Item 7,” a permanent directive to debate the human rights record of Israel at every council session.
Such a directive does not exist for any other country on the planet.
It speaks to the fundamental flaws of the Human Rights Council that it not only singles out Israel, but does so on a permanent basis.
The belief that a single country and a single people merit such attention on a permanent basis—this belief is motivated by one thing: anti-Semitism.
This is not just a form of bigotry. It is a sign of intellectual and moral decay.
An institution whose entire worldview is dominated by the fear and fantasy of Jewish criminality.
It has lost the ability to be rational, to understand cause and effect, to make positive change.
Like a drug-addiction, anti-Semitism is both a disease and a source of comfort.
In the case of the Human Rights Council, anti-Semitism comes from the belief that the awesome responsibility of promoting human rights consists almost entirely of criticizing one small democracy already struggling to survive.
To pass resolution after resolution on Israel while frequently ignoring China, Cuba, or Russia, is a horrendous hypocrisy in and of itself.
Applying one standard to the state of Israel and not applying the same standard to others is anti-Semitic.
Here in Geneva, Americans from both political parties have raised concerns about the Human Rights Council for years.
Our senior diplomats held well over 100 consultations with delegations from around the world.
When I worked at the U.S. Mission to the UN in New York, we launched a clear roadmap for reform of the Human Rights Council.
But even simple proposals were rejected. In June of 2018, the United States had no other choice but to withdraw its membership and funding.
And perhaps this is just as well. An international human rights council so dedicated to combating a tiny democracy shouldn’t need a very big budget.
Issuing biased reports and damning resolutions on Israel is certainly cost-effective, compared to the kind of work that would be required to actually advance the cause of peace and human rights.
In the meantime, the United States remains the country most engaged and committed to the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
As we speak, the Trump Administration is readying a new plan that will offer a brighter future for all. We remain clear-eyed about the challenges ahead, but we are committed to working to achieve a future that is more peaceful, prosperous, and secure.
I take no pleasure in the failure and irrelevance of the Human Rights Council.
An international organization which effectively promotes universal human rights would have a place in this world. After all, there are still human rights violations and abuses occurring around the globe.
So if I may, I’d like to close with a suggestion for how the UN Human Rights Council could win back some of the credibility it’s lost.
It should demand that members abide by the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It seems like a simple request – to respect human rights before being allowed to judge others.
Among the human rights the Council claims to support are those of women, religious minorities, and LGBT persons.
But 12 member states on the current Human Rights Council explicitly criminalize LGBT status or conduct, including with the death penalty.
Six member states allow the arrest of LGBT persons in the name of combating “indecency.”
In three member states, there are no laws against domestic violence.
And there are more member states than I care to count, where some of the worst forms of violence against women—such as honor killings and female genital mutilation—are widespread.
The United Nations Human Rights Council should live up to the integrity demanded by its mandate: promoting universal respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including women and LGBT persons, without distinction of any kind.
Perhaps then its singular, obsessive focus on the State of Israel—the only democracy in the Middle East—will be exposed for what it is.
Thank you.

The post U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell Speaks at UN Watch Rally Against Anti-Israeli Bias appeared first on UN Watch.

Today, Joel Herzog, President of Association Suisse-Israël—Genève and son of former Israeli President Chaim Herzog, joined a family tradition of standing up against anti-Israel bigotry by tearing up a biased UN resolution in front of the UN Human Rights Council. pic.twitter.com/BsDfn6T6JB

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) March 18, 2019

 
For links to other speakers’ quotes, videos, photos, livestream and more, click here.
 
Full prepared remarks, in French:
Excellences,
Mesdames et Messieurs les orateurs et invités,
Messieurs les Grands-Rabbins et Rabbins,
Me Philippe Grumbach, Président de la Communauté Israélite de Genève,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Présidentes et Présidents des Communautés, Associations et organisations,
Mesdames et Messieurs, chers amis,
Samedi nous avons lu dans le Deutéronome- Parachat Zachor- « Souviens-toi de ce que t’a fait Amalek… N’oublie pas”.
Notre peuple et les amis d’Israël ne vont pas oublier la haine gratuite et ce que j’appelle l’antisémitisme institutionnel qui s’exprime dans le Conseil des droits de l’homme cette semaine.
Amalek est distingué de manière singulière parce que son anti- sémitisme est gratuit.
C’est ce qui se passe en face d’ici.
Pire encore, le Conseil trahit sa mission et devient avec ces résolutions un vecteur de la propagation de  l’anti- sémitisme et éloigne toute possibilité en vue d’un règlement pacifique au Moyen- orient que nous appelons de nos vœux.
Il est regrettable qu’une motion soumise aux chambres fédérales à Berne et soutenue par notre association, n’aie pas trouvé une majorité. Cette motion demandait à la diplomatie Suisse d’agir en tant que pays hôte pour stopper le point no. 7 de l’agenda permanent du conseil des droits de l’homme réservé exclusivement à Israël, alors que le reste de la planète est traité par le point no 4.  Autrement, une intervention efficace  de la diplomatie Suisse aurait pu contribuer à éviter la gabegie d’aujourd’hui.
Israël est discriminé. Elle est traitée dans le Conseil des droits de l’homme comme bouc émissaire, et nous sommes venus dire – Ça suffit !    Enough is Enough!
Tout pays peut être critiqué y inclus Israël, mais aucun pays n’accepterait sans réagir des manifestations violentes à sa frontière avec des terroristes essayant de briser la barrière et pénétrer pour assassiner des civils paisibles.
Aucun pays n’accepterait d’être privé de son droit à la légitime défense.
Aucun pays n’accepterait le boycott de ses sociétés, servant d’ailleurs la population juive et arabe.
Aucun pays n’accepterait les conclusions d’un rapport retiré par son propre auteur comme le fut le rapport Goldstone.
Pour nous, c’est de l’anti- sémitisme institutionnel, qualifié en tant que tel selon la définition de l’IHRA, qui inclut l’anti- sionisme – soit le rejet du droit du people juif d’avoir un état.
בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילינו מידם,
A chaque génération on porte atteinte à notre peuple comme on le rappellera d’ailleurs durant le repas pascal.
Cette année, il y a 80 ans, en Mai 1939 suite aux émeutes arabes en Palestine la Grande Bretagne a publié un livre blanc interdisant l’immigration des juifs – rescapés essayant d’échapper aux Nazis.
Mon grand-père alors le Grand Rabbin de Palestine, puis d’Israël, le Grand Rabbin Yitzhak Isaac Halevy Herzog a alerté l’opinion publique que le livre blanc était devenu une tache noire et qu’il craignait qu’il ne devienne une tache rouge.
Lors d’une manifestation en face de la Synagogue Yechurun à Jérusalem il a déchiré le Livre Blanc comme dénué de valeur morale, en citant le prophète Esaie
עוצו עצה ותופר דברו דבר ולא יקום כי עמנו 
‘’Former des projets et ils seront anéanties,
Donner des ordres et ils seront sans effet,
Car Dieu est avec nous”
Il y a 44 ans mon père, alors ambassadeur d’Israël à l’ONU, a dû affronter la résolution ignominieuse de l’assemblée générale de l’ONU assimilant le Sionisme au Racisme – Résolution passée en 1975 par une  majorité automatique puis annulée en 1991.
Il a alors affirmé dans un discours classifié comme un des 50 discours qui ont changé le monde que les soutiens de la résolution étaient motivés par les « deux grands démons » –
« La haine et l’ignorance » – et c’est le cas aujourd’hui à nouveau.
Il a dit également : Propos qui sont d’actualité encore aujourd’hui:
« Nous, le people juive, n’oublierons pas”.
« Pour nous, le peuple juif, ce n’est qu’un épisode transitoire dans une histoire riche et remplie d’évènements ».
“ Nous plaçons notre confiance dans la Providence, notre croyance dans notre tradition millénaire, dans notre poursuite des progrès sociaux, des valeurs humaines et dans notre people.”
“Pour nous le peuple juif, cette résolution basée sur la haine, le mensonge et l’arrogance est dénuée de toute valeur morale ou légale.”
« Pour nous, le peuple juif’’, a-t-il conclu, ‘’ce n’est rien de plus qu’un morceau de papier, et nous devrions le traiter ainsi », avant de déchirer la résolution en deux.
C’est aujourd’hui à mon tour de continuer dans la tradition familiale et d’affirmer :
Pour nous juifs, les sept motions et résolutions basées sur le mensonge et la haine, pour dire simplement, sont de l’anti- sémitisme et de l’anti- sionisme  primaire.
Elles sont dénuées de toute valeur morale ou juridique et méritent d’être déchirées et jetées dans la poubelle de l’histoire.
(Déchirer la résolution sur Gaza)
עם ישראל חי
Merci

The post President of Swiss-Israel Association Joel Herzog Speaks at UN Watch Rally Against Anti-Israeli Bias appeared first on UN Watch.