The post VIDEO: UN Watch exposes bias of proposed Palestine investigators, incurs wrath of Palestinian delegation appeared first on UN Watch.

The post Palestinian Rep Slams UNHRC President for Postponing Appointment of Rapporteur appeared first on UN Watch.

See:

• UN Watch’s comprehensive report exposing extreme bias of Penny Green & Michael Lynk, detailing appointment process for next UN Special Rapporteur 
• Canadian Opposition urges PM Trudeau to oppose Green and Lynk: Letter
• Article by Elliot Abrams in National Review
• Op-ed by Tim Marshall, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor
• UK lawyers oppose Penny Green in letter to Baroness Anelay, UK Minister of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

In addition to many anti-Israel statements by Penny Green documented in UN Watch’s report, it is worth seeing the even more extreme statements that she has made via her organization State Crime Initiative:

The post Outrage in US, UK, Canada, over UN pick of Penny Green & Michael Lynk to investigate "Israel's violations" appeared first on UN Watch.

 
PLEASE DISQUALIFY ANTI-ISRAELI CANDIDATES FOR UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR PALESTINE
Dear Prime Minister:
We are writing to you today as the Official Opposition Critics for Foreign Affairs regarding two of the eligible candidates for the position of “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”. The two leading candidates, Penny Green and Michael Lynk, have both promoted extreme anti-Israeli views. Canada must strongly and publicly condemn these two candidates and strongly advocate for their disqualification.
According to UN Watch, Ms. Green has posted tweets accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid” and has compared Israel to the Islamic State. She supports the total boycott of Israel as a part of the Boycott, Sanction and Divest (BDS) movement. She even went so far as to complain that the United States and the United Kingdom have not yet started “bombing Israel for its massacres.” It is absolutely outrageous that such an individual can be considered the leading candidate for any UN body.
Michael Lynk, a Canadian who is currently the second ranked candidate, plays a leading role in the Canadian Palestinian Education Exchange (CEPAL), a group which promotes “Israeli Apartheid Week” events, addresses “One State” conferences which seek to eliminate Israel, and calls for the prosecution of Israel for war crimes. Mr. Lynk also blamed the events of 9/11 on “global inequalities” and “disregard by Western nations for the international rule of law.”
Regardless of the questionable nature of even requiring a one-sided UN Special Rapporteur on these issues, the two leading candidates are prima facie disqualified from the position. The rules of the UN Human Rights Council are clearly defined in resolution 5/1 and 16/21 – the criteria of “impartiality” and “objectivity” are to be of “paramount importance” when selecting and appointing mandate-holders. Ms. Green and Mr. Lynk should have been disqualified from the outset. Furthermore, Richard Falk, who held this position in 2014, is an outspoken supporter of Hamas. To avoid further embarrassment and controversy, while also ensuring Israel is not unfairly targeted yet again by a UN body, this position must be filled by a candidate with an objective voice.
As you know, the House of Commons recently adopted a motion to condemn the BDS movement as an unwarranted attack against Israel. To continue standing up for the right of Israel to exist and live in peace with its neighbours, Canada must exercise its influence at the UN. We call on the Government to write to the Council president, South Korean ambassador Choi Kyong-lim, and call on him to disqualify these candidates as they do not meet even the most minimal criteria of impartiality and objectivity as required by Human Rights Council resolutions.
Given your government’s stated intent to continue building on former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strong support of the State of Israel, we trust you will receive advice in the collegial manner intended.
Yours sincerely,
The Honourable Tony Clement
Official Opposition Critic – Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Peter Kent
Official Opposition Deputy Critic – Foreign Affairs
 
 

The post Canadian parliamentarians protest UN post for anti-Israeli activist Penny Green appeared first on UN Watch.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
17 March 2016 
Dear Baroness Anelay,
UNHRC Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
UK Lawyers for Israel is a voluntary association of lawyers who seek to promote the proper application of the law in matters relating to Israel.
We refer to the recent recommendation by the Consultative Group to the President of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that Professor Penelope Green be appointed Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
Professor Green is wholly unsuitable for this position for the reasons explained below. We urge you to make immediate representations to the Council President, Choi Kyong-lim of the Republic of Korea prior to the decision which is scheduled to be made at the plenary on 24 March 2016. Since Professor Green is a British citizen, representations by the British government may carry particular weight.
Professor Green is a long-standing critic of Israel who has made no secret of her views. For example:

• Professor Green has signed an open letter entitled “Israel must lose”, in which she and others accused Israel of “waging a war against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years”. The letter could not be clearer in its declaration of partiality, saying: “we are obliged to take sides… against Israel”.[1] Another open letter signed by Professor Green alleges that “[e]ntire families have been murdered” by Israel.[2]
• Professor Green has also tweeted that Israel has a “criminal government”, which should be resisted,[3] and used language reminiscent of blood libels, claiming Israel has engaged in the “brutal killing of children”.[4]
• In a published article Professor Green alleged that “Israel and its international backers engage in state crimes on a colossal scale”.[5]

It is a fundamental principle of justice that “no one shall be the judge of his own cause”. Through her public pronouncements Ms. Green has identified with and adopted the condemnation of Israel as her cause and has thereby disqualified herself from any form of judicial position concerning the conflict. If she is appointed as the Special Rapporteur, there could be little doubt that she would not reach any “conclusion” other than a vicious condemnation of Israel.
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 is itself an example of structural bias against Israel within the UNHRC. The text of the mandate provides that the Special Rapporteur is charged with investigating only “Israel’s violations.” It is absurd that such a mandate should be limited to the so-called “violations” of just one party to a conflict. Although the mandate is outside the scope of this particular complaint, the injustice created by its mere existence will be exacerbated if the so-called Special Rapporteur chosen is so obviously biased.
Professor Green and her supporters may argue that it is impossible for a person to be recognised as an expert in a conflict without taking some form of public view as to its merits. However Professor Green’s pronouncements go beyond scholarly conclusions. In reality they are dogmatic and politicised assertions which betray rather than serve academia’s search for the truth.
If the UNHRC is to fulfil its mandate of “impartiality” and “objectivity”,[6] then it is essential that it be seen by all parties as trustworthy and impartial – including those who may be subject to criticism. The appointment of biased officers to supposedly neutral investigations undermines any trust that nations can place in the UNHRC. The selection of an adjudicator who has already made up her mind even before embarking upon the exercise will render the investigation useless for all sides.
Moreover, the biased and misleading findings that will no doubt be made will presumably be published, circulated and covered in the media. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech at Ninestiles School last year, the demonization of Israel leads to terrorism on the streets of Britain, as well as elsewhere: “It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death”.
In these circumstances, we hope that you will agree that British interests, as well as the wider interest of respect for international human rights law and institutions, will be better served by not appointing Professor Green to this position; and that you will act accordingly.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as an endorsement of any of the other candidates shortlisted.
Yours sincerely
 Jonathan D. C. Turner
Chair, UK Lawyers for Israel
Cc Tobias Ellwood MP
__________________________________
[1] “Israel Must Lose, Petition: Growing outrage at the killings in Gaza, Global Research, January 17 2009, https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-must-lose/11855
[2]Joint Declaration by International Law Experts on Israel’s Gaza Offensive, Website of Richard Falk, 28 July 2014, https://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/joint-declaration-by-international-law-experts-on-israels-gaza-offensive/
[3] P. Green, Tweet of 23 October 2015, https://twitter.com/pennyjgreen/status/657598191160971264
[4] P. Green, Tweet of 18 July 2014, https://twitter.com/pennyjgreen/status/489898087910227968
[5] P. Green, The War on Gaza: Israeli state crime and western complicity, International State Crime Initiative, https://statecrime.org/state-crime-research/the-war-on-gaza-israeli-state-crime-and-western-complicity/
[6] UNHRC Resolutions 5/1 and 16/21.

The post UK lawyers oppose Penny Green for UN, in letter to Baroness Anelay appeared first on UN Watch.

GENEVA, March 10, 2016 — The UN Human Rights Council’s vetting committee has shortlisted a UK professor for a 6-year term as the world body’s investigator of “Israel’s violations,” even though she campaigns for the boycott of what she calls “apartheid Israel” and a “criminal government,” revealed UN Watch today in a new report, entitled “Mandate To Discriminate,” which was submitted to the president of the 47-nation UNHRC, and to all UN member states.
Green has compared Israel to ISIS, lamenting that the U.S. and the UK have not yet started “bombing Israel for its massacres.”
“By recommending Penny Green to investigate a country that she seeks to bomb and boycott, the U.N. makes a mockery of its own selection criteria of objectivity and impartiality,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, which today published specific recommendations for key U.N. stakeholders. (See below.)

Full Report: Click Here for PDF

A Report by UN Watch

Executive Summary
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is about to appoint a replacement for Makarim Wibisono, the former Indonesian diplomat who announced that he will step down prematurely, at the end of March 2016, after serving less than two years in his position as “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”
This report examines the controversial mandate, reviews the 10 applicants, and makes recommendations for relevant stakeholders.
Appointment Procedure
Following interviews with five out of the ten applicants, the UNHRC’s Consultative Group (CG)—chaired by the representative of Egypt— on March 4th recommended two names: Penny Green of the UK, ranked first, and Michael Lynk of Canada, ranked second.
The next step is for the Council president, South Korean ambassador Choi Kyong-lim, to consult broadly with UN member states and to select one of the applicants for the Council’s approval. While the custom is for the president to choose from among the names shortlisted by the CG, he has the authority to choose any of the ten applicants. This is indeed what took place in 2014 when the CG recommended human rights lawyer Christina Cerna for this position, yet the president and the Council in the end chose to appoint Mr. Wibisono.
The decision by the plenary is scheduled to take place at the end of the current 31st session of the UNHRC, on Thursday, March 24, 2016.
Mandate Against Human Rights
The prejudicial and discriminatory nature of this mandate has been recognized by several of the mandate-holders themselves—including former Special Rapporteur Hannu Halinen—as it negates the very concept of universal human rights and the rule of law.
While the title of the mandate implies that the special rapporteur monitors “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories,” this is false. In fact, the text of the mandate, unchanged since 1993, makes clear that the rapporteur is charged with investigating only “Israel’s violations.”
Palestinian, Israeli or other victims of human rights violations committed in the territories by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Islamic Jihad are ignored. No other UN mandate on the human rights situation of a specific country discriminates in this fashion; no other mandate presumes the existence of violations and prejudges guilt in advance; and no other mandate lasts forever, without any review and need for renewal. The mandate, therefore, is inherently discriminatory, and must be changed.
UNHRC Rules of Impartiality & 2014 CG Criteria Disqualify Partisan Applicants
Under the rules of the Council, as defined in resolution 5/1 and 16/21, the criteria of “impartiality” and “objectivity” are to be of “paramount importance” when selecting and appointing mandate-holders.
Accordingly, when the CG in 2014 selected applicants for this same position, no doubt mindful of the frequent embarrassments caused by outgoing rapporteur and overt Hamas supporter Richard Falk, the group said that its operating criteria would be to recommend a candidate who was “the most likely to be able to objectively engage the key interested parties,” and not those who, by contrast, had “previously taken public positions on issues relevant to the mandate.”
Proceeding on that basis, the CG chose human rights lawyer Christina Cerna, and rejected biased candidates such as William Schabas and Christine Chinkin. It is deeply regrettable that this year’s CG breached its obligations and failed to follow its predecessor in upholding even the most minimal impartiality criteria required by the relevant UNHRC resolutions.
Nominees Penny Green and Michael Lynk Are Disqualified by Partisan Advocacy
Penny Green, whom the UNHRC’s vetting committee deemed impartial and objective as a potential investigator of Israel’s violations, accuses Israel of “criminal state practices,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid.” She laments that the US and UK haven’t yet started “bombing Israel for its massacres.”
Green, who was ranked first by the UNHRC’s vetting committee, also advocates the total boycott of Israel, posting statements on Twitter such as: “Support BDS against Israel—best way to resist this criminal government”; “Academics should now systematically refuse any invitations to visit Israeli universities or attend conferences there”; “the West must impose sanctions against, boycott and divest from Israel.”
Green also promotes the work of extreme anti-Western ideologues like Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, and Grietje Baars, and heads an institute that opposes Western counter-terrorism and anti-extremism efforts as manifestations of Islamophobia.
Michael Lynk, also deemed impartial and objective by the UNHRC’s vetting committee, plays a leadership role in numerous Arab lobby groups, including CEPAL, which promotes “Annual Israeli Apartheid Week” events; signs anti-Israel petitions; calls to prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes; addresses “One State” conferences that seek to eliminate Israel; and argues that “the solution” to “the problem” must go back to Israel’s very creation in 1948, which he calls “the start of ethnic cleansing.”
On his campus, Lynk tried to stop the president of Western University from accepting an award from the Jewish National Fund, which advances reforestation and water treatment in Israel, and he regularly organizes anti-Israel events and speakers. Lynk’s stated goal is to “isolate Israel.”
Like Penny Green, Lynk also promotes an extreme anti-Western political agenda. Three days after the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Lynk instinctively blamed the West, pointing the finger at “global inequalities” and “disregard by Western nations for the international rule of law.”
Recommendations
Recommendation to EU and USA:
Take action to finally eliminate the human rights protection gap, prejudice, and discriminatory nature of the mandate, as recognized by numerous democracies, Amnesty International, and even by several of the mandate-holders themselves.
Recommendation to UN Human Rights Council President Choi Kyong-lim:
Reject the grossly partisan applicants recommended by the Consultative Group, on the grounds that they fail to meet the minimal criteria of impartiality and objectivity as required by Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and resolution 16/21. The president should instead follow the precedent and criteria set by the previous Consultative Group for this mandate by selecting applicants without biased records. This year’s pool of applicants include human rights lawyers who have not gone on record about the conflict. As in 2014, the appointment process can be extended as necessary beyond the current March session.
Recommendation to Palestinian Authority, Arab League, and Organization of Islamic Cooperation:
Recognize that, as McGill international law professor Frédéric Mégret has noted regarding similar appointments in the past, surely if the Arab and Islamic states believe that Israel is committing gross and systematic violations of human rights, then they must believe that the facts will speak for themselves, and that designating those who have a long record of making previous statements—knowing full well that their records will be discredited by legal scholars and human rights activists —does not serve their cause.
Two recent cases are illustrative. Though the Palestinian Authority and the Arab and Islamic states ensured Richard Falk’s appointment as Special Rapporteur in 2008, less than two years later the Palestinian delegation found themselves freezing Falk’s reports—for his support of their rival Hamas—and pleading with him to resign, and for the U.S. to help remove him.
Similarly, the Palestinians and their supporters successfully lobbied for William Schabas to head the UNHRC’s 2014 Gaza inquiry, yet his prior statements and actions were found to be so egregious that his appointment was condemned by leading international law scholars, and Schabas was forced to resign in disgrace only six months later—after it was also revealed that he had done paid legal work for the PLO—making him the first UN inquiry chair forced to quit over an actual conflict of interest.
Full Report: Click Here for PDF

The post Issue 581: UN Taps Radical UK Prof to be Investigator of Israel appeared first on UN Watch.