Iran reacts harshly to UN human rights resolution against them.

Iran reacts harshly to UN human rights resolution against them.Source: Radio Zamaneh

Iran has condemned the new UN resolution against human rights violations in Iran, describing it as "a misuse of human rights."

 IRNA reports that Marzieh Afkham, the spokeswoman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said: "The Islamic Republic condemns such self-serving acts by Western countries and the misuse of human rights against independent countries, and regrets that the UN is being used as a tool to satisfy such political games."

On December 18, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution against the violation of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, it has welcomed President Hassan Rohani's promises to improve the state of human rights in the country.

Afkham allowed that the resolution makes "a cursory reference to the 11th presidential election and the actions of the new government, but the totality of the resolution is filled with falsehoods that came from Western websites and media and notorious terrorist groups."

A member of Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission has called foreign ministry to ‘react’ about UN resolution.

Mohammad Hassan A’safari told Mehr News that countries having good economic ties with Iran had voted for the UN human rights resolution against Iran.

“Foreign ministry should act on the countries voting for the anti-Iranian resolution in the UN,” he added, and that “the first and foremost issue is that no country is committed to human rights as Iran such that religious minorities have representatives in the Parliament who defend their ethnic and minority rights.”(Ask anyone in Evin Prison).

“ Essentially, Islam is based on the fraternity and equality; Islam rejects the division of human according to color, race, and ethnicity; however, some countries lay claims to human rights while they do not respect human rights,” A’asafari said.

“It is a source of disappointment that such a resolution is agreed against Iran by countries who violate human rights. This is politically motivated and the west seeks a new scenario now that the nuclear issue is being solved. They would bring to the focus missiles,” he added and that “they try to contain us. The resolution is propaganda and a political leverage to which Mr. Ban Ki-moon should respond.”

“He should respond why his organization would not investigate crimes in Iraq and Syria; why France, the pioneer of liberalism and freedom, mistreats the immigrants. No other country has hosted the Afghan people than has Iran. We have received 2 million Afghan refugees,” said the Parliamentarian.


About the countries that voted for the UN Iran resolution and had economic ties with Iran, he believed that the foreign ministry should investigate the issue and take necessary measures. Swaziland and Comoros are countries who voted for the UN anti-Iranian resolution and who benefited from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s lavish supports in economics.Hmmmm....62 abstentions....I wonder how many were Islamic?

Europeans discuss terms for Israel's return to UN human rights council.

Eurabia Europeans discuss terms for Israel's return to UN human rights council.(Haaretz).

Israel may be on the verge of renewing cooperation with the United Nations Council on Human Rights, a year and a half after Jerusalem severed ties with the international body.

Negotiations between Israel and the council will reach a pivotal stage in Geneva within the next two days, as ambassadors of Western states on the council vote on an agreement which would bring Israel back into the UN body. If the outline of the accord is passed, it would represent a significant diplomatic victory for Israel, which has boycotted the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva since March 2012.

Then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman cut off ties with the commission, following the latter’s decision to convene an international committee to investigate the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel's negotiations with the council have received strong assistance from the United States, Switzerland, and France, which acted against other Western states. The Israeli side of the negotiations has been led by Ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar, head of the Foreign Ministry’s international organizations department, who reported to Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin.

The outlined plan for resuming cooperation contains two clauses which, if passed, would be considered a significant diplomatic victory for Israel:

The first is that Israel would join the permanent group of Western states serving as part of the human rights council, which includes Western European states, Turkey, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As of today, Israel is not a part of any regional group, a fact that makes it difficult for Israel to garner support for various diplomatic endeavors.

The second clause would limit the use of the council’s “article 7,” which stipulates that any conference on human rights would hold a separate discussion of human rights in Israel and the West Bank. Israel is the only state in the world subject to such a separate discussion.

Within the outline under negotiations, Western European states would commit not to make any speeches at so-called “article 7” discussions. The European commitment would last for the next two human rights conferences, which are set to take place during the next two years. A unanimous vote would be required to reverse this limitation and resume the “article 7” discussions, which will prove very difficult to achieve.

Over the next two days, discussions on the outline will continue among the Western member nations, in an attempt to achieve a consensus. The two obstacles to such a consensus are Turkey, which has yet to agree to allow Israel to join the group, and a few states,including Ireland, Lichtenstein and Iceland, which have expressed reservations regarding commitments to refrain from making speeches during “article 7” meetings.

“It’s all done, and we’re waiting to get an official decision from the Europeans,” said a senior Foreign Ministry official. “If the outline is adopted, it will be a green light for renewing cooperation between Israel and the UN Human Rights Council.” Hmmmm.......Turkey the 'Worst violator of Human Rights in Europe' hold things up......Ironic isn't it?Read the full story here.

UN Watch: "Saudi Arabia refusal to take seat on UN Security Council is victory for human rights"

UN Watch: "Saudi Arabia refusal to take seat on UN Security Council is victory for human rights"HT: UNWatch.

GENEVA, October 18, 2013 – Saudi Arabia's refusal to take its seat on the UN Security Council, announced today via the Saudi Press Agency, is a "victory for human rights," said a Geneva-based human rights group today.

"A country whose legal system routinely lashes women rape victims rather than punish the perpetrators never belonged in the UN Security Council in the first place," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the non-governmental human rights group UN Watch, which has for years reported on Saudi Arabia's oppression of women and its other gross human rights abuses.

UN Watch also noted that Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist terrorist groups (see below), and was an "absurd choice" to legislate for the world on combating terrorism.

"While the Saudi statement invoked UN 'double standards' as their grounds for refusal, the truth is that Saudi Arabia's entire system is a double standard. Under Saudi law and practice, there is one standard for men, and another for women, who cannot vote, drive a car, or travel without a male guardian; one for Muslims, and another for Christians, 53 of whom who were arrested this year by religious police for praying in a private home; one for heterosexuals, and another for gays, where homosexuality is punishable by death, and where gays have been publicly beheaded," said Neuer.

"Saudi Arabia has an abysmal human rights record, and by logic and morality never belonged on a Security Council where members need to address critical human rights and humanitarian issues. Saudi Arabia continues to rank as one of the worst places on the planet when it comes to the rights of women, freedom of religion, and other fundamental liberties," said Neuer.

"We are now calling on Saudi Arabia to also pull out of next month's election to the Human Rights Council. The Saudi bid is the height of hypocrisy."Read the full story here.

Iranian FM: U.S. incompetent to be reelected to UN Human Rights Council.

Iranian FM: U.S. incompetent to be reelected to UN Human Rights Council.(TI).Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Saturday that the United States is not competent enough to be reelected as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, MEHR News reported. Mehmanparast made the remarks in response to the fact that the United States recently announced its candidacy for a seat on the Human Rights Council. Mehmanparast stated, "The United States, by the admission of many international organizations, is itself one of the violators of human rights on its territory and beyond its borders and is not competent to be a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council."
The U.S. candidacy has been announced while the UN Human Rights Council only allows those countries that have a transparent and positive human rights record to be elected as members, he added. Mehmanparast also stated that the killing of civilians, especially women and children, the torturing of inmates in secret U.S. prisons around the world, the promotion of anti-Islamic campaign are instances of human rights violations by the U.S. The Islamic Republic of Iran calls on UN members, particularly the developing countries that played a key role in establishing the Human Rights Council, to oppose the membership of the U.S., he said. The election of 18 members of the council will be held on November 12. The council shall consist of 47 member states, which shall be elected directly and individually by secret ballot by the majority of the members of the UN General Assembly. The members of the council shall serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate reelection after two consecutive terms.Read the full story here.

Video - Antisemitism at UN "Human Rights" Council

HT: IsraelMatzav.


"The Only Proper Response".By Arlene Kushner.Here you will see Syria talking about blood on Israeli hands. Syria. Could it get more ludicrous than this? Then there is the representative of "Palestine" saying that Israel attacked Gaza "for no reason at all."

The Human Rights Council, which is composed of 47 members, including such stalwart defenders of human rights as Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia, is inherently corrupt and anti-Israel. As Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out the other day, "the council has made 91 decisions, 39 of which dealt with Israel, three with Syria and one with Iran."

Human Rights Watch, located in Geneva, provides -- http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.3820041/ -- an examination of the council's resolutions concerning Israel that speaks for itself. For example:

"Expressing grave concern at the continuing construction...by Israel of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem..." in March 2008, which made no mention of the Palestinian Arab terrorism that seriously violated the human rights of Israelis and necessitated the construction of the wall.

"Demands that the occupying Power, Israel, stop the targeting [in Gaza] of civilians and medical facilities and staff and the systematic destruction of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people, in addition to the destruction of public and private properties..." in January 2009, which ignored the defensive action of Israel against Hamas rocket attacks, and falsely accused Israel of targeting civilians and medical facilities. And what "systematic destruction of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people"?

“Condemns the… recent announcement that it would add al-Haram al Ibrahimi [Cave of the Patriarchs] in Hebron and Bilal Mosque ['Tomb of Rachel'] in Bethlehem and the walls of the old city of Jerusalem to its list of national heritage sites…”

“Demands that Israel , the occupying Power, immediately cease all diggings and excavation works beneath and around Al-Aqsa mosque"… in March 2010, which ignores the rights to the sites mentioned as inherently part of Jewish heritage and makes totally fallacious accusations about Israel digging under the Temple Mount.

It goes on, and on, and on...

What is more, points out UN Watch, "The Council’s fixation with Israel is not limited to resolutions. Israel is the only country listed on the Council’s permanent agenda. Moreover, Israel is the only country subjected to an investigatory mandate that examines the actions of only one side, presumes those actions to be violations, and which is not subject to regular review." (Emphasis added)

The vote on the resolution regarding a fact-finding mission on the settlements was 36 to 1, with 10 abstentions (including the EU countries of Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Romania, as well as Norway, Switzerland, Moldova and -- I have conflicting information -- either Cameroon or Guatemala). The US cast the single opposing vote.
When President Obama, who is an internationalist, decided to promote the US as a member of the UN Human Rights Council in 2009, his argument was that more could be achieved by working from inside the council, where the US would have influence.

One would be hard put to see evidence of that influence when the resolutions of the council are examined. Nonetheless, US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has just released a statement saying that the UNHRC has "helped spur action on a series of important human rights situations around the world, in part due to vigorous US engagement."

What Nuland ignores, of course, is the excessive focus on Israel within the council, which detracts from time and attention needed for the real human rights crises in the world. One resolution on Iran compared to 39 on Israel? Where was the vigorous US engagement?


Nuland does say that the US condemns the UNHRC's biased approach on Israel, which she said "continues to unnecessarily politicize the Council's human rights agenda." But obviously the US has insufficient leverage within the council to stop even as egregious a charge as that of Israel digging under the Temple Mount. (Or perhaps insufficient motivation to try.) And certainly hasn't been able to change Israel's status as the only country on the council's permanent agenda.

What is more, the US does not deem the UNHCR's biased approach on Israel to be sufficient cause for resigning from the council. Nuland's statement was obviously designed to counter any such suggestion.

The negative US vote on the mission to investigate settlements was purely perfunctory in any event. Nuland made it clear that the US is opposed to the settlements -- and, I would venture to say, spent no political capital campaigning again the resolution -- but thinks negotiations are more productive than unilateralism.
Yet this latest travesty of justice by the council -- a shameful act following the Goldstone Report, which Goldstone himself ultimately distanced himself from -- is in the nature of the proverbial straw:

It is time for the US to depart from the council. To remain there is to add legitimacy to shameful proceedings that cannot be considered even remotely fair. While bolstering the council, US membership demeans the US.

Thus do I now appeal to all US citizens who agree with me to campaign for the US to resign from that UN Human Rights Council. Such a resignation would make an important statement and enhance the credibility of the US. Read and see the full story here.

Best headline for a decade:'Israel to cut off UN Human Rights Council contact'.

Best headline for a decade:'Israel to cut off UN Human Rights Council contact'.HT: IsraelMatzav.(JPost).By Herb Keinon.The Foreign Ministry decided Monday to cut off all contacts with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a senior diplomatic official said.
The move came following the decision by the council last Thursday to send a fact-finding mission to the West Bank to probe the impact of the settlements on Palestinian human rights.From now on, the officials said, Israel's ambassador to the UN organizations in Geneva will not appear before the council, answer any phone calls from the council, or cooperate with them in any way. The ambassador is not going to be withdrawn from Geneva, however, because there are a lot of other organizations that Israel does fully cooperate with and will continue to do so.
The official said that Israel will make efforts to get other countries on the council to follow suit, even though he acknowledged that this will be difficult.
No decision, however, has yet been made on what sanctions to take against the Palestinian Authority, which initiated this action at the UN body. Amid speculation that Israel may once again cut off monthly tax revenues that it transfers to the PA, as it did following UNESCO's decision to accept the Palestinians into the organization in November, the source said that there are other measures that can be taken. He did not elaborate.Read the full story here.