Misogyny Meet Irony: Saudi Arabia Elected To United Nation’s Women’s Rights Commission

Photo Opportunity: The Secretary-General with H.E. Mr. Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

Jonathan Turley’s blog, by Jonathan Turley, April 24, 2017:

If you like your misogyny with a heavy serving of irony, you could do no better than the United Nations this week after Saudi Arabia was elected to a  2018-2022 term on the Commission on the Status of Women, the U.N. agency that, according to its website, is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”  As with Iran being put on the Commission, the irony would be humorous if there were not millions of victims over decades of abuse by these countries.  Previously, Saudi Arabia taking over the top spot on the Human Rights Commission was viewed as unbelievable, but the entry on the Commission on the Status of Women sets a level of irony that may be unsurpassable.

Notably, various groups demanded to know what countries voted for the inclusion.  Only 7 of 54 ECOSOC states opposed the inclusion and many want the EU countries to reveal their votes. It is absurd that such votes should be taken on secret ballots.

Now that Saudi Arabia is a protector of women’s rights, it may want to immediately call for an investigation of the country responsible for:

Barring women from being able to travel without the permission of men;

Flogging women for driving;

Jailing a man for protesting the treatment of women;

Arresting women for ripped jeans or “Western haircuts“;

Stoning a woman to death (while just giving her male love flogging) for sex outside of marriage;

Sentencing human right activists to death;

Persecuting lawyers who help rape victims; 

Flogging rape victims;

Permitting child bride arranged marriages;

Closing Women’z health clubs as UnIslamic;

Arresting women without head coverings;

Arresting even foreign women who sit next to unrelated men in public places;

Flogging women over use of bad language; 

Enforcing the right to beat wives; and

Barring women from a Women’s Rights Conference.

That is only a partial list for the new Saudi Commissioner and it does not even require going outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

***

Also see:

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs

nikki-haley-un-sec-councio-640x480

New ambassador makes clear change has arrived.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, February 21, 2017:

The Trump administration’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has hit the ground running.  She spoke truth to power by strongly calling out the United Nations for its anti-Israel bias and double standards. Her predecessor, Samantha Power, never came close.

After attending her first regular meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to the Middle East, including the Palestinian-Israeli situation, Ambassador Haley remarked to reporters, “The first thing I want to do is talk about what we just saw in there.” Calling the meeting “a bit strange,” Ambassador Haley noted how the focus of blame for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East seemed to be placed almost entirely on Israel.

“The discussion was not about Hezbollah’s illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon,” Ambassador Haley said. “It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I’m here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias.”

Ambassador Haley was speaking against the backdrop of the anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 passed last December, which the Obama administration refused to veto. “We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel,” Ambassador Haley declared. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

How refreshing it is to hear such sincere words of support for Israel after eight years of Israel-bashing by the Obama administration. Former Ambassador Power had hypocritically mouthed some formulaic acknowledgements of bias against Israel in the Security Council and other UN forums, but while contributing strongly to that bias herself.

Resolution 2334 reeks of such bias. Yet Power strongly defended the Obama administration’s decision to abstain rather than veto it. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” Power could not defend why the resolution failed to call out the Palestinian Authority or Hamas by name for committing acts of terror, incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists. Her lame explanation to reporters at her farewell UN press conference was that Resolution 2334 “was not our resolution, so I think you can probably pose those questions to the people who were negotiating the text.” Of course, she could have insisted on including such specific references to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence in violation of international law in the resolution itself as a condition for a U.S. abstention. She didn’t. Instead, add a display of moral cowardice to Power’s list of “accomplishments” during her tenure as UN ambassador.

Things will be different from now on. And it is not just a change in words and tone. Expect concrete actions demonstrating the Trump administration’s moral clarity in holding the UN organization to account.

For example, Ambassador Haley objected to the proposed appointment of the Palestinian Authority’s former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to become the next UN envoy to Libya. Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations. It is just an observer state. Israel, on the other hand, is a full member state. Yet the new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, sought to elevate a Palestinian official to a high UN Secretariat post, while Israel has been denied the opportunity to fill such a position. Inner City Press has reported that, according to its sources, “the nomination was really by Jeffrey Feltman, the Obama administration’s appointee to head the UN Department of Political Affairs.” Feltman served previously as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Obama administration. Through Feltman, the former Obama administration would still have someone inside the UN bureaucracy to further enhance the Palestinians’ favorable position at the UN at the expense of Israel. But this appointment was not to be.

Shortly after Salam Fayyad’s proposed appointment was announced, Ambassador Haley issued a statement, which read in part: “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.”

Evidently, that was enough to block the appointment. The Palestine Liberation Organization protested, of course. It’s not used to rejection at the United Nations.

Other actions appear to be underway or are soon to come. Late last year, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the UN General Assembly approved funding for compiling a blacklist of private Israeli companies doing business in the “occupied” territories. Samantha Power claimed the Obama administration objected to the blacklist project, but did nothing to stop it from proceeding. Less than a month after President Trump took office and Nikki Haley became the U.S.’s new UN ambassador, it was reported that the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council decided to delay the publication of a report in connection with establishing the database of Israeli companies with business links to settlements in the West Bank until some unspecified time later this year. There is now a good chance the database will not see the light of day.

Blank checks for the UN’s multiple pro-Palestinian programs may finally become a thing of the past. Ambassador Haley singled out the UN Department of Political Affairs – still headed by the former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman – for having “an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs.” She added, “There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors. And it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us.”

As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley had a reputation for being a strong fiscal conservative. The United Nations is on notice that as UN ambassador of the country paying a disproportionate amount of the total UN budget, Ambassador Haley will continue to be a fiscal conservative with American taxpayers’ money. She will aim to sharply reduce the rampant waste in the UN budget, perhaps starting with the often overlapping, over-the-top pro-Palestinian agencies and programs the UN has established over the years.

U.N. leader blames ‘Islamophobia’ for rising global terror

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Feb. 17, 2017:

The United Nations — under a new leader who personally oversaw the relocation of millions of Muslim refugees into the U.S., Canada and Europe — is doubling down on its “anti-Islamophobia” campaign against the West.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a Portuguese socialist who headed the U.N’s refugee agency before being promoted to secretary general in January, traveled to Saudi Arabia this week where he sat with Saudi royals and cited “Islamophobia” as the reason for increasing terrorism around the world.

“One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches,” Guterres said at a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

Echoing the comments of Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, Guterres said Islamophobia actually helps the Islamic State or ISIS to attract new recruits.

But the way others see it, Guterres just gave a free pass to Islamic extremists to commit acts of terror throughout the world.

It’s a lot like blaming the victim, says Phillip Haney, an Islam specialist who worked for more than a decade at Homeland Security screening immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.

“So Mr. Guterres is telling you that Islamophobia is such a great crime that you will be killed for it and terrorists will rise up because of this and it will be your fault,” Haney told WND.

“Why? Because you are an Islamophobe. It’s your fault that they’re killing you,” he said. “What’s he saying if that’s not what he’s saying?”

Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who has been following Guterres’ career since he left his job as leader of the Socialist International in 2005 to head up the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said the U.N. has a very narrow focus when it comes to religious intolerance.

“He lectured the world about Islamophobia but had nothing to say, no concerns, about the Christophobia exuded by Muslims who have been wiping out entire Christian communities in the Middle East for years,” said Corcoran, who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch. “Nor did he say anything to them, the Saudis, about refusing to take any of the millions of Muslim refugees created by the Syrian civil war.”

The venue for such a lecture was curious, Corcoran said. Christians are not allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia. There are no churches and the punishment for being caught with a Bible is death.

But the U.N. began its anti- “Islamophobia” campaign back in the early 2000s. It achieved a breakthrough in 2011 when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of 56 Muslim countries seated in the U.N., to adopt U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18. This resolution encourages member states to crack down on speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to violence” based on religion.

The problem, as Haney and others point out, is who gets to define Islamophobia?

“That puts all the responsibility on the Western world to come up with a non-defined standard for free speech,” he said.

Watch the video trailer for new investigative work former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has called the “must read book of 2017”

Of course the U.S. already has its own well-defined standard. It’s called the First Amendment. So there should not have been any need for a United Nations’ standard to muddy the waters, said Haney, co-author of the book “See Something Say Nothing.”

Guilty of ‘blasphemy’

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who consults with law enforcement and blogs at Understanding the Threat, said Islamophobia is the modern term Muslim leaders use to identify people who are guilty of the Islamic blasphemy laws, also called the Islamic law of slander.

The legal principle of slander is much different under Shariah law than under U.S. law. Under Shariah, comments critical of Allah, his prophet Muhammad or the Quran do not have to be false in order to constitute slander. All they need do is “offend” a Muslim.

“It is a capital crime under Shariah,” Guandolo told WND. “This is the same nonsense being spewed from the establishment Republicans and from the Democrat Party.”

Haney says Guterres is doing a great disservice to Western civilization by holding it to a standard of Shariah law.

“If Guterres really was concerned about the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness why wouldn’t he say something like ‘there is no excuse for terrorism.’ He’s giving them an out,” Haney said. “‘It’s not your fault Islamic world, it’s their fault.’

“If they’re not required to take any responsibility for their terrorism and can simply blame the Islamophobic Western world it’s only going to get worse. It’s like telling the crack addict, it’s not your fault that you’re addicted to crack.”

How the West adopted Islamic blasphemy laws

It was not long after U.N. Resolution 16/18 was adopted in 2011 that the term “Islamophobia” started showing up everywhere in Western countries.

Countries like Germany, the U.K., Sweden and the Netherlands among others in Western Europe went full throttle in the rush to erase “Islamophobia” from their cultural landscapes. Germany has gone so far as to arrest citizens who post anti-Islamic comments on Facebook, with the full cooperation of Facebook.

The Obama administration tried to do the same through end runs around the First Amendment. After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch promised to “aggressively” prosecute any speech that “edged toward violence,” while Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys in Minnesota [Andrew Luger] and Idaho [Wendy Olson] made similarly threatening comments after Muslim terrorists were arrested in those states. Lynch and Olson were forced to walk back their comments after a backlash from First Amendment advocates on the right and the left.

It was also right around this time, in 2011, the Justice Department agreed to purge all references to Islam from FBI training manuals that were deemed offensive to Muslims.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the largest NGO in the world with direct access to the U.N., had been pushing for a U.N. anti-blasphemy law since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“They pushed for years to get that thing through and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state they were successful in finally getting it passed,” Haney said of Resolution 16/18.

Pamela Geller, a free speech advocate, blogger and author of the popular book “Stop the Islamization of America,” said all of the recent U.N. secretaries general have been shills for the global Islamic movement.

“Guterres, like all secretaries general since the fall of the USSR, is a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been running a years-long campaign against freedom of speech at the U.N.,” Geller told WND. “It is being used to deflect attention from jihad activity and portray Muslims as victims who don’t deserve counterterror scrutiny.”

Doubling down on Trump

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and a best-selling author of several books on Islam, told WND that Guterres’ statement shows he plans to continue the U.N. campaign and even increase its intensity now that Donald Trump has been elected president of the most powerful country in the world. Trump’s supporters gave him a mandate to cut off Islamic immigration and take on “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump’s election, and the success of the Brexit vote in the U.K., have emboldened the leaders of several European candidates who espouse populist, anti-globalist agendas mirroring Trump’s.

That scares the U.N. and its Islamic allies to death, he said, so look for an intensification of the “Islamophobia” drum beat.

“This statement fits into the U.N.’s ongoing efforts to compel states that protect the freedom of speech to adopt ‘hate speech’ provisions that would effectively involve their adopting Sharia blasphemy provisions,” Spencer said.

There is no other explanation, says former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, as to why the U.N. would go out of its way to influence free countries to crack down on speech deemed critical of Islam when it has said little to nothing about actual acts of brutality – forget about speech – by Muslims against Christians in the Middle East.

“Guterres is doing the bidding of Islamic jihadists and is advancing Islamic conquest by silencing truthful speech about Islam,” Bachmann told WND. “Silencing opposition is the jihadists game plan for cornering their enemies.”

Whether it is U.N. Resolution 16/18, or “false charges of a nonexistent Islamophobia,” Islamic supremacists triumph if no one is allowed to criticize Islam, she said.

“No other religion enjoys such protection from criticism,” Bachmann said. “Ironically, no other religion in current times has advanced more violence, carnage and bloodshed than Islam and yet Islam’s gatekeepers demand their religion not be criticized.

“We need to recognize this is nothing more than a well-designed strategy to achieve Islamic conquest and the U.N. Secretary General is now the jihadist’s advocate.”

Spencer believes Guterres’ comment was directed squarely at the Trump phenomenon.

“The idea is that anyone, especially President Trump, who says there is the slightest problem with Islam (or “radical Islam”) is only aiding Islamic State propaganda that the West is waging war upon Islam,” he said. “This is predicated on the further assumption that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the motivation for jihad terrorism couldn’t possibly come from within it. So the poor dears must only become terrorists when we say bad things about their religion, so if we just stop doing that, all will be well.”

The only problem with this theory, says Spencer, is that the Quran’s exhortations to the conquest and subjugation of unbelievers are not predicated on what those unbelievers say or don’t say.

Guandolo added that “This gives us the cherry on top of the argument for shutting down the United Nations and sending them back to their respective countries. It is an anti-American organization which is littered with spies and haters of liberty and justice.”

Guandolo said Guterres is a perfect example of the unholy alliance between the secular Marxist left and the Islamists.

“It is also a great example of civilization jihad, spoken of by the Muslim Brotherhood, in which the Brotherhood spoke of getting non-Muslims to do their work for them.”

NYT: Trump Administration Preparing Executive Orders To Drastically Reduce U.S. Role in U.N.

Выступление Михаила Горбачева на сессии Генеральной ассамблеи ООНThe Gateway Pundit, January 25, 2017:

Another major hit to the globalist agenda is set to take place as the New York Times is reporting that President Donald Trump will be signing an executive order that greatly reduces U.S. involvement in the United Nations.

President Trump has stated multiple times that there will be changes taking place regarding the United Nations after the anti-Israel resolution was passed with the help of the Obama administration.

From The New York Times:

The Trump administration is preparing executive orders that would clear the way to drastically reduce the United States’ role in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as begin a process to review and potentially abrogate certain forms of multilateral treaties, officials said.

The first of the two draft orders, titled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations” and obtained by The New York Times, calls for terminating funding for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria.

Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, or support programs that fund abortion or any activity that circumvents sanctions against Iran or North Korea. The draft order also calls for terminating funding for any organization that “is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism” or is blamed for the persecution of marginalized groups or any other systematic violation of human rights.

The order calls for then enacting “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in remaining United States funding toward international organizations.

The order establishes a committee to recommend where those funding cuts should be made. It asks the committee to look specifically at United States funding for peacekeeping operations; the International Criminal Court; development aid to countries that “oppose important United States policies”; and the United Nations Population Fund, which oversees maternal and reproductive health programs.

If President Trump signs the order and its provisions are carried out, the cuts could severely curtail the work of United Nations agencies, which rely on billions of dollars in annual United States contributions for missions that include caring for refugees.

The second executive order, “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties,” calls for a review of all current and pending treaties with more than one other nation. It asks for recommendations on which negotiations or treaties the United States should leave.

The order says this review applies only to multilateral treaties that are not “directly related to national security, extradition or international trade,” but it is unclear what falls outside these restrictions.

On Tuesday The Gateway Pundit reported that Nikki Haley was easily confirmed by the Senate to be the next ambassador to the United Nations.

Previously Haley had stated she would “not go to New York and abstain when the U.N. seeks to create an international environment that encourages boycotts of Israel.”

“In fact, I pledge to you this,” she continued. “I will never abstain when the United Nations takes any action that comes in direct conflict with the interests and values of the United States.”

On Monday The Gateway Pundit had reported that a bill had been introduced into Congress for the U.S. to completely pull out of the United Nations.

UN Ambassador Invokes Reagan While Failing to Protect Israel with Veto

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, December 23, 2016:

WASHINGTON — The United States turned its back on Israel during a United Nations Security Council vote on settlements in what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “shameful” vote.

“The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against the UN’s obsession with Israel, it collaborated with the UN behind Israel’s back,” the statement continued.

The vote on the resolution drafted by Egypt, which demands Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem,” was 14 in favor and the U.S. abstention.

Netanyahu immediately began taking countermeasures, canceling foreign aid to Senegal as well as nixing a planned visit to the Security Council member. He also recalled Israeli ambassadors from Senegal and New Zealand for consultations.

During the Friday meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power quoted President Reagan from 1982 saying settlements were “in no way necessary for the security of Israel”; she added that “a routine vote for the U.S. to allow the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one” would be consistent with “familiar, well-articulated components of U.S. policy.”

“It is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel – that the United States did not veto it,” Power said, even though the administration used its veto power in 2011 to kill a similarly worded resolution.

“The United States has consistently said we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine Israel’s security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict,” she said. “We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which we’ve repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped.”

Power added that despite refusing to veto the resolution “Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.”

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters on a conference call today that the administration decided to take the course it did because “one of our grave concerns is that the continued pace of settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years.”

“We therefore thought that we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that expressed concerns about the very trends that are eroding the foundation for a two-state solution,” Rhodes said. “…For us, the question here has always been about what is the best way to pursue the security that the Israeli people deserve.  And we cannot simply have a two-state solution be a slogan while the trend lines on the ground are such that a two-state solution is becoming less and less viable.”

“…But, in fact, I’d take umbrage at language that suggests that this was our preferred course of action and that we initiated it.  The fact of the matter is, we’d been warning — President Obama and Secretary Kerry publicly and privately for years — that the trend line of settlement construction and settlement activity was just increasing Israel’s international isolation.”

The administration’s action drew scorn from the soon-to-be highest-ranking Democrat in Congress. “Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution,” tweeted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Schumer was on the phone as recently as this morning trying to persuade the White House to use America’s veto power.

“Since the days of ‘Zionism is racism,’ the UN has long shown its anti-Israel bias, and the U.S. government — both Democrats and Republicans — have admirably kept the UN out when it comes to negotiations. That tradition should continue,” Schumer said before the vote. “…An abstention is not good enough.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been at odds with the administration on Iran and Cuba policy, said he was “disappointed but not surprised that the administration chose to go along with this maneuver, walking away from longstanding principles and practices that advance the goal of peace and stability.”

“The United States must use its influence and posture at the United Nations to promote our values and support our allies,” Menendez said. “It has long been a bipartisan sensible policy of the United States to support direct bilateral negotiations between the parties to find an agreement. We have long stood beside Israel in the face of these kind of politicized resolutions whose only goal is to undermine confidence in a negotiated peace process.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) noted that “Israel can’t get a fair shake at the UN, and that is why Israel has relied on the United States to protect it from the anti-Israel tendencies of some UN Security Council members.”

“This abstention represents a clear departure from convention, and I consider this a break in the Obama administration’s word that they would veto biased or one-sided anti-Israel resolutions,” Engel said.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations said this morning that the Jewish State knew the resolution condemning settlement construction was coming because the Palestinians “want to take advantage of the transition period” in the United States.

“Instead of negotiating with us, it’s easier for them to come to New York, to come to the Security Council,” Ambassador Danny Danon told MSNBC a day after an expected vote on the resolution was tabled.

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement calling himself “a lifelong friend of Israel” and said the U.S. “acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

“That future is now in jeopardy, with terrorism, violence and incitement continuing and unprecedented steps to expand settlements being advanced by avowed opponents of the two state solution,” Kerry said. “That is why we cannot in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.”

StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said that “while both sides in this conflict are subject to criticism, placing most of the blame on Israel while shielding Palestinian leaders from accountability is not a path to peace or justice for either side.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee called it “particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America’s long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations.”

“Unfortunately, the UNSC today irresponsibly adopted a ruinous resolution that can only make the goal of peace even more elusive,” the AIPAC statement added.

***

***

Also see:

UNESCO Pretends Jerusalem’s Temple Mount is A Wholly Islamic Site

temple-mount

A resolution prompted by Arab nations attempts to hide the majority of the site’s history in order to defend one of Islam’s least plausible claims.

CounterJihad, October 14, 2016:

The United Nations’ agency for cultural preservation, UNESCO, has ruled that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has nothing to do with Jews or Israel — or Christians, either.  It is a site to be preserved for exclusively Islamic reasons, according to the ruling.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the resolution, sponsored by several Arab countries, was a “theatre of the absurd.”  The ruling refers to Israel as “the Occupying Power” and is generally critical of Israeli preservation efforts, Israel’s intention to build a new visitor’s center near the site, and Israeli security forces’ efforts that have allegedly led to damage to the site.  In response to the ruling, Israel’s education ministry has suspended cooperation with UNESCO.

The Vatican, which holds observer status at UNESCO, has been asked to intervene to prevent the ruling from becoming finalized.  The resolution goes so far as to deny a Jewish connection to the Western Wall, where Jews still pray as they have since the Middle Ages.

Islam’s connection to the site is one of its least plausible theological claims.  That the site housed a Jewish temple in the days of Herod is a matter plainly demonstrable by archaeology, and that it was a Jewish site long before Herod is almost certainly true from scholarship.  Islam’s claim, however, is that the site is sacred because it is where Muhammad is supposed to have literally ridden his horse to heaven, following an already miraculous ride from present day Saudi Arabia to Israel in just one night.  The Western Wall is said to be sacred because it is where he tied his horse for a while before doing that — a tradition that does not date to the time of Muhammad at all, but is first observed in the literature in the 14th century.

There is nothing particularly wrong with holding to unlikely religious claims.  Christians generally hold that Jesus was bodily assumed into heaven, and although that claim goes along with Jesus having been actually divine, Catholics at least hold to a similar claim about St. Mary.  Nevertheless, it is strange to endorse those most unlikely of claims while also dismissing the most likely, and indeed clearly provable, of the claims of other faiths.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see UNESCO’s ruling as otherwise than nakedly political.  The intent is clearly to favor Islam over Judaism and Christianity, and to favor Palestine over Israel.  It is not new for Israel to come in for hardship at the UN, nor for Muslim nations to attempt to use the United Nations to advance their religion’s primacy — or to prevent criticism of the worst practices of some of its adherents.  Nevertheless, it represents a shameful failure to live up to the United Nations’ higher ideals.

Despite Other Global Conflicts and Occupations, Israel is the Only Country the UN Calls an “Occupying Power”

Disarmament Conference at the European headquarters of the United NationsForget prolonged military occupations in East Timor, Cyprus, Georgia, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, and the Crimea; Israel is the UN’s only “occupier.”

CounterJihad by Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 26, 2016:

Is there any doubt that giving more power and authority to the  United Nations will not only compromise U.S. security but also the security of other other countries within the Western world, including Israel? Just take a look at the list of current members (here) that makeup the U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes some of the biggest human rights abusers. So, we are going to have the likes of Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China and other authoritarian regimes enlightening the free-world on human rights? What a joke. Maybe we should raise awareness that, in Saudi Arabia, one can allegedly receive a death sentence for renouncing his or her Islamic faith.

Furthermore, we have already seen members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) advocate for the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, which seeks to stifle criticism of Islam and Islam’s prophet, Muhammad. If anti-Western coalitions such as the O.I.C., allegedly “the largest United Nations bloc” (including 57 member states if counting the alleged ‘State of Palestine’), are so influential with the U.N. – how can we look to the U.N. for any kind of justice or fairness? We can’t. Just look how the U.N. deliberately tries to demonize Israel when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, while either ignoring or providing scant coverage to other important conflicts around the globe. The Wall Street Journal unveils the U.N.’s double standard with Israel:

Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.

Yet the bias goes further:

General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts, which involve the full gamut of human-rights abuses, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and torture. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.

Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.

In particular, the resolutions refer to Article 49(6), which states that the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This is the provision that the entire legal case against Israel settlements is based upon. Yet no U.N. body has ever invoked Article 49(6) in relation to any of the occupations mentioned above.

Israeli politician Danny Ayalon also gives a breakdown of the U.N. hypocrisy in this video. Not only does a large segment of U.N. General Assembly “Member States” comprise of countries where basic religious and political liberties for minorities are repressed, but it also includes rogue states that advance jihad either directly or indirectly like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous that those in the Western world, including Israel (the only genuine democracy in the Middle East) have to take harangues by such actors. For example, at the U.N. General Assembly in 2012, on the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur, high holy day), then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lambasted Israel and the international order – calling Israel a “fake government” and referring to them as “uncivilized Zionists” among other things.

Considering everything mentioned above it’s absurd how some U.S. leaders want to give the U.N. General Assembly even more power – especially with the U.S. currently wielding the “right to veto” resolutions, being one of the five “Permanent Member States” of theU.N. Security Council. While such efforts to make the U.N. more ‘democratic’ may sound appealing to some globalists, it ignores the fact that many U.N. member countries haven’t even truly bought into the U.N.’s flawed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When U.S. politicians like President Obama and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton seek to concede U.S. sovereignty to the empower the U.N., we need to remind them how bad of an idea that is for not only the U.S. but the rest of the free-world as well.