UN Rights Group Can't Handle The Truth

It Just Like that Movie "A Few Good Men" that dramatic scene when Jack Nicholson screams at Tom Cruise, "YOU WANT THE TRUTH--YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

The difference is that the UN Commission on Human Rights doesn't contain any GOOD MEN. But the bottom line is they still cannot handle the truth.

Last week they were visited by Hillel Neuer, Director of UN Watch. He gave the commission a full helping of the truth and the monkeys on the panel could not take it.

Neuer blasted the UN group for its hypocritical pronouncements:

One might say, in Harry Truman's words, that this has become a do nothing, good for nothing council," Neuer added. "But that would be inaccurate," he continued. "This council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another, condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements, and there will be three more this session, Hamas and Hizbullah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world; millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries continue to go ignored," Neuer said

And the President of the commission, instead if addressing Hillel's comments for all intents and purposes, gave him a diplomatic flip of the bird. Just like the monkeys above he put his hands on his ears and refused to listen. You need to read the entire exchange (below) for the full effect. Yashir Koack to UN Watch and especially Mr. Neuer

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

---

REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

In other words MOMMY that man was mean!!!!

If you would like to see a video of the exchange click here

Bill Levenson responded to De Alba on Israpundit:
(Great Letter)

Open Letter to UN Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba

De Alba (I will not address you as ?Mister,? much less as ?Honorable,? or with any title of respect),

I have never met you but, based on what you said above [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381839,00.html], it is clear to me what you are but the English language does not really have a word to describe it. What I am looking for is a word to describe an individual who has no concept whatsoever of right and wrong, and no respect for the natural laws of human behavior that govern all civilized societies. What I am trying to say, and it is difficult because the conduct in question is so alien to civilized societies?especially the English-speaking ones with their cultures of honor, decency, freedom, and respect for the natural rights of others?that our language really has no word for it. It can only be described with long phrases and sentences.

When I meet another member of the human species, it is natural for me to expect him to conduct himself according to some basic rules that are common to all civilized nations. This set of rules is known to Christians as the Gospel (Good News), Buddhists as Bodi-Dharma (the Good Way or the Good Law), Hindus as Dharma (the Way), and Chinese as Tao (the Way). Another term is Natural Law. Natural Law says that all human beings have natural rights to life, freedom, property, and dignity. This is why all civilized societies have laws against murder, theft, and similar violations of people?s natural rights.

Now suppose I met someone from a society that considers murder, theft, rape, and so on completely acceptable and even desirable forms of conduct. It would be like meeting someone from an alien planet, and it would be almost impossible to envision how such a society could exist even on another planet. Edgar Rice Burroughs? science fiction did describe a land whose inhabitants advanced in social rank by committing murder, although apparently certain rules had to be followed. The same went for the science fiction movie ?Quintet,? in which the inhabitants of a post-apocalyptic world played a real-life murder game for entertainment. Thomas Hobbes? pessimistic view of human nature envisioned a condition in which every man?s hand would be lifted against his neighbor, with life being ?nasty, brutish, and short.?

What I am looking for is a word that describes someone like you who can advocate, support, or make excuses for such societies (e.g. Gaza under Palestinian rule) while seeking to demonize Israel, a democratic nation that is rated as ?Free? by the independent Freedom House organization. The Hindu word ?adharma? means ?against Dharma,? and is in fact a good objective definition of Evil itself: anything that goes against the natural rights of human beings. ?Evil? would in fact describe you perfectly, but its meaning has become far too general to make it convey the right meaning. The Polish word ?haniebny? seems to mean ?without honor,? but it goes even further by suggesting a condition to which normal human beings would prefer death. Unfortunately, the context involves indignities that are inflicted on someone (e.g. rape during the 17th century) to which they would find death preferable, as opposed to their own conduct like advocacy or commission of rape, banditry, terrorism and so on.

The United Nations, which routinely passes resolutions against democracies like Israel while overlooking completely the terroristic actions of the Palestinians, and also the conduct of dictatorships like Libya (threatening to execute Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor) and Sudan (enslaving and murdering Christians), is such an institution. It must be considered as adharma or haniebny (totally without honor, but by its own choices, actions, and culture) and therefore totally unworthy of respect by any decent human being anywhere in the world. The United Nations must in fact be regarded as the enemy of every civilized human being.

Hillel Neuer told the truth. It is too bad that this falls short of your definition of ?minimum proper conduct? but, as you are totally unworthy of notice, trust, or respect by any decent human being, I really don?t care.

–William Levinson
(This letter has also been posted publicly to the Internet)

Re: “In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. “

Well, you and the current United Nations are a disgrace to the memory of the founders of the Human Rights Commission, and Hillel Neuer is 100 percent correct.