Israel named by U.N. as the top human rights violator.

[Omeganian]

According to the United Nations, the most evil country in the world today is Israel.

On March 24, 2016, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) wrapped up its annual meeting in New York by condemning only one country for violating women’s rights anywhere on the planet – Israel, for violating the rights of Palestinian women.

On the same day, the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.

No slander is deemed too vile for the U.N. human rights bodies that routinely listen to highly orchestrated Palestinian versions of the ancient blood libel against the Jews.

In Geneva, Palestinian representative Ibrahim Khraishi told the Council on March 24, 2016: “Israeli soldiers and settlers kill Palestinian children. They shoot them dead. They will leave them to bleed to death.” And in New York, Palestinian representative Haifa Al-Agha told CSW on March 16, 2016: “Israel…is directing its military machinery against women and girls. They are killing them, injuring them, and leaving them bleeding to death.”

Operating hand-in-glove with governments and the U.N. secretariat are the unelected, sanctimonious NGOs, to which the UN offers free facilities and daily advertisement of “side-events.” In theory “materials containing abusive or offensive language or images are not permitted on United Nations premises.”

In practice, in Geneva the UN permitted handouts that claimed Israel “saw ethnic cleansing as a necessary precondition for its existence.” A film accused Israel of sexual violence against children and “trying to exterminate an entire Palestinian generation.” Speeches focused on the 1948 “catastrophe” in which a “settler colonial state” was established on Palestinian land.

The New York CSW-NGO scene included a film set in in the context of Israeli “oppression” and the “tear gas of my childhood,” and statements analogizing the experiences of Palestinians to today’s Syrian refugees.

Picture these real-life scenes:

In Geneva’s grand U.N. “Human Rights” Council chamber, 750 people assembled, pounced on the Jewish state, broadcast the spectacle online, and produced hundreds of articles and interviews in dozens of languages championing the results.

On the ground, Israelis are being hacked to death on the streets, stabbed in buses, slaughtered in synagogues, mowed down with automobiles, and shot in front of their children.

At the New York’s UN headquarters, 8,100 NGO representatives gathered from all corners of the globe, in addition to government delegates, and watched the weight of the entire world of women’s rights descend on only one country.

On the ground, Palestinian women are murdered and subjugated for the sake of male honor, Saudi women can’t drive, Iranian women are stoned to death for so-called “adultery,” Egyptian women have their genitals mutilated and Sudanese women give birth in prison with their legs shackled for being Christian.

Isn’t it about time that people stopped calling the U.N. a harmless international salon or a bad joke?

The poison isn’t simply rhetorical. One of the Council resolutions adopted last week launches a worldwide witch-hunt for companies that do business with Israel – as part of an effort to accomplish through economic strangulation what Israel’s enemies have not been able to accomplish on the battlefield. The resolution casts a wide net encompassing all companies engaged in whatever the U.N. thinks are business “practices that disadvantage Palestinian enterprises.”

And the toxicity is self-perpetuating. Acting at the beck and call of Islamic states and their conduit – French Ambassador Elizabeth Laurin, Council President Choi Kyonglim selected Canadian law professor Michael Lynk as the newest U.N. “independent” human rights investigator on Israel.

Lynk’s qualifications? He has likened Israelis to Nazis, and challenged the legitimacy of the state of Israel starting in 1948 as rooted in “ethnic cleansing.”

All of this played out in the same week that Europe was reeling from the Belgian terror attacks. Petrified or already vanquished, no European state voted against this onslaught of U.N. resolutions against Israel. Germany and the United Kingdom occasionally abstained, while France voted with Arab and Islamic states on all but one Council resolution.

Here we are just 70 years after World War II and Europeans believe that they can license this vitriol against the Jewish state – the only democracy on the front lines of an Islamist war against human decency – and the consequences can be contained to the Jews.

Even as the converse stares them in the face. Two days after the Brussels attacks, Islamic states rammed through a Council resolution slyly labeled “Effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of all human rights” that was actually so anti-human rights even Belgium was forced to vote against it.

As for the United States, the Obama administration has been the Human Rights Council’s most important supporter. Though the U.S. is currently in a mandatory one-year hiatus -- after serving two consecutive terms -- President Obama plans to bind his successor by running again in the fall for another three-year term that starts January 1, 2017.

Memo to Americans who are mad as hell: It's time to elicit a promise from our would-be leaders to refuse to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council or to legitimize the United Nations.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/ ... lator.html

[Edi]

That article is useless drivel with no news value whatsoever. Then again, it is from the lying sacks of shit at Faux News, so it should surprise no one.

[Channel72]

So some pro-Israel idiot trying to start a career at Foxnews writes a nonsensical opinion piece claiming the UN thinks Israel is the "worst" country ever, for realz you guys. Even though this isn't some kind of official ranking index or anything - the UN just criticized Israel more than some other countries, over a particular time frame. Who cares.

On the ground, Israelis are being hacked to death on the streets, stabbed in buses, slaughtered in synagogues, mowed down with automobiles, and shot in front of their children.

Yeah, meanwhile the Palestinians are all living in 5-star luxury condos overlooking the Mediterranean, cackling maniacally as they oppress world Jewry.

[mr friendly guy]

Every time the UN does something someone doesn't like they start saying how useless the UN is. The thing is, the UN does a lot of things the average person most likely doesn't know about, such as via its umbrella organisations. UNHCR, Unicef, the World Health organisation. I mean, does the UN have to do 100% what you agree with to be useful?

In any event its a reasonable argument for Israel supporters to point out that the UN doesn't criticise certain countries. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be true. Looking at the 3 countries listed, Russia, Saudi Arabia and China.

1. Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world ... .html?_r=0

GENEVA — United Nations officials issued a scathing assessment of Russia’s compliance with an international treaty against torture and cruel and degrading punishment, highlighting, among a number of “troubling trends,” the increasing intimidation of people and organizations trying to monitor human rights.

The officials, members of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, said here on Friday that they were seriously concerned about “numerous and consistent reports” of threats, reprisals and deaths of human rights defenders and journalists in Russia. They also said that legal amendments recently enacted by President Vladimir V. Putin “undermined” the United Nations treaty.

Found in under a minute of google

2. Saudi Arabia
https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-ri ... -khair-and

Paris, Geneva) - The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint FIDH and OMCT programme), welcome the opinion rendered by the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), which considers the detention of human rights defender Waleed Abu Al-Khair and eight other human rights defenders, as arbitrary, and requests their immediate release.

In an opinion adopted during a session held in September 2015, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) requested the release of Waleed Abu al-Khair as well as eight other human rights defenders, Dr. Mohammed Al-Qahtani, Dr. Abdullah Al-Hamid, Dr. Abdulkarim Al-Khodr, Raif Badawi, Mohammad Al-Bajadi, Fadel Al-Manasef, Sheikh Sulaiman Al-Rashudi, Omar al-Sa’id, from arbitrary detention.

Found in under 5 minutes of google



3. China
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24611657

The UN human rights council has criticised China during an official review of its human rights record.
Many members of the council expressed concern at the arrest of dissidents, the continued use of the death penalty and the use of torture in prison.

Discovered in 30 seconds of google

[Zixinus]

A thought: maybe the UN criticizes Israel the most because unlike countries like North Korea, it actually active in international politics and there is a point to raise criticisms.

[Feil]

Deceitful title. Should read: "Israel the country most frequently criticized as human rights violator by UN."

[K. A. Pital]

Why has the OP offered no comment on the shitty shitpiece made by Fox News?

The shitpiece itself has been already demolished by the comments above.

The Israeli lobby on the US far-right whines and cries. Nobody cares. End of story.

[Grumman]

In any event its a reasonable argument for Israel supporters to point out that the UN doesn't criticise certain countries. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be true. Looking at the 3 countries listed, Russia, Saudi Arabia and China.

1. Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world ... .html?_r=0

2. Saudi Arabia
https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-ri ... -khair-and

3. China
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24611657

Look at the dates. 2012, 2015 and 2013. "The UN is tough on Russia! See, they criticised them once four years ago!" is not a reasonable counter-argument when you are comparing it to Israel being singled out five times in one sitting.

[mr friendly guy]

Look at the dates. 2012, 2015 and 2013. "The UN is tough on Russia! See, they criticised them once four years ago!" is not a reasonable counter-argument when you are comparing it to Israel being singled out five times in one sitting.

I did look at the dates. However I had assumed that wouldn't be a big thing because then this Israel defense argument becomes even more stupid if the dates become important. It essentially means that if the UN criticises Israel at one particular time, it must also do the same to KSA, Russia and China at the same time. This seems ridiculous because human rights violations don't necessarily occur at a constant rate, so at one particular time some country could be bad and another country relatively quiet.

If this argument is accepted, then every time those 3 countries are criticised, they could likewise turn this around and say the UN isn't criticising the US for Gitmo or Israel for something else at the same time thus UN suxxxxs.

[Simon_Jester]

Hypothetically, if the UN criticizes Greater Moronia five times in one year, and then criticizes Outer Boravia one time in five years, it would lead us to conclude one of two things:

1) Greater Moronia is roughly 25 times as bad as Outer Boravia, or
2) The UN is showing a bias.

Please note that (2) would not in any sense make the UN "useless" or "stupid" or "sucks."

Conversely, if the UN criticizes Greater Moronia and Outer Boravia roughly equally often, then either:

1) Greater Moronia and Outer Boravia are roughly equally bad, or
2) The UN is showing a bias.

____________________

This is purely a statement about sampling frequencies. As a rule, it's fair to conclude the people you say the most bad things about are the people whose badness you are most conscious of and attentive to.

[mr friendly guy]

Hypothetically, if the UN criticizes Greater Moronia five times in one year, and then criticizes Outer Boravia one time in five years, it would lead us to conclude one of two things:

1) Greater Moronia is roughly 25 times as bad as Outer Boravia, or
2) The UN is showing a bias.

Please note that (2) would not in any sense make the UN "useless" or "stupid" or "sucks."

Conversely, if the UN criticizes Greater Moronia and Outer Boravia roughly equally often, then either:

1) Greater Moronia and Outer Boravia are roughly equally bad, or
2) The UN is showing a bias.

____________________

This is purely a statement about sampling frequencies. As a rule, it's fair to conclude the people you say the most bad things about are the people whose badness you are most conscious of and attentive to.

I agree, there is a bias. It just doesn't make the UN useless as a lot of people I see (not necessarily in this thread) imply. Bias itself doesn't mean that criticism of Israel is invalid. This is coming from someone who agrees with say Israel's criticism that Hamas are genocidal, that Israel has a right to exist, that the spat with the Palestinians is over disputed territory etc. As I said many times, no one is immune to criticism.

On another slightly related note I also would like to point out people who rightly mock the UN human rights division because countries like the KSA are on it, should also ask themselves is it not also hypocritical for a lot of Western countries to be on it. I should then chuckle for those people (usually right wing types) who only then figured out allegations of human rights abuse are heavily tinged with political motivations when countries like the KSA get on it, but don't get it when, say Western nations like the US make human rights allegations against countries which just so happens to be their biggest geopolitical rivals eg Russia or potential rivals eg China.

Another thing, the bias could simply be Israel's rivals are more persistent. They keep on raising the issue even though Israel's ally the US will just veto it. If someone kept on raising the issue with say Russia or China, they would also veto it, but the potential difference is, that their opponents would get the message and try a different tactic.\

Edit - it occurs to me Simon Jester may simply not have seen the same sources I have on criticism of the UN. I have seen YT videos where people do this when the UN does something they don't like. Heck a recent thread in spacebattles had people say this when they thought the UN did something they didn't like (although it turned out they didn't actually understand the legal ruling).
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... on.383305/ (because I am not going to go through YT videos for the UN suxs pieces).

[Simon_Jester]

I agree, there is a bias. It just doesn't make the UN useless as a lot of people I see (not necessarily in this thread) imply. Bias itself doesn't mean that criticism of Israel is invalid.

Logically, if the UN is criticizing Greater Moronia, and is biased against Greater Moronia, we should discount the criticism by some amount to compensate for the bias. Sort of like how I don't listen to known misogynists when they tell me men are better than women at XYZ.

Sometimes we might not discount the criticism 100% of the way... but we still discount it. Otherwise we are deliberately taking information from a source we know is biased.

On another slightly related note I also would like to point out people who rightly mock the UN human rights division because countries like the KSA are on it, should also ask themselves is it not also hypocritical for a lot of Western countries to be on it. I should then chuckle for those people (usually right wing types) who only then figured out allegations of human rights abuse are heavily tinged with political motivations when countries like the KSA get on it, but don't get it when, say Western nations like the US make human rights allegations against countries which just so happens to be their biggest geopolitical rivals eg Russia or potential rivals eg China.

Saudi Arabia's human rights record is infinitely worse than either Russia or China's has been for the last 40-50 years, because half of all humans in Saudi Arabia have no rights.

For the US to criticize Russia on human rights is arguably hypocritical and arguably not. For Saudi Arabia to criticize anyone on human rights is definitely hypocritical, unless the person they're criticizing is the second coming of Attila the Hun.

Another thing, the bias could simply be Israel's rivals are more persistent. They keep on raising the issue even though Israel's ally the US will just veto it. If someone kept on raising the issue with say Russia or China, they would also veto it, but the potential difference is, that their opponents would get the message and try a different tactic.

Fair enough- we should then compare Israel to other countries that do not have a UN security council member firmly in their pocket, who have comparably bad human rights records.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Fair enough- we should then compare Israel to other countries that do not have a UN security council member firmly in their pocket, who have comparably bad human rights records.

The Rohinga problem in Burma seems fairly appalling and equally racial. I'd suggest that as an excellent bench mark.

[mr friendly guy]

I will just want to add another point.

Lets say a country, the Gnomish republic was accused of a particular human right violation, that is cultural genocide of non Gnomish subjects via requiring everyone to at least be fluent in the lingua fraca of that nation (even ethnic minorities and non Gnomish people). Keep in mind, they don't try to destroy the language of non Gnomish people, they only require that everyone be at least fluent in the Gnomish language. One side effect is that some non Gnomish people now speak Gnomish more fluently than their native language.

Now lets have a look at its political rival, the Elven Empire and its colonies who do exactly the same thing with Elvish language including with non Elvish indigenous people of that area before the Elves migrated those colonies. Lets say no one gives a shit when the Elves do it, but the United Fantasy Nations pass a resolution citing human rights abuses of cultural genocide when the Gnomes do it. No resolution against the Elvish Empire, and by extension most of the fantasy nations in this fantasy world I concocted who do exactly the same thing. This occurs year after year. The Gnomish republic have a case for bias against the United Fantasy Nations (in terms of selection of who to pass resolutions against) AND can argue that this isn't a human right abuse at all by the standards we judge human rights, and that the UFN just decided that this particular action is now a human rights violation and one is suspicious they did this for the purpose of cheap political points.

Now lets consider a different situation. The Goblin Federation locks up citizens without trial. Its geopolitical rival the Orcish republic of Grumsh does the same thing but with greater frequency. One particular year the United Fantasy Nations condemns the Goblin Federation for doing so. The Goblin Federation argues that its geopolitical rival the Orcish republic also does the same, so why no condemnation for that year. It however turns out the United Fantasy Nations have actually passed resolutions condemning what the Orcish republic has done, but this was in previous years.
Lets say that counting the condemnations, the Goblin Federation gets more resolutions against it, even though it does it less than the Orcish republic of Grumsh. In this case, the Goblin Federation has a case for bias against the United Fantasy Nations, but it is very difficult to argue that what its doing is NOT a human rights violation by the standards with which we judge human rights, because other nations have also been condemned for doing the same thing. It could argue that its unfairly targeted, it could argue the UFN is bias, but he cannot spin that bias to say that what they are doing is not a human rights violation by the standards which we judge such things. It can only argue that the Orcish republic should also be dragged through the mud with it.

Unfortunately, this claim of bias (while true) is interpreted by people to mean that the resolutions against the Goblin Federation as being untrue. The situation is unfair in the sense that others should also be targeted, but its doesn't necessarily follow that the resolution is untrue. The only way for it to be untrue, is if the evidence presented turns out to be weak, and not because the UFN is bias against the Goblin Federation. I think its very important we distinguish how the bias affects the resolution. If the bias manifests as lies or claims without evidence, then we have every reason to want to dismiss the resolution. If the bias manifests as one side gets condemn more, we have every reason to condemn more sides, not to dismiss the claims against one side.

[K. A. Pital]

Basically, using the "you too" argument does not invalidate the criticism itself, though it can cast doubt on the integrity of others.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm sure we can find people who will say "the UN is exhibiting bias against Israel, therefore UN reports criticizing Israel are factually incorrect."

There do not, however, appear to be any such people in this thread, at least not that I've noticed.

...

One problem with the thesis expressed in Mr. Friendly Guy's post is that it's often hard to sort out the two kinds of bias. He's definitely right that a bias which manifests as "criticize them disproportionately often" is different from a bias which manifests as "make up criticize them in ways that are lies."

However, there is- entanglement- between them.

For example, a person who is making reports against someone constantly is likely to need to work harder than usual to find something to say against that person. They may well employ sources who are themselves biased against their target, in the same way or in other ways. This increases the risk that they will make false or poorly substantiated accusations.

Conversely, being a person who accuses people of things they didn't do or that are not crimes... This can contribute to me accusing people more often than they deserve. Because the false criticisms will keep coming up. And because if I'm convinced that doing X is a crime of some sort, when it in fact isn't, and I see someone doing X, I won't just stop at accusing them of a crime the first time they do it. I'll keep repeating the accusations, until such time as someone actually stops and explains the situation to me.

For these reasons, I am reluctant to dwell on the argument "okay, they may be biased but that doesn't mean their argument should be ignored!" I get that this is true, I freely concede that it is true. At the same time, it's a very common argument used by people trying to defend irrational or biased behavior, and dwelling on it can lead us to lose sight of the fact that we were ever dealing with a biased source in the first place.

Because once you know a source to be biased, you're still stuck doing all sorts of your own research to confirm things every time you listen to them. That nothing has been exaggerated, that nothing has been fabricated. It's much better to try to ensure you're using unbiased sources to begin with.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm sure we can find people who will say "the UN is exhibiting bias against Israel, therefore UN reports criticizing Israel are factually incorrect."

There do not, however, appear to be any such people in this thread, at least not that I've noticed.

Dude - the OP

On the same day, the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.

No slander is deemed too vile for the U.N. human rights bodies that routinely listen to highly orchestrated Palestinian versions of the ancient blood libel against the Jews.

Now I am not sure if the criticism against Israel's treatment of Palestinian women in this case is factual or not. I do know however, pointing out that the UN doesn't also condemn China then quickly following that up with "allegations against Israel are bullshit," does seem fallacious.

On a related note this particular human rights commission was on the Status of Women in the world. If you pointed out KSA I would whole heartedly agree. I am puzzled as to what the author thinks Russia and China have particularly done to the status of women that they deserve to be subjected to a resolution. In China women have been astronauts, high ranking members of the CCP, fighter pilots etc. Unless they're going down that tired route that non democratic -> human rights violation. It seems a cheap way for the Faux news article to conflate "treatment of women" with all human rights violations allowing them to add in Russia and China to the mix.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm sure we can find people who will say "the UN is exhibiting bias against Israel, therefore UN reports criticizing Israel are factually incorrect."

There do not, however, appear to be any such people in this thread, at least not that I've noticed.

Dude - the OP

I do not count Fox News bloggers as being 'in this thread,' unless of course Omeganian personally authored that post and is actually Anne B-something-or-other personally.

On the same day, the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.

No slander is deemed too vile for the U.N. human rights bodies that routinely listen to highly orchestrated Palestinian versions of the ancient blood libel against the Jews.

Now I am not sure if the criticism against Israel's treatment of Palestinian women in this case is factual or not. I do know however, pointing out that the UN doesn't also condemn China then quickly following that up with "allegations against Israel are bullshit," does seem fallacious.

Specifically complaining that Saudi Arabia merited only one UN resolution on the treatment of women, whereas Israel received five despite the fact that unlike the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Israel lets women do things like...

-Drive cars,
-Live without a designated male 'guardian,'
-Walk around in public without being massively veiled for fear of men being distracted by their mysterious wiles,
-Open bank accounts
-Testify in court without a small pile of male witnesses to vouch for their character
-Interact with men in public other than whatever man is 'guarding' them.
-Participate in sports
-Leave the country without a guardian's permission.

And so far as I know, Israel does not restrict Palestinian women from doing these things any more than it restricts Israeli women from doing these things.

I think some degree of outrage is warranted if the Commission is bothering to spend that much of its time entertaining condemnations of Israel when there are bigger crimes against women occurring in other countries not far away.

Now, I also think the author shouldn't have even bothered to mention Russia and China, both of which have at least adequate (if not better) reputations on women's rights, at least compared to a cesspool like Saudi Arabia.

On a related note this particular human rights commission was on the Status of Women in the world. If you pointed out KSA I would whole heartedly agree. I am puzzled as to what the author thinks Russia and China have particularly done to the status of women that they deserve to be subjected to a resolution. In China women have been astronauts, high ranking members of the CCP, fighter pilots etc. Unless they're going down that tired route that non democratic -> human rights violation. It seems a cheap way for the Faux news article to conflate "treatment of women" with all human rights violations allowing them to add in Russia and China to the mix.

Also, honestly, I doubt Israel can really be said to have a better human rights record than Russia or China in the recent past, given their treatment of what is proportionately a very large Palestinian ethnic group.

[K. A. Pital]

I do not count Fox News bloggers as being 'in this thread,' unless of course Omeganian personally authored that post and is actually Anne B-something-or-other personally.

Well sorry, Simon, but he has a habit of posting something without comment like this. In this case, he posted "news" created by one of the most disgusting US "news" services ever without offering any opinion on it. No comment usually means solidarity with the opinion, as when you disagree, you'd rather state it openly, no? And if the UN could be accused of bias, surely Faux News is not above this criticism either.

I think some degree of outrage is warranted if the Commission is bothering to spend that much of its time entertaining condemnations of Israel when there are bigger crimes against women occurring in other countries not far away.

But Israel also claims that it's like some sort of White Burden bearer in the horrible barbaric Middle East, in which case it will be compared with the OECD countries on women's rights, and in these comparisons, it does not shine.

[Simon_Jester]

I do not count Fox News bloggers as being 'in this thread,' unless of course Omeganian personally authored that post and is actually Anne B-something-or-other personally.

Well sorry, Simon, but he has a habit of posting something without comment like this. In this case, he posted "news" created by one of the most disgusting US "news" services ever without offering any opinion on it. No comment usually means solidarity with the opinion, as when you disagree, you'd rather state it openly, no? And if the UN could be accused of bias, surely Faux News is not above this criticism either.

That's a fair point. Personally I'd figured that Omeganian is like a nonsentient chatbot and therefore cannot have opinions good or bad. But you make a compelling argument.

I think some degree of outrage is warranted if the Commission is bothering to spend that much of its time entertaining condemnations of Israel when there are bigger crimes against women occurring in other countries not far away.

But Israel also claims that it's like some sort of White Burden bearer in the horrible barbaric Middle East, in which case it will be compared with the OECD countries on women's rights, and in these comparisons, it does not shine.

This still raises questions. Because if I follow your argument then you'd say...

Suppose that Greater Ogbonia is a country which falls below OECD standards, but is close enough to those standards to be meaningfully compared with them. And Upper Branistan is a country which falls so far below OECD standards that we use it as an example of "really bad women's rights record" on a regular basis.

Which of those countries should the UN be spending more energy worrying about women's rights in?

[eyl]

Another thing, the bias could simply be Israel's rivals are more persistent. They keep on raising the issue even though Israel's ally the US will just veto it. If someone kept on raising the issue with say Russia or China, they would also veto it, but the potential difference is, that their opponents would get the message and try a different tactic.\

The bias is that Israel's rivals know they can get any almost anti-Israel resolution passed in the UNGA or especially the UNHRC (the US veto is not really relevant - even if the UN vetoed all resolutions against Israel, which it doesn't - because it only applies in the UNSC, the resolutions the OP talks about are from the UNHRC), almost regardless of what they say (fairly recently, it took major effort on behalf of the US and the EU to amend an anti-Israel UNESCO resolution just enough to remove a statement that the Western Wall was part of the Al-Aqsa mosque). I can't find it now but I remember dissecting (can;t remember on what forum) a UNHRC resolution decrying Israel's treatment of the Golan's Druze with blatantly false allegations (for example that Israel did not provide any clinics there, something disproved 30 seconds on the Internet).

Hell, even the EU - which abstained from the vote on these resolutions - stated:

In addition, the final draft text continues to be unbalanced, inaccurate, and prejudges the outcome of the investigation by making legal statements. The EU emphasises that the Commission of Inquiry pertains to all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by all sides, including those committed by Hamas and other militant groups. The EU will closely monitor the implementation of the mandate and continue to work towards a balanced outcome of the investigations. The draft resolution also fails to condemn explicitly the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli civilian areas as well as to recognize Israel´s legitimate right to defend itself. For this reason the EU cannot support this resolution and EU Member States who are members of this Council will abstain.

On a related note this particular human rights commission was on the Status of Women in the world. If you pointed out KSA I would whole heartedly agree. I am puzzled as to what the author thinks Russia and China have particularly done to the status of women that they deserve to be subjected to a resolution. In China women have been astronauts, high ranking members of the CCP, fighter pilots etc. Unless they're going down that tired route that non democratic -> human rights violation. It seems a cheap way for the Faux news article to conflate "treatment of women" with all human rights violations allowing them to add in Russia and China to the mix.

There were two concurrent sessions being discussed - one UNHRC general session and one regarding the women's rights.

[mr friendly guy]

The bias is that Israel's rivals know they can get any almost anti-Israel resolution passed in the UNGA or especially the UNHRC (the US veto is not really relevant - even if the UN vetoed all resolutions against Israel, which it doesn't - because it only applies in the UNSC, the resolutions the OP talks about are from the UNHRC), almost regardless of what they say (fairly recently, it took major effort on behalf of the US and the EU to amend an anti-Israel UNESCO resolution just enough to remove a statement that the Western Wall was part of the Al-Aqsa mosque). I can't find it now but I remember dissecting (can;t remember on what forum) a UNHRC resolution decrying Israel's treatment of the Golan's Druze with blatantly false allegations (for example that Israel did not provide any clinics there, something disproved 30 seconds on the Internet).

Fair enough. However given that the number of UN resolutions against Israel over the years, its pretty obvious its doing jack and shit to Israel, yet they persist. When the US had a spat with Russia over Ukraine, it quickly moved into other avenues other than just getting the UN to call Russia a naughty boy. Israel's rivals can't do much beyond passing anti-Israel resolutions against it, and I would argue this is one reason we see a lot of these in the UN, and less so against say Russia. By now, Russia's rivals would be trying to sanction it etc.

[K. A. Pital]

Which of those countries should the UN be spending more energy worrying about women's rights in?

Greater Ogbonia, because there is a chance that the government (which is doing something already for these rights) will react to the criticism and improve their conduct further, making Ogbonia even more in line with, say, exemplary states. On the other hand, Upper Branistan is probably something where Turkmenbashi or King Abdullah is revered as a God(ly) King, and the possibility of change in this situation is ridiculously limited. Just saying: "Your situation with women's rights is simply horrific" won't do anything as Upper Branistan is already most likely a theocratic / heavily traditionalist regime or something similar.

[Simon_Jester]

Friendly, does the fact that Israel's opponents propose a constant stream of anti-Israel UN resolutions 'because they can' mean we should not worry about whether some (or most) of those resolutions are poorly grounded?

Suppose, as eyl says, one of those resolutions was blatantly false to the point where momentary fact-checking could prove it wrong. That would be a great illustration of my point about how bias of the form 'we condemn you more than you deserve' can shade over into 'we condemn you by lying about you.' Morever, such a hypothetical groundless UN resolution serves to grossly undermine the UN's credibility on isues involving Israel.

You see the problem here? Making excuses for the country that proposed a groundless resolution is irrelevant. Saying they only proposed a resolution full of easily refuted lies because "that's the only way they can strike at their enemy" is missing the point. The UN is supposed to be above that, above being used as a tool for one nation to strike at another, above being so meretricious that they become a vehicle for political biases and ethnic feuds and don't even bother fact-checking the condemnations they deliver from whoever is pulling their puppet-strings today..

That is the real problem and the real concern here.
_____________________

Stas, before I go into this further, I hope you see how your most recent post could reasonably be viewed as controversial by others? Including others who aren't great fans of Greater Ogbonia, who generally like or at least approve of the UN, and who sincerely want to advance the cause of women's rights around the globe?

I'm not saying there is no logic to you saying that one should concentrate one's attention on almost-good countries rather than horribly bad countries.

But, sitting down and thinking honestly for a minute, can you imagine a reasonable person espousing the opposite view? Someone you could understand and empathize with, who is not just a cardboard cutout full of bad opinions?

[Tanasinn]

The point people are making, I think, vis. Saudi Arabia condemning anyone ever on human rights has to do with the fact that many view UN resolutions as nothing more than tools of realpolitik or exercise of international vendettas using holier-than-thou pronouncements.

"You too" is not, in and of itself, a valid argument, but when you're dealing with an organization like the UN that allegedly tries to exert positive, humanist change through dialogue and diplomatic pressure, then it is very important that that organization be seen as impartial if you want anyone involved to take it seriously ever.