At the United Nations: The 'rights' charade
Leave it to the United Nations' outrageous Human Rights Council to replace one Israel-bashing “independent expert” with someone equally biased and antagonistic.
Meet Indonesian Makarim Wibisono, who replaces outgoing Israel “expert” Richard Falk. Mr. Falk is the impartial arbiter who said Israel had “genocidal” intentions toward Palestinians and endorsed 9/11 conspiracy theories, according to The Jerusalem Post.
Mr. Wibisono, who reportedly received the green light for a six-year term over an American legal expert from Georgetown University, is the former Indonesian U.N. ambassador who, in a 2006 statement, described Israel as demonstrating “ruthless contempt for the lives of the innocent” and perpetuating “callous attacks against terrorized and defenseless civilians,” according to Anne Bayefsky, a human rights scholar.
He also holds the dubious distinction of serving as president of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in its final year — an organization so contemptible that even former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it “cast a shadow on the reputation” of the U.N.
This latest insult to Israel doesn't end with Wibisono's appointment. Named a U.N. “special rapporteur” is Falk's wife, Hilal Elver, whose views aren't exactly divorced from her husband's.
So much for the Obama administration's goal to “reform” the U.N.'s despicable Human Rights Council. When does the administration get tired of wiping egg from its face by defending the broken United Nations “system”?
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.