Reuters: Navi Pillay to the rescue

Reuters correspondent Stephanie Nebehay who recently wrote a fawning public relations piece on Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, reports today that Pillay has sprung into action on behalf of the estimated 6,000 Libyans killed in the revolt thus far:

Libyan bombing may be crimes against humanity: U.N. [ya think?, ed.]

(Reuters) - Libya's aerial bombing of civilians and use of heavy weapons on city streets must be investigated as possible crimes against humanity, the top U.N. human rights official said on Thursday.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also said she had received accounts of executions, rapes and disappearances in the north African country.
Reports of the "continued aerial bombardment of civilians and the use of military grade weapons and tanks on city streets" were outrageous and "would be investigated as possible crimes against humanity," the former U.N. war crimes judge said.

We eagerly await the war crimes charges, indictments, and tribunals against an Arab dictatorship that will surely come from a UN agency throttled by stalwart supporters of human rights like Saudi Arabia and Cuba.

UNCHR public relations, courtesy of Reuters

The last we visited with Reuters correspondent Stephanie Nebehay, she was busy misrepresenting the Geneva Conventions and a statement from the Red Cross, unable to distinguish between Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and parroting agitprop from 911 "Truther" and Israel-hating lunatic Richard Falk.

Nebehay reappears today with a puff piece on the UN Human Rights Council and its chief Navi Pillay which appears to be a reply to recent op-eds critical of the UN body by Amnon Rubinstein in the Jerusalem Post and Alan Dershowitz in the Huffington Post. 

Nebehay attempts to portray Pillay as a proactive and principled human rights campaigner, successfully advocating for democratic and humanitarian changes around the globe:

Pillay sent experts to Tunisia to help shape democratic reforms and investigate past violations, and made it clear her office is ready to help elsewhere.
She denounced killings and abductions as they unfolded in Ivory Coast after a November 28 poll where U.N.-certified results show Alassane Ouattara beat incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo.
On New Year's Eve, she went a step further, publicly warning Gbagbo and top commanders they may be held accountable for human rights crimes. She flagged reports of two mass graves at the time and allegations of a third one since.
Pillay has blamed unprecedented protests in Egypt squarely on the government of President Hosni Mubarak, accusing it of serious abuses including widespread torture.
"People have a right to protest, and freedom of information is especially important at times like these," she said in an appeal for calm as one million people took to the streets.
The international criminal justice system now provides the tools to ensure that perpetrators are held to account, according to the former U.N. war crimes judge.
In a statement on Friday, ahead of visits this month to Israel, the occupied territories and Russia, she warned:
"We now see there is an intense hunger for human rights in the Middle East and North Africa -- and of course in other countries in other regions. Governments who ignore these extremely loud and clear warning signals are doing so at their own peril."

But as Rubinstein and Dershowitz point out, Tunisia and Egypt were in fact members of the UN Human Rights Council and under Pillay, the body repeatedly ignored and sustained human rights abuses in these countries:

In its reports, along with mild criticism, the commission complimented both regimes: Tunisia was praised for building “a legal and constitutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights,” and Egypt was lauded for initiatives “taken in recent years as regards human rights, in particular the creation of human rights divisions within the ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs.” (Reading these excerpts, one may be forgiven for thinking that the true demonstration should take place in Geneva, seat of the Human Rights Commission.

Only in the 25th paragraph of her 26-paragraph story does Nebehay offer a hint of the endemic bias underlying the activities of the Council (which has devoted one-third of its resolutions to condemning the only democracy in the Middle East) and the ideology driving that bias:

The 47-member forum is dominated by developing countries often backed by China, Cuba and Russia. Critics say the council unfairly focuses on Israel and its alleged violations.

Pillay, who succeeded Canadian Louise Arbour in September 2008, is the fifth High Commissioner since the post was set up in 1994. It is not yet clear whether the 69-year-old will seek a second four-year term or be nominated by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon.

Navi and the Council thank you for your vote of confidence, Stephanie.

Reuters provides platform for Jew-obsessed UNHRC; conflates Gaza with West Bank; misconstrues UN Covenants (again)

Fabricator Stephanie Nebehay of Reuters files a report on a statement by the (Zionism = Racism) UN Human Rights Committee insisting that Israel lift its naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and protect the rights of Palestinian Arabs living in the disputed territories under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Note first how Nebehay conflates the "West Bank" -- which may or may not be considered "occupied" under international law depending on whether one accepts the rights of Jews to settle in the territory as per the never-abrogated Mandate for Palestine -- with Gaza, which, by any definition, has not been occupied since Israel evacuated its communities and soldiers in 2005:

Israel maintains that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to the occupied West Bank and Gaza, although it says that the treaty does apply to Jewish settlers there, committee member Christine Chanet said.

Now, let's look at the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Article 1 of Part 1 states:

The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 2 of Part 2 of the Covenant states:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

As Gaza is governed by Hamas and not a part of Israel's territory, Israel is clearly correct that the country has no obligation to uphold the UN Covenant there.  (We won't comment on Chanet's reported silence on the question of whether Hamas is honoring the principles of the UN Covenant in Gaza).

As for the West Bank, those areas and peoples under Israeli administrative control, i.e., Jewish and Arab residents, do benefit from Israel's observance of the UN Covenant.  Those areas and peoples under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority as per the Oslo Accords are alternatively the responsibility of that Authority.  (Again, no comment apparently from Chanet on the PA's adherence to the principles of the UN Covenant).

Nebehay adds:

"In Israel's written responses to the committee, one could see a total discrimination in the sense that settlers benefited from the pact," she [Chanet] told a news briefing.

which makes perfect sense given the prescriptions of the Covenant.

UPDATE JULY 30, 12:28: Stephanie Nebehay makes a quick, undisclosed edit in her original story inserting this paragraph to follow the tripe we highlight above:

  There are no Israeli settlers in Gaza itself.

Thanks for the clarification, Stephanie.

Proven liars at Reuters double-down with more mendacious propaganda

Reuters correspondent Stephanie Nebehay, whom we last caught misrepresenting both the Geneva Conventions and a statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross, now turns to "U.N. human rights expert" Richard Falk to demonize Israel for razing 20 Palestinian homes in the Silwan community of Jerusalem and the possible expulsion of 4 Hamasniks.

Let's follow the agit-prop:

Israel's plan to demolish some 20 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is illegal and reflects its systematic bid to drive Palestinians out of the holy city, a U.N. human rights expert charged on Tuesday.

Here are the facts: Palestinian Arabs have built a number of homes in the area without permits.  As part of a plan to redevelop the community, the Jerusalem municipality has agreed to retroactively approve about 60 illegally built Palestinian dwellings and to provide land and permits to the 20 Palestinians whose homes will alternatively be razed.

And as we noted here, if Israel is engaged in a systematic effort to drive Palestinians out of Jerusalem, she's clearly doing a lousy job of it: the Palestinian Arab population has quadrupled since Israel liberated the city in 1967.

Continuing:

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, said its separate intent to forcibly transfer four Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to the West Bank could constitute a war crime.

We have to wade through 9 paragraphs of this muck before Nebehay finally gets around to disclosing that the four Palestinians are members of the terrorist group Hamas.  Uh-huh, a "war crime".  And by the way, Israel is considering waiving the expulsions if the Hamasniks sever their ties to the terror group.

But for Falk and Nebehay, this requirement also constitutes a war crime:

"Israel, as an occupying power, is prohibited from transferring civilian persons from East Jerusalem and is prohibited from forcing Palestinians to swear allegiance or otherwise affirm their loyalty to the State of Israel," he said.

Notice that no one has suggested anything about "forcing Palestinians to swear allegiance or otherwise affirm their loyalty to the State of Israel".  A red herring and a straw man in one sentence -- a record even for the UN.

In a bid to immunize herself and Falk from allegations of antisemitism due to consistently anti-Israel bias and coverage, Nebehay plays the race card:

Falk, who is Jewish, was detained and turned back from Israel while trying to carry out an official U.N. mission to Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem in Dec. 2008

Not to worry Stephanie, some of the Jewish state's most overwrought and mendacious critics are Jewish.

Reuters misconstrues Geneva Conventions (updated)

Reuters reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has issued a statement accusing both Israel and Hamas of violating the Geneva Conventions.  As of the time of this writing, the ICRC statement doesn't yet appear on its website but Reuters correspondent Stephanie Nebehay reports that the ICRC has decided for the first time:

Israel's blockade constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law embodied in the Geneva Conventions.

Nebehay goes on to assert:

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.

Nebehay is mistaken.  It is not the Fourth Geneva Convention but rather, Protocol II, a 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions, that specifically addresses the issue of collective punishment.  Neither Israel nor several other states (including the US) have ratified this additional Protocol.  Moreover:

Protocol II is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country. The scope of these laws is more limited than those of the rest of the Geneva Conventions out of respect for sovereign rights and duties of national governments.

In other words, even if Israel were a signatory, the Protocol wouldn't apply in the case of the conflict between Israel and Hamas as Gaza is not a part of Israel.

Nebehay's lede, "Israel's Gaza blockade breaks law, says ICRC", and the bulk of her story attempt to assign blame for Gaza's woes to Israel but in the last few paragraphs, we can glean who is ultimately responsible for problems like fuel shortages, power cuts, and a lack of medical supplies:

"The Palestinian authorities ... must do everything within their power to provide proper health care, supply electricity and maintain infrastructure for Gaza's people," it [the ICRC] added.
Fuel reserves in Gaza, vital for keeping hospital generators running during daily power cuts, keep drying up, it [the ICRC] said.
Stocks of essential medical supplies were at an all-time low because of a halt in cooperation between authorities in Ramallah, the Fatah-ruled West Bank, and Gaza, the agency said.

If Hamas didn't confiscate for military purposes half the fuel transferred to Gaza, perhaps reserves wouldn't keep drying up.  But then the ICRC and Reuters would be deprived of an easy scapegoat.

UPDATE JUNE 14, 2010: The statement from the ICRC (actually a news release) on Gaza has now been posted on its website and lo and behold, there's no accusation that Israel has violated Geneva Conventions to which it is a signatory; indeed, there's not a single mention of the Geneva Conventions!  Assuming this is the statement to which Nebehay refers -- the language is consistent with that cited in the Reuters story -- Nebehay has simply fabricated out of whole cloth, the allegation.  The calumnies continue.

UPDATE II JUNE 14, 2010: Reuters correspondent Jeffrey Heller, who has proven himself a serial liar, takes Nebehay's lead and repeats the canard.