FN og Israel
Kritik af Israel betyder ikke altid, at man er antisemit, men antisemitiske motivationer synes at være sammenhængende med boykotbevægelsen.
Hvis boykotbevægelsen, med dens påstande om Israels uretfærdige behandling af palæstinenserne, brugte en tiendedel af sin energi på menneskerettighedsbrud verden over, så ville det hele måske være lidt mere proportionelt. Denne gruppes besættelse af at boykotte og kritisere Israel alene, vækker min mistanke i forhold til de grunde, der ligger bag.
Ifølge undersøgelser, er der 49 lande, der har muslimsk flertal, 158 lande og områder, hvor kristne er i flertal, og ét land med jødisk flertal. Alligevel fordømmes Israel alt for tit, og almindelig sund fornuft peger på, at der ligger antisemitisme bag.Selv
FN-Generalforsamlingens igangværende 2014/2015-samling har gennemført 20 resolutioner i alt, hvor Israel kritiseres alene, og kun tre resolutioner mod hele resten af verden tilsammen. Dette er skandaløst, eftersom ikke en eneste resolution i Generalforsamlingen i år (69. samling) forventes at blive gennemført mod de voldsomme og systematiske overtrædelser, der dagligt udføres af Kina, Cuba, Egypten, Pakistan, Rusland, Saudi Arabien, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe og snesevis af lande, der overtræder menneskerettighederne.
Kritik af Israel betyder ikke altid, at man er antisemit, men når man ser på de ovenstående fakta, ser det faktisk lidt ud til at hænge sammen.
I februar 2013, blev palæstinenseren Arafat Jaradat fundet død i det israelske Megiddo fængsel, og dette resulterede i verdensomspændende harme i forhold til den formodede dødsårsag. Aktivister og politikere smed om sig med påstande om tortur og afhøring med døden til følge, uden nogen beviser, i deres iver for endnu en gang at kaste dårligt lys over Israel.
Jaradats død udløste omfattende fordømmelser, ikke bare fra palæstinensere, men også fra internationale menneskerettighedsorganisationer samt selveste FN, som krævede at der blev indledt en ‘undersøgelse’.
Dødsfald i palæstinensisk fængsel ignoreret
Blot seks dage efter Jaradats død, omkom endnu en tilbageholdt fange – denne gang i et palæstinensisk fængsel i Jericho.
Men da denne fange, 40-årige palæstinensiske Ayman Samara, døde i det Palæstinensiske Selvstyres varetægt, viste hverken FN eller de internationale medier den fjerneste interesse i sagen.
Mange Jerusalem-baserede vestlige journalister valgte fuldstændig at ignorere Samara-historien.
Nogle påstod endda at de havde for travlt til at dække den palæstinensiske mands dødsfald i Jericho fængslet; andre indrømmede at deres medaktører ganske enkelt ikke var interesserede i historien og kaldte det for en ‘intern palæstinensisk sag’.
Hvad gør FN
I et yderligere tegn på dobbeltmoral, udtrykte FN ikke noget som helst ønske om en international, uafhængig undersøgelse af dødsfaldet i Jericho fængslet. Det samme gælder for de internationale menneskerettighedsorganisationer, hvis repræsentanter reagerede totalt modsat på Jaradat, der var i israelsk varetægt.
Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre har endda aktivt forhindret palæstinensiske journalister i at dække Samaras mystiske dødsfald. Én palæstinensisk journalist, som blev taget i at interviewe folk udenfor Jericho fængslet blev endda tilbageholdt i flere timer af palæstinensiske sikkerhedsfolk.
Det er ikke overraskende at det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre har forsøgt at forhindre medierne i at dække over et dødsfald i et af dets fængsler. Det overraskende er, at FN, de internationale medier og menneskerettighedsorganisationer er villige til at være medskyldige i dette, ved at forhindre omverdenen i at høre om, hvad der finder sted i palæstinensiske fængsler på Vestbredden.
Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre er naturligvis pinligt berørt over Samara-historien, især når USAs præsident Barack Obama står til at skulle komme på besøg i næste uge. Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyres ledelse vil gerne have at Obama og resten af verden tror at der ikke er brud på menneskerettigheder i palæstinensiske fængsler, og at de eneste ‘skurke’ er israelerne.
Endnu en gang er det blevet bevist, at en historie der sætter det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre i dårligt lys, ikke har en chance for at komme frem i de internationale medier, selv om der er et hav af eksempler på at det bryder menneskerettighederne.
Samtidig står det klart, at en historie, der reflekterer negativt på Israel, altid vil blive budt velkommen af repræsentanter fra de internationale medier og menneskerettighedsorganisationer samt FN.
Israel er et retssamfund
I Israel, som er det eneste fuldt ud demokratiske retssamfund i regionen, kan man være sikker på at et dødsfald i et israelsk fængsel vil blive undersøgt til fulde. Til gengæld er der kun skuldertræk at finde når det samme sker i et palæstinensisk fængsel. Alle er ligeglade.
Alligevel rammes kun Israel af kritikken fra kredse, der hævder at værne om retssikkerhed og beskyttelse af individet. Det er dobbeltmoral, når den er værst.
It’s a pleasure to see the General Assembly presided by the Ambassador from Israel, and it’s good to see all of you, distinguished delegates.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear.
Throughout our history, the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who have sought our destruction. It’s their ideologies that have been discarded by history.
The people of Israel live on. We say in Hebrew Am Yisrael Chai, and the Jewish state will live forever.
The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages. The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland.
Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home.
We will never be uprooted again.
Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year.
Every year, for over three millennia, we have come together on this day of reflection and atonement. We take stock of our past. We pray for our future. We remember the sorrows of our persecution; we remember the great travails of our dispersion; we mourn the extermination of a third of our people, six million, in the Holocaust.
But at the end of Yom Kippur, we celebrate.
We celebrate the rebirth of Israel. We celebrate the heroism of our young men and women who have defended our people with the indomitable courage of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees of old. We celebrate the marvel of the flourishing modern Jewish state.
In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we blaze new trails in science, technology, medicine, agriculture.
In Israel, the past and the future find common ground.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in many other countries. For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval.
The forces of modernity seek a bright future in which the rights of all are protected, in which an ever-expanding digital library is available in the palm of every child, in which every life is sacred.
The forces of medievalism seek a world in which women and minorities are subjugated, in which knowledge is suppressed, in which not life but death is glorified.
These forces clash around the globe, but nowhere more starkly than in the Middle East.
Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the rights of all our citizens: men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians – all are equal before the law.
Israel is also making the world a better place: our scientists win Nobel Prizes. Our know-how is in every cell-phone and computer that you’re using. We prevent hunger by irrigating arid lands in Africa and Asia.
Recently, I was deeply moved when I visited Technion, one of our technological institutes in Haifa, and I saw a man paralyzed from the waist down climb up a flight of stairs, quite easily, with the aid of an Israeli invention.
And Israel’s exceptional creativity is matched by our people’s remarkable compassion. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world – in Haiti, Japan, India, Turkey, Indonesia and elsewhere – Israeli doctors are among the first on the scene, performing life-saving surgeries.
In the past year, I lost both my father and my father-in-law. In the same hospital wards where they were treated, Israeli doctors were treating Palestinian Arabs. In fact, every year, thousands of Arabs from the Palestinian territories and Arabs from throughout the Middle East come to Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors.
I know you’re not going to hear that from speakers around this podium, but that’s the truth. It’s important that you are aware of this truth.
It’s because Israel cherishes life, that Israel cherishes peace and seeks peace.
We seek to preserve our historic ties and our historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We seek to forge a durable peace with the Palestinians.
President Abbas just spoke here.
I say to him and I say to you:
We won’t solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the UN. That’s not the way to solve it. We won’t solve our conflict with unilateral declarations of statehood.
We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.
Israel wants to see a Middle East of progress and peace. We want to see the three great religions that sprang forth from our region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – coexist in peace and in mutual respect.
Yet the medieval forces of radical Islam, whom you just saw storming the American embassies throughout the Middle East, they oppose this.
They seek supremacy over all Muslims. They are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world.
Militant Islam has many branches – from the rulers of Iran with their Revolutionary Guards to al Qaeda terrorists to the radical cells lurking in every part of the globe.
But despite their differences, they are all rooted in the same bitter soil of intolerance. That intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular people, anyone who doesn’t submit to their unforgiving creed.
They want to drag humanity back to an age of unquestioning dogma and unrelenting conflict.
I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness.
We’ve seen that happen before.
Some five hundred years ago, the printing press helped pry a cloistered Europe out of a dark age. Eventually, ignorance gave way to enlightenment.
So too, a cloistered Middle East will eventually yield to the irresistible power of freedom and technology. When this happens, our region will be guided not by fanaticism and conspiracy, but by reason and curiosity.
I think the relevant question is this: it’s not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It’s how many lives will be lost before it’s defeated.
We’ve seen that happen before too.
Some 70 years ago, the world saw another fanatic ideology bent on world conquest. It went down in flames. But not before it took millions of people with it. Those who opposed that fanaticism waited too long to act. In the end they triumphed, but at an horrific cost.
My friends, we cannot let that happen again.
At stake is not merely the future of my own country. At stake is the future of the world. Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.
To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda.
It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world’s most dangerous terrorist regime or the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. They’re both fired by the same hatred; they’re both driven by the same lust for violence.
Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons.
In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.
They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They’ve turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.
In the last year, they’ve spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They’ve even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.
And of course, Iran’s rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel’s destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.
So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs.
Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?
There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union.
That’s a very dangerous assumption.
Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.
Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival.
But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.
There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.
Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.
That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.
Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote: “The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world.”
Rafsanjani said: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
And that’s coming from one of the so-called moderates of Iran.
Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East.
That’s like saying a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda would usher in an era of universal peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I’ve been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years.
I spoke about it in my first term in office as Prime Minister, and then I spoke about it when I left office. I spoke about it when it was fashionable, and I spoke about it when it wasn’t fashionable.
I speak about it now because the hour is getting late, very late. I speak about it now because the Iranian nuclear calendar doesn’t take time out for anyone or for anything. I speak about it now because when it comes to the survival of my country, it’s not only my right to speak; it’s my duty to speak. And I believe that this is the duty of every responsible leader who wants to preserve world peace.
For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.
That hasn’t worked.
Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.
For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.
I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It’s had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard.
It’s had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program either.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.
At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That’s by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Red lines don’t lead to war; red lines prevent war.
Look at NATO’s charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all. NATO’s red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.
President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.
In fact, it’s the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression.
If the Western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided.
In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.
Clear red lines have also worked with Iran.
Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off.
Red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium. Now let me explain why:
Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it.
The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder.
In the case of Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator.
For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.
For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable.
In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months.
The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That’s a country that’s bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.
The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won’t find that facility either.
So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.
So, how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it?
Let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here’s the diagram.
This is a bomb; this is a fuse.
In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.
The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.
The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.
And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.
Where’s Iran? Iran’s completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they’re 70% of the way there.
Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.
From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
What I told you now is not based on secret information. It’s not based on military intelligence. It’s based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They’re online.
So if these are the facts, and they are, where should the red line be drawn?
The red line should be drawn right here…
Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.
Before Iran gets to a point where it’s a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.
Each day, that point is getting closer. That’s why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that’s why everyone should have a sense of urgency.
Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead.
Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They’ve foiled many attacks. They’ve saved many lives.
But they are not foolproof.
For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn’t know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.
Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.
The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.
I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.
This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.
Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained.
I very much appreciate the President’s position as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel. It unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world.
What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved.
Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition.
The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.
At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights.
We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them.
We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace.
These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people’s greatest gift to mankind.
Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.
af: Geoffrey Cain, Formand for Raoul Wallenburg Forening
I FNs øjne er alle lande lige, dog med det lille forbehold, at nogle lande er mere lige end andre. Allermest lige er de 56 muslimske lande, der v.h.a. deres olieafhængige klientstater får FN til at vedtage den ene resolution efter den anden mod Israel.
“Hvorfor kan Israel ikke blive medlem af FN’s sikkerhedsråd og FN’s menneskeretskommission, når diktatur- og terrorstaterne Libyen, Sudan, Syrien og Cuba kan?” spurgte professor Bent Jensen engang i Jyllands-Posten, og det spørgsmål vil FN nok have svært ved at finde et ærligt svar på. Og det er heller ikke nødvendigt for FN at komme med en forklaring af den enkle grund, at ingen spørger. Så alt fortsætter som hidtil med én målestok for Israel og en anden for dets fjender.
Et andet misforhold som FN også ville have svært ved at give en rationel begrundelse for (såfremt nogen spurgte), er hvorfor palæstinenserne får en særbehandling, som får alle grupper i samme situation til at misunde dem: nemlig hjemvendelsesretten. Det vender vi tilbage til om lidt, men lad os først kigge på en anden og ret afgørende favorisering nemlig FNs påstand om, at Gaza og Vestbredden er “besatte områder”. Hvorfor er de det? Nøgternt set er Gaza og Vestbredden ikke mere besatte end den halve million kvadratkilometer Sovjetunionen erobrede under Anden Verdenskrig (og som Rusland nu har arvet), men FN har uden at blinke besluttet, at disse områder er en del af Rusland. Så de er ikke besat. Men hvorfor er de ikke det, når Vestbredden og Gaza er?
Godt spørgsmål ikke sandt? For her igen er der en himmelråbende forskelsbehandling, der tydeligt træder frem, når man sammenligner Sovjetunionens fremfærd i 1945 med Israels i 1948. I begge tilfælde var der krig med en efterfølgende flygtningestrøm, som for arabernes vedkommende nu tæller fire millioner. Dette skal ses på baggrund af, at Sovjetunionen i 1944-5 fordrev mindst 12 millioner, tyskere, polakker og finner. Og det er blevet til…ja netop: Nul flygtninge, fordi alle er blevet optaget og integreret, i de lande de flygtede til. Men det er ikke sket med araberne. Hvorfor? Svaret finder man hos en FN organisation, UNRWA, der selvom den spiller en nøgle rolle i konflikten, er næsten ukendt for fleste. Og ironisk nok fordi det er netop denne organisation, der holder heksekedlen i Mellemøsten i kog.
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) blev oprettet i 194-9 og var tænkt som en temporær foranstaltning til gavn for arabiske flygtninge. Men det består endnu, og i stedet for at at få de flygtede arabere integrerede i andre arabiske lande kultiverer UNRWA dem som martyrer med ganske særlig status.
Palæstinenserne har nemlig fået rettigheder, ingen anden flygtningegruppe har, og derfor vokser deres antal, mens alle andre flygtninge grupper efterhånden bliver mindre og mindre p.g.a. naturlig afgang og assimilation. På samme måde har ingen anden flygtningegruppe en “right of return” (hjemvendelsesret) udover palæstinenserne. Der er absolut ingen”right of return” for de ovennævnte tyskere, finner og polakker, og heller ingen for de millioner af hinduer, der måtte flygte til Indien da Pakistan blev til i 1947 et halvt år før Israels oprettelse). .
Kun én gruppe flygtninge i verden har fået blåstemplet deres ret til tilbagevenden, og det er palæstinenserne.
“Hvornår fjernes det særlige arabiske privilegium, som gør flygtninge fra 1947-1948 til permanente flygtninge, mens alle andre flygtninge fra alle andre af denne syndige jords konflikter integreres for at få et normalt liv?” spurgte Bent Jensen, og her igen er han inde på noget, som medier af uransagelige grunde altid undlader at fortælle os. Men hvorfor? Er de lige så interesseret i at forlænge krisen som UNRWA tydeligvis er det?
Hundrede tusinder af palæstinensere og deres efterkommere har nu jordansk statsborgerskab, men UNRWA betragter dem stadig som flygtninge. Og det samme gælder palæstinenserne i Libanon, der selv efter næsten 60 års ophold ikke kan få libanesisk statsborgerskab, ikke må eget ejendom og ikke må arbejde i en hel række professioner. Men i stedet for at anbringe de oprindelige flygtninges børn, børnebørn, oldebørn og tipoldebørn i det libanesiske samfund, holder UNRWA dem i usle lejre, langt væk fra andre borgere i det land de er født i, så det nedarvede had kan holdes i kog.
Situationen, der er grotesk nok i forvejen, bliver forværret af, at UNRWA og de mennesker, den skal administrere, nu er filtret ind i hinanden på en ganske uoverskuelig måde. “De fleste UNRWA-ansatte er selv flygtninge” har organisationen stolt forkyndt på sin hjemmeside, og det billede lader vi stå et øjeblik for bedre at kapere, hvad det indebærer.
De fleste UNRWA-ansatte er altså selv palæstinensere, og i oktober 2004 indrømmede UNRWA kommissær, dansk cand. scient. pol. professor Peter Hansen, for første gang, at han havde Hamas-medlemmer på sin lønningsliste – og ildevarslende nok især i undervisnings-sektoren. Men det mente han ikke, var noget problem, fordi “ikke alle Hamas folk er militante”. Så samarbejdet fortsætte, og det er bestemt ikke uskyldigt.
Et godt eksempel er en vis Awad al-Qiq der var ansat som kemi- og fysiklærer på en UNRWA skole. Efter mange års ansættelse blev han forfremmet til leder af Rafah drengeskole, altså ikke en uvigtig stilling. Ved siden af sin lærergerning var al-Qiq en førende bombemager for Islamisk Jihad, og han blev dræbt under en inspektionsrunde på en bombefabrik ikke langt fra skolen. D.v.s. han byggede bomber mod Israels civile befolkning samtidig med, at han indoktrinerede sine elever til at gøre det samme. Islamisk Jihad behøvede ikke at betale ham for det, det gjorde FN via UNRWA.
Så Israel har ikke blot Hamas og det meste af den muslimske verden imod sig, landet har også en skjult og mægtig fjende i FN, der jævnligt himler op om Israels påståede brutalitet. Det faktum at Hamas bevidst affyrer skud fra skoler, hospitaler og moskéer i håb om at Israels svar vil ramme civile, bliver sjældent nævnt. Men denne tavshed har verden det åbenbart bedst med.
Formand for Raoul Wallenberg Foreningen
Human Rights NightmareSpeech before UN Human Rights Council 4th Session
23 March 2007Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch
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 against Israel 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.