Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Bill Avent: "Criticism of Israel is not so much centred in what it does in its own backyard. It is more about what it does in other people's backyards. China, Russia, Zimbabwe and the rest are not doing so much in other people's backyards, are they?"

The stated purpose of the UN Human Rights Commission is "to address human rights violations" on the grounds that "human rights are inherent to all and the concern of the whole of the international community."

There's no mention in the UN Human Rights Charter of "other people's backyards", but specifically "the whole of the international community."

Not  "to address human rights violations at least 60 per cent of the time in Israel's case to the exclusion of countries like Zimbabwe, China, Sudan and Iran", which is what the UN HRC is doing now.

Not  "to address human rights violations at least 60 per cent of the time in Israel's case to the exclusion of very countries chairing the Human Rights Commission notwithstanding their own pathetic record of human rights abuse".

Not  "to address human rights violations at least 60 per cent of the time in Israel's case to provide propaganda fodder for raving marxisant lunatics and neo-nazi stooges throughout the land", as is presently the case.

Plainly, Israel is not responsible for 60 per cent of the human rights violations of "the whole of the international community" except in the constant, hysterical propaganda of the anti-Jewish lobby.

Take China, which apart from being a grotesque human rights abuser in its own backyard, also violates human rights on a massive scale in other people's backyards - for example Tibet.

And Sudan.

It is plain to the whole world, outside the countries whose strict media controls prevent their populations ever hearing about it and who by and large have utterly corrupted the United Nations, that the UNHRC's laughable record on Israel is one of blatant Jew baiting and diversionary propaganda.

Isn't it?

The UN Human Rights Council has now passed 60 per cent of its resolutions on Israel alone and nothing on China and Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia.

Here's why...

"Israel's a diversionary tactic. If the human rights abusers who are on the council: Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Russia are dictating human rights policy. The best way of preventing criticism of one's own backyard is to divert attention.

And that's how Israel is being used. Does it mean that Israel has no human rights problems? Obviously not, but it's not 60 per cent of the world's problems. When a billion people in China are ignored and the people of Zimbabwe are ignored altogether."

- Professor Anne Bayefsky, human rights scholar, 11 July 2008

Jew baiting. A tried and tested method, really.

Pictures from a MugMansion. The accompanying article is also worth a read.

... and thinks for themselves?

Ian MacDougall, you certainly do find some interesting "bloggers" to link to. Have a look at his own links. "By their links ye shall know them".

Hardly a place to find unbiased informed judgment or commentary. Just link straight to Tim Blair, that champion of human rights, next – or better still – Rio Tinto's press releases. Heck, didn’t they get kicked out of Zimbabwe a little while back? Shucks, all that resource revenue.

And that GM seed "donated” (hard to sell the stuff at times) asked to be milled so as not to compromise Zimbabwe's GM free status markets? Ouch. And the funding of the MDC? And the reason the government cannot distribute the food aid is what? Oh, people might back those feeding them, grateful for food. Is this a problem for people to back their own government or is there an issue here about NGOs wanting to influence backing and who gets food as well? Can’t the MDC give out the food their backers have ordered in? And that can’t be called the other way? Would we here be happy for aid to be distributed to aboriginals if it came from Libya, say? As a loan, say? Even if the money would do great good?

And if there is a need for food why not lift the embargo on oil so Zimbabwe can harvest and plant? And if the embargo is for fraudulent elections then why isn't Musharif under embargo, or even George Bush? If it for violence, what about the Kenyan elections, racked with violence that was found to be instigated by the Government, yet ... that was the stooge, wasn't it? As they used to say about Saddam, "He's a right bastard, but he's our bastard".

Again and again we see, but we do not think.

Here is a slightly more balanced local view from May 2008:

"Having won a majority, the MDC has not spent much time contesting the legitimacy of the parliamentary results. If they are considered to be a true reflection of the electoral will, it is astonishing that the ruling ZANU-PF did as well as it did, winning almost half of the popular vote and the number of parliamentary seats. With the rate of inflation said to be close to 200,000% and virtually every other economic index being strongly negative, one would have expected the ruling party to have been electorally wiped out.

"Herein lie some of the nuances of the Zimbabwean crisis that much of the media we are exposed to is either oblivious of or simply not interested in relating. Mugabe has increasingly become repressive, he has been a brilliant ideologue but a very poor manager and he has simply stayed in power longer than was advisable for his own legacy. But his broad message of an unapologetic, assertively expressed desire for African empowerment retains its appeal and has led to a sea change in how black Zimbabweans think about what their independence should mean.

"To say many and probably most Zimbabweans want Mugabe to step aside is not the same as saying his ideas have been largely rejected by them. For example, most would want his flawed land reform effort to be fixed to work, not for it to be reversed. The MDC was slow to understand this and other nuances of Mugabe’s complex legacy, losing it precious early time and support in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. Now the opposition party is careful to say it would not return land to its previous white occupiers, but would make sure it was productively used by the new black landholders. It remains to be seen if the MDC’s Western backers understand these nuances and would it to negotiate the minefield of balancing the need for reviving the economy with the political imperative of a strong desire for African empowerment that will remain one of Mugabe’s strongest legacies despite his failure to translate that desire into concrete, practical reality."

And earlier in the article is an important message:

"The desire to hold on to power and privilege, and fear of prosecution for past crimes are the usually discussed reasons for Mugabe and ZANU-PF conducting themselves with so little dignity in the face of evidence of an electorate earthquake of rejection against them. But genuine revulsion at what Tsvangirai and the MDC are perceived to represent is no doubt also part of the intransigence of Mugabe & Company in conceding defeat.

There is a self-serving element to Mugabe’s painting of the MDC as stooges of the West who are bent on reversing the efforts to have Zimbabwe’s political independence also have economic teeth for its citizens. Yet Tsvangirai and the MDC have ineptly only fuelled these suspicions in their words and deeds over the years. Mugabe and ZANU-PF in turn have largely failed to convince a majority of Zimbabweans that the claimed slavishness of the MDC to their Western backers is the reason their country is in such poor shape. Mugabe & Co. may genuinely worry that Tsvangirai and the MDC wish to “sell out” the country to the West and “reverse the gains of the revolution” by restoring the economic dominance of whites in commercial agriculture and other sectors of the economy."

Gee really?? Tell me again where the millions for the NGOs like the "Democratic" ones come from?? Charity, heck just great guys.

Wonder if John Rendon has this contract? Seems a bit his style and no doubt soon we shall have babies thrown out of incubators. Fooled us once and can just keep on doing it.

Cheers

Well, obviously things are greatly improved in Zimbabwe's public service since the last election.

Notice for example how quickly the Electoral Commission was able to tally the results this time.

"I do not think that the UN can last much longer if all it does in the face of imminent crimes against humanity is wring its hands."

Indeed, and the UNSC's determination this week, that rape as a weapon of war is a threat to peace and security, is equally worthless if it remains just so much hand wringing.

One wonders what's the plan for remedy or even intervention in, for (glaring) instance, Darfur?

Ian MacDougall, Steven Smith should take himself off to Zimbabwe and apply the Labor Blowtorch to  Mugabe, just look what Rudd's boys did to OPEC, shook theJapanese up at the Whaling Fiasco (wasn't Garrett great) and Rudd himself when he set the Japanese Prime Minister straight.

Anybody worked out what the carbon footprint of the Labor Blowtorch is?.

"We do not want armed conflict, but the people of Zimbabwe need the words of indignation from global leaders to be backed by the moral rectitude of military force. Such a force would be in the role of peacekeepers, not trouble-makers. They would separate the people from their oppressors and cast the protective shield around the democratic process for which Zimbabwe yearns."

On another thread yesterday ( http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2373#comment-80313 ) I posted a comment that, as chance would have it, foreshadowed this.

Australia's Foreign Minister, Steven Smith hopes Mugabe will bow to diplomatic pressure from other African states. That is always possible, as are aerobatic manoevres by airborne sows, piglets and boars; and about as probable.