UN rejects request to remove Israeli organ stealing libel
Apparently, the United Nations Human Rights Council has no problem with the blood libel made against Israel that they remove the organs of Palestinian prisoners to sell on the black market.
A UNHRC document containing the outrageous charge has not been withdrawn and the Council refused to make any alterations, citing the false notion that the since the document was from a private group - "International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (EAFORD) - the UN had no jurisdiction.
In a letter to the Secretary General, UN Watch makes it clear they want action:
First, we address your office's reply. It justifies doing nothing about the text submitted by the "International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (EAFORD)-a group created in Libya and closely tied to Col. Kaddafi's regime-on grounds that the UN purportedly plays no screening role, simply publishing all submissions as received.That premise is demonstrably untrue.
Mr. Tistounet quotes from the footnote of the UN cover sheet affixed to NGO written statements, which indicates that the latter are "unedited." This quote, however, is selective, incomplete and misleading.
The same cover sheet indicates at the top that such statements are circulated "in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31." As your officers well know, Article 31 of that resolution requires them to engage in a process of "appropriate consultation" with the submitting organization, with the latter required to give "due consideration" to any "comments" that your officers may make "before transmitting the statement in final form."
In other words, contrary to the premise that forms the basis of Mr. Tistounet's decision, the rules say explicitly that your office does play a screening role.
Not only is this the official procedure, it is also standard practice. As already stated in our complaint, your office carefully screens all NGO submissions before deciding whether or not to publish them. Following are three examples.
Not that UN Watch is going to get through to anybody, but the effort must still be made to establish a record that should shame the United Nations for this unwarranted smear.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Don't Trust Me, I'm a Doctor
- China Doesn't Know What to Do With Trump
- The Trump Administration Is Cleaning Up Our Military Academies
- No to Automatic Birthright Citizenship
- President Trump Can Snatch a Deep-Water Port in South America that China Covets
- The FBI Knew All Along
- Sotomayor’s Specter: No, the Alien Enemies Act Can’t Deport Americans
- Democrats Trade Morality for Madness
- Bringing Immigration Policy into Focus
- Judicial Imperialism: The House of Boasberg and the Left’s War on Sovereignty
Blog Posts
- Remembering the great Mario Vargas Llosa -- RIP
- Harvard declares that it’s entitled to have taxpayer money subsidize its free speech
- Peace in our time...with Iran?
- A newly discovered Teotihuacan altar reminds us that our child sacrifice is worse than theirs was
- New study: ‘Liberals generally trust science more than conservatives’
- Bondi DOJ allegedly evading FOIA requests for Epstein documents
- Whoopi Goldberg calls for higher taxes to keep the government big and well fed
- Why is Bondi’s DOJ still prosecuting a pistol brace owner?
- ‘Perceived foes’
- The echoes of valor
- Junk science at NOAA about to come to an end
- Donald Trump, free trade champion
- Junk science and air pollution
- Securing the border
- DOGE removes a dead-ender fighting his own Fallujah at the Social Security Administration -- and the left melts down