UN monitor on Palestinian territories quits over lack of access

.
View photo

Indonesian diplomat Makarim Wibisono was appointed as the UN monitor for the Palestinian territories in June 2014 (AFP Photo/Stan Honda)

Geneva (AFP) - The UN expert on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories resigned Monday, complaining that Israel had never granted him access to the areas he is meant to monitor.

"The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Makarim Wibisono, today submitted his resignation to the President of the Human Rights Council, effective as of 31 March 2016," a UN statement said.

Wibisono, who took up the independent expert in June 2014, "expressed deep regret that, throughout his mandate, Israel failed to grant him access to the Occupied Palestinian Territory," it said.

"Unfortunately, my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way," Wibisono said in the statement.

The Indonesian diplomat said he had been assured before taking up the position that he would have access to the occupied Palestinian territories.

"I took up this mandate with the understanding that Israel would grant me access, as an impartial and objective observer," he said.

But he said repeated requests for access were unsuccessful.

"With no reply from Israel to my latest request, in October 2015, to have access by the end of 2015, it is with deep regret that I accept the premise upon which I took up the mandate, which is to have direct access to the victims in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, will not be fulfilled," he said.

By contrast, the Palestinian government had "cooperated fully" with his mandate.


- A reluctant departure -

Israel has long had stormy relations with the UNHRC, which it accuses of having a built-in bias against the Jewish state.

Wibisono took over from American professor Richard Falk, who repeatedly locked horns with Israel, Washington and others over his harsh criticism of the Jewish state, which included a call to boycott companies profiting from its settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Indonesian diplomat has proven less controversial, although he harshly criticised the deadly 2014 Gaza war, warning the "ferocity of destruction and high proportion of civilian lives lost in Gaza cast serious doubts over Israel's adherence to international humanitarian law."

And in November, Wibisono accused the Israeli security forces of using excessive force against the Palestinian and may have carried out summary executions as they sought to crack down on a wave of lone-wolf attacks with knives, guns and cars.

In Monday's statement, he voiced deep concern over the lack of protection for Palestinians who face an ongoing range of human rights violations.

"I reluctantly wish to pass the baton to a successor, selected by the Human Rights Council," Wibisono said.
"It is my sincere hope that whoever succeeds me will manage to resolve the current impasse, and so reassure the Palestinian people that after nearly half a century of occupation the world has not forgotten their plight and that universal human rights are indeed universal," he added.

He stressed that it was important for Israel's own human rights credibility to cooperate with the mandate and to provide access to the Palestinian territories.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-monitor-palestinian-territories-quits-over-lack-access-115304940.html


Desperate for the world not to see their crimes.

All you need to read to understand he is not fit for purpose is when he makes unfounded claims.


The Indonesian diplomat has proven less controversial, although he harshly criticised the deadly 2014 Gaza war, warning the "ferocity of destruction and high proportion of civilian lives lost in Gaza cast serious doubts over Israel's adherence to international humanitarian law."

And in November, Wibisono accused the Israeli security forces of using excessive force against the Palestinian and may have carried out summary executions as they sought to crack down on a wave of lone-wolf attacks with knives, guns and cars.

To back this up further you need only understand the following:

The intellectual dishonesty of the "progressive" NIF

Earlier today, I published here the JINSA-sponsored report "2014 Gaza War Assessment" which showed in detail where anti-Israel NGOs are wrong in their interpretations of the Laws of Armed Conflict when they damned Israel for Operation Cast Lead.

Naomi Paiss, self described "Pro-Israel progressive VP New Israel Fund," sided with the anti-Israel NGOs and tried to say that the report was ipso facto inaccurate based purely on who sponsored it:

@ngomonitor @KenRoth from an org so captive to Israel interests it makes AIPAC look objective? LOL.
— Naomi Paiss (@NaomiPaiss) March 10, 2015

I answered her:

Can @NaomiPaiss or @KenRoth find a single mistake in report's def of LOAC? Didn't think so. @ngomonitor @JessicaMontell @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

OK, @NaomiPaiss, JINSA is biased. So are you. Now tell me where the report is wrong. #intellectaldishonesty @ngomonitor @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

I fisk reports critical of Israel for breakfast.Surely @NaomiPaiss with your resources can find one major error? @ngomonitor @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

I received no response.

We won't see any substantial critique of the report that exonerated Israeli actions in Gaza, written by military experts who are sorely lacking from NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The reason is that they know that they are wrong. They know that they cannot argue with these generals on the topic of international law or the law of armed conflict, because they would lose. They know that if they would be intellectually honest they would have to drop their entire anti-Israel positions, which is the source for much of their funding.

I'm sure that Paiss didn't even read the report before dismissing it out of hand. Because she is not pro-Israel nor is she pro-truth. She reflexively chose to support those whose anti-Israel bias is proven and palpable.

So these esteemed NGOs, and purported "pro-Israel" organizations like the NIF, will continue to ignore the report for as long as they can, hoping it gets no traction.  And if there is enough pressure, they will find someone to nitpick about a minor part of the report and the entire crowd will point to that as a "rebuttal." They'll say things like "But look at all the houses destroyed!" as if that point isn't discussed in the general's report.

They'll resort to sarcasm and deflection and misdirection. But none of them will honestly take on the challenge of answering the report itself.

Because Israel's critics aren't intellectually honest. And Naomi Paiss' tweets prove it.

But I am more than willing to be proven wrong if someone is willing to write a real critique of the JINSA report.