Impartial Investigation At Its Finest

The United Nations, an utterly impartial referee in diplomatic disputes, as we learn from this article at the Al Jazeera website:

"The head of a UN inquiry into last summer's conflict between Israel and Gaza has said he will resign after Israeli allegations of bias due to consultancy work he did for the Palestine Liberation Organisation [PLO]... 

(Canadian academic William)  Schabas was appointed last August by the head of the UN Human Rights Council to lead a three-member group looking into alleged war crimes during Israel's military offensive against Gaza. 

Schabas' departure highlights the sensitivity of the UN investigation just weeks after prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague said they had started a preliminary inquiry into alleged atrocities in the Palestinian territories."

It does, of course not " highlight the sensitivity of the UN investigation;" it highlights what a rigged farce it is.  After reading this, and discovering that the UN appointed as the head of this investigation, a man who was a consultant for the PLO, can anyone wonder why Israel regards the UN as an extension of Arab policy with no intention of finding anyone but Israel guilty of all wrongdoing? And does anyone think his replacement will be any more an honest figure than he is, if the United Nations Human Rights Council saw fit to select him in the first place?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more