According to John Dugard, The UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur for Palestine. There are two types of Terrorism, “Understandable Terrorism” defined as Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and bad terrorism (all the rest). His exact words were,

A distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation.

Durgard, will do anything possible to fight the existence of Israel in the name of the United Nations (Source of below Eye on UN), some of his favorite attacks include:

  • on Gaza after Israel left: “it is wrong to suggest that the occupation has ended.”
  • Israel assassinates civilians: “the targeted assassination of militants (and innocent bystanders)”
  • Israel and ethnic-cleansing: the “zone is gradually being “cleansed” of Palestinians, where land will in due course be transferred to land-greedy settlers.”
  • Israel and apartheid South Africa: “…will effectively divide Palestinian territory into…Bantustans”
  • the racist Jew: “Obscene, racist graffiti (for example, “Gas the Arabs”) adorns the walls” (have been in Israel and have never seen it, but have seen Kill the Jews in the West Bank)
  • the Jewish problem: “Words cannot convey the hardships to which Palestinians are subjected in the interests of the Judaization of Jerusalem.” (sorry Johnny-boy, GOD Judaized Jerusalem)
  • the one-state solution: “Interlocutors [have] warned the Special Rapporteur that with the two State solution becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, consideration should be given to the establishment of a binational State.” – (whereupon Dugard suggests the reader refer to a book entitled “The One State Solution”)
  • the Israeli checkpoint without a purpose (after 5 wars launched by Israel’s neighbours and years of terrorism originating in the territories): “It is difficult to overestimate the harm done to Israeli Palestinian relations by checkpoints. They are arbitrary, humiliating and intimidating. They are the primary cause of poverty and economic depression in the West Bank. And they are installed not for the security of Israel itself but to protect the hated settlers on Palestinian territory.”
  • the wildly inflammatory claim (without a single example or source): “Palestinian women are…subjected to sexual violence by both soldiers and settlers.”
  • disregard of the Security Council and the Quartet: “the Security Council and the United Nations as a participant in the Quartet are engaged in a strategy of political appeasement, in which respect for human rights, international humanitarian law and the rule of law have less importance.”

A few months ago this Bigot presented his bosses at the UN a report on the Middle East, the only mention of terrorism the justification of Palestinian terrorist acts, now its time for the UN to discuss the report:

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

UN to Debate Report Condoning Some Terrorism Bracing for Dugard By MALVINA HALBERSTAM June 6, 2008 Later this month the United Nations’s Council on Human Rights will consider a report issued by the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, John Dugard. The report condones acts of terrorism against Israel, in clear contravention of resolutions by the Security Council, the General Assembly, and a report by then U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, that acts of terrorism are criminal wherever and by whoever commits them, regardless of motivation. The report issued by the Special Rapporteur states:

  • A distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation.
  • Such acts cannot be justified … they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation.
  • Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context. This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue …
  • Israel must address the occupation and the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law it engenders, and not invoke the justification of terrorism as a distraction, as a pretext for failure to confront the root cause of Palestinian violence ? the occupation.

The rest of the report, strongly critical of various actions taken by Israel, makes no reference to the fact that these actions were taken in response to terrorist attacks against Israel and, in Israel’s view, were necessary to protect its citizens from future attacks. For a number of years the U.N.’s position on terrorism was ambiguous. Resolutions of the General Assembly condemning acts of terrorism included a paragraph reaffirming the rights of peoples fighting for self determination, arguably suggesting ? though never explicitly stating ? that terrorism in support of self determination was not prohibited. But, for almost two decades now, the U.N.’s condemnation of terrorism has been unequivocal. The General Assembly, the Security Council, as well as Mr. Annan, have all condemned terrorism regardless of its motivation. The General Assembly adopted a series of resolutions between 1985 and 1993 that condemned terrorist acts “wherever and by whomever” committed. Though the earlier resolutions included a paragraph reaffirming the right to self-determination, the 1993 resolution, titled Human Rights and Terrorism, and those adopted thereafter, did not. In 1994, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. This declaration says, “the States members of the United Nations solemnly reaffirm their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed.” The declaration further says that such acts are “in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” The Security Council also has adopted a number of resolutions condemning terrorism in general, in addition to its condemnation of specific instances of terrorism. Security Council Resolution 1269, adopted in 1999, “unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable.” Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted on September 28, 2001, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon reaffirms that “any act of international terrorism [constitutes] a threat to international peace and security” and requires all states to “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and [to] ensure that … such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts.” In 2004, Mr. Annan wrote “there is nothing in the facts of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.” In Mr. Annan’s 2006 report to the General Assembly, “Uniting Against Terrorism: recommendations for a counter-terrorism strategy,” he wrote, “The United Nations should project a clear, principled and immutable message that terrorism is unacceptable. Terrorists must never be allowed to create a pretext for their actions.” In view of this clear and emphatic condemnation of all acts of terrorism the Special Rapporteur’s acceptance of Arab terrorism against innocent civilians of Israel as an “inevitable consequence of occupation,” his characterization of Israel’s attempt to stop such attacks as a ” distraction,” and a ” pretext,” and his warning that until the “occupation” is brought to an end “violence will continue,” are shocking. The report should be rejected by the Council on Human Rights. Unfortunately, given the composition and history of that body, that is not likely. But, Mr. Ban, outgoing U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, and all those who understand that the attacks on Israel are not just a “distraction” and a “pretext” should speak out against the report. Ms. Halberstam, a professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, formerly served as Counselor on International Law in the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Advisor.