A universe of beauty, mystery and wonder

A universe of beauty, mystery and wonder

Friday, February 6, 2015

UNITED NATIONS CAUGHT IN CORRUPTION AGAIN - War crimes Investigator was taking money from Arab terrorist organization PLO

daily life© Unauthorized duplication of this blog's material is prohibited.   Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full credit and link is given to Otters and Science News Blogspot.  Link to this post: - Thank you for visiting my blog.
By Anne Bayefsky

Four days ago, on February 2, the head of a U.N. commission of inquiry created to investigate war crimes in Gaza was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had taken money from the PLO for providing legal advice.
William Schabas’s U.N. job was to expose war criminals and recommend how to hold them “accountable.”
William Schabas’s PLO job was to show them how to use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to hold Israeli war criminals accountable. He didn’t think there was a problem.
His conflict of interest did not surface, however, until after the inquiry he was heading had “largely completed” its evidence-gathering, and the writing of the requisite report had begun, according to Schabas himself.
But instead of taking the only legitimate route and setting aside the whole tainted exercise, the president of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Joachim Rücker of Germany, claimed he was “preserving the integrity” of the inquiry simply by accepting Schabas’s resignation.
Recently resigned UNHRC war crimes panel head William Schabas - Not a good Schabas
William Schabas
The council — the U.N.’s top human-rights body — had voted to create the Schabas inquiry in the middle of the Gaza War last July. Palestinians garnered support from council members and human-rights authorities like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
The United States and the members of the European Union either voted against or abstained. A majority of the states that have seats on the council are not “fully free” (on the Freedom House scale).
The idea of the inquiry was to open a second front in the war, conducted by international lawyers, to tie the hands of Israeli decision-makers — political and military — behind their backs.
Hence, the Schabas inquiry’s mandate was to examine human-rights violations “in the occupied Palestinian territory,” not “in Israel.”
Continue reading, see additional article exposing Schabas' lies on UN application form, and a previous column by Anne Bayefsky denouncing the United Nations as the leading purveyor of anti-Semitism in the world.

The date cited for the beginning of the inquiry was June 13, 2014, because Palestinian terrorists had kidnapped (and later murdered) three Israeli teenagers the day before — and Israeli aggression was a given of the investigation.
The mandate never mentioned “Hamas” or its terror tunnels, almost half of which opened into Israel.
With the terms of the “inquiry” set to ensure the desired outcome, Schabas and two others became the council’s tools. They were selected by President Rücker “in consultation” with the Palestinians in the belief that they could be counted upon to deliver a guilty verdict.
Little wonder, then, that Schabas was miffed about the council’s newfound concern over his past activities.
He had earlier had plenty to say in public about the subject matter covered by his new position. In 2012, on camera, he lectured about “crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think it can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. . . . The International Criminal Court is in a position to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of Palestine . . . So much of my effort these times is addressed to try to get . . . the Court . . . to take up this burning, important issue. . . . With a bit of luck and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts.”
This was just the kind of lawyer who the U.N. Human Rights Council would think satisfied its rule requiring the “independence, impartiality, personal integrity, and objectivity” of all its “mandate-holders.”
The council could even be sure Schabas would go after Israel’s prime minister personally. Said Schabas on camera before he was hired: “My favorite would be Netanyahu in the dock at the International Criminal Court.”
His manifest bias, thought Schabas, should have saved him from his not-so-manifest conflict of interest. So he decided not to go quietly, even if it meant taking the council down with him.
In his letter of resignation he divulged: “[W]hen I was asked if I would accept nomination to the Commission of Inquiry, I was not requested to provide any details of my past statements and other activities concerning Palestine and Israel.”
He assumed that because his “views on Israel and Palestine . . . were well known,” the council was getting exactly what it wanted. And so was he.
What finally clued Schabas in to the fact that the jig was up? Shortly before he resigned, the council tried to save face all around by pretending “this matter” was so very complicated that it required an opinion from the U.N.’s legal office.
With Schabas gone, the legal opinion on the meaning of impartiality has been shelved — though it is a lesson the council evidently still needs.
President Rücker moved the deck chairs around, appointing one of the two remaining members of the inquiry, the American Mary McGowan Davis, as chair, and fancies it is now business as usual.
The February 3 letter from Rücker to Schabas accepting his resignation thanks him for his “work over the past six months,” says that the “appearance” of a problem has now been solved, and says that Rücker is “looking forward” to the report, due out in March. Six months preparing the report, a month to go before publication, and the U.N. imagines all appearances of impropriety and contamination have vanished into thin air.
Rücker told McGowan Davis: “I am convinced that you will . . . uphold the highest standards of integrity, particularly the principles of independence, impartiality and objectivity.”
Seriously? Unlike Schabas, McGowan Davis previously worked for the same U.N. employer on the same subject!
In 2010 and 2011 she was a member of a Human Rights Council committee responsible for promoting the implementation of the council’s infamous Goldstone Report on the 2008–09 Gaza War.
She chaired this follow-up committee in the last months of its work. The Goldstone Report’s central lie was its claim that Israel set out to kill Palestinian civilians deliberately. After Goldstone himself retracted the slander, McGowan Davis told the Jerusalem Post his statement “does not have any impact” and she would continue “to take his report as a given.”
At that time, McGowan Davis had the specific task of assessing whether Israel had adequately responded to the Goldstone Report’s defamatory accusations — and lo and behold, in her own report she found Israel’s response wanting.
Apparently her assessment of Israeli “proceedings” in one Gaza war between Israel and rocket-launching Palestinian terrorists leaves her “impartial” and “objective” about Israel’s “accountability measures” in the subsequent Gaza war between Israel and rocket-launching Palestinian terrorists.
Her 2011 finding that Israel did not conform to the “international standards” required to avoid the dominion of the International Criminal Court mirrors precisely the end game of her current job.
Furthermore, throughout her work for the U.N. Human Rights Council, McGowan Davis has been a member of the board of directors of the American Association of the International Commission of Jurists, which according to its website is “an affiliated organization of the ICJ in Geneva.”
The ICJ participated in the July council session that adopted the resolution creating the 2014 Gaza inquiry. Prior to the vote and only two weeks into the war, this group of lawyers made a statement to the council, judging Israel guilty of war crimes and making a specific suggestion:
“[T]he ICJ calls on this Council to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate all breaches of international humanitarian law and gross violations of human rights committed during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.”
Not only did the council adopt the ICJ’s recommendation, it appointed a member of the board of directors of the ICJ’s American affiliate to do the job — Mary McGowan Davis.
Three days ago, she accepted Schabas’s chair with alacrity and promised “a report that meets the highest standards of independence and impartiality.”
In what universe?
There is a reason why the council — along with its Palestinian partners, who are working furiously behind the scenes to salvage the fiasco — is so desperate to plow ahead. We now know that Schabas provided the Palestinians with legal advice about how to move forward with the prosecution of Israelis before the ICC, a step that they subsequently took.
There is no doubt that the Schabas/McGowan Davis report will immediately be sent to the ICC prosecutor to assist in deciding whether a “preliminary examination” already underway should become a full-fledged “investigation.” The report’s lack of credibility has put the credibility of the ICC in question.
Setting aside all the legal verbiage, the politics are painfully clear. Criminalizing Israel’s efforts to exercise its right of self-defense against a foe openly committed to genocide strikes at the heart of the sovereignty, well-being, and legitimacy of the Jewish state. Demonizing a democratic society that is ready, willing, and able to ensure the accountability of its armed forces is not about protecting Palestinians. It is about endangering Israelis.
Human-rights law is being perverted for anti-human-rights ends, and it is about time human-rights lawyers — and all those who care about defeating the enemies of rights and freedoms — stood up and objected.

Source - The National Review


Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. 

Anne Bayefsky's columns on Fox News

Her website -


UNITED NATIONS THE LEADING PURVEYOR OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE WORLD - Scholar and human rights advocate Anne Bayefsky accuses UN of inciting hatred against Jews with its unremitting campaign against Israel - LINK TO VIDEO

William Schabas lied on UN
application form

By Elder of Ziyon
February 4, 2015

UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that this was not the application for the specific position as leading the commission of inquiry; rather this was Schabas' application to become the "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories since 1967" which was Richard Falk's old job.

He still lied, but the last point I made about his interest in protecting Gazans is consistent with that job title. It is very interesting that he applied for Falk's job. 

Israel's Channel 2 reported that William Schabas lied in his resignation letter - and on his application form to become the head of the commission to investigate the Gaza war..

In his letter, he wrote:
In early August 2014, when I was asked if I would accept a nomination to the Commission of Inquiry, I was not requested to provide any details on any of my past statements and other activities concerning Palestine and Israel. Of course, my views on Israel and Palestine as well as on many other issues were well known and very public. My curriculum vitae was readily available indicating public lectures and writings on the subject. My opinions were frequently aired on my blog. This work in defence of human rights appears to have made me a huge target for malicious attacks...

But his application did ask him about conflicts of interest. I found it online and it includes a series of three questions about conflict of interest,

Here's the first page:

Here's where he answers, three times, that he has no conflicts of interest - and he lies on at least two of them, questions 1 and 3, based on his resignation letter alone:

I would argue that his answer on question 2 was a lie as well, based on how he wrote his "motivation letter" elsewhere in the document:
The mandate of special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories has proven to be one of the most sensitive and delicate of the special procedures. What I bring to the table is a level of expertise in the relevant legal sources, that is, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international human rights. A very high standard of legal precision in these areas is important for the credibility of the mandate. Although controversy is inevitable, the 'stakeholders', States and international civil society must have a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the special rapporteur's observations, findings and legal qualifications.

The contribution that the special rapporteur can make in terms of the protection of the population in the occupied territories will be enhanced by an ability to interact in a constructive manner with the Occupying Power. Although a difficult task, especially in light of recent developments, efforts should continue in an attempt to create some level of communication and dialogue as the landscope continues to evolve, transformed by changes in the region and political developments within Palestine, Israel and beyond.
Even though to the media Schabas would emphasize that he would be looking at violations from all sides, here he only emphasizes protection of Gazans and potential actions by Israel.  I think that shows that he could not act impartially. At any rate, having a financial relationship with the PLO should disqualify him based on that question anyway.

Are there any consequences for such a prestigious professor to being proven a liar by his own words?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for visiting my blog. Your comments are always appreciated, but please do not include links.