Valerie Jarrett Organized White House Rainbow Lights
- Get link
- Other Apps
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
According to the Washington Post, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House.
When Jarrett approached President Obama with the idea, he responded, “It’s a great idea if you can get it to work,” she told the Post.
The rainbow lit White House went viral online as onlookers flocked to snap selfies at the location to commemorate the historic Supreme Court decision.
“Tonight, the White House was lit to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to progress and equality, here in America and around the world,” a White House official explained in a statement. “The pride colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community, and tonight, these colors celebrate a new chapter in the history of American civil rights.”
Read More Stories About:
Read the whole story
· ·
4623129
The following story requires us to consider which is more trustworthy: the government of Iran or the Obama administration? That’s a tough one.
When you pass notes in class, there’s always the danger that you’ll get caught. Fars News Agency:
TEHRAN (FNA)- Parliamentary officials disclosed on Monday that US President Barack Obama has sent a secret message to Iran in the last few days, adding that the letter focused on the nuclear standoff between the two sides.
“An official of one of the neighboring countries has recently brought a message from the US president to our country’s officials,” member of the parliament’s presiding board Mehrdad Bazrpash told FNA on Monday…
Stressing that Washington and Obama, himself, need a nuclear agreement with Iran, Bazrpash said Washington is in a more dire need of an agreement than Iran.
He further pointed out that the US hypocrisy in its secret messages and in the public has ruined the wall of trust between the two countries. “The contents of the United States’ private messages to Iran are different from what the American officials say in the public”.
The Obama administration is denying this, of course.
What a conundrum. If Iran is lying, which is always my assumption, it’s just one more piece of evidence to throw onto the ever-growing “Don’t Trust Iran” pile. If Iran is telling the truth, it’s more evidence that Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing and constantly lies to cover his tracks. It’s a lose/lose for Obama.
That’s why I expect to hear any minute now that this is all the Republicans’ fault. That trick has been working for most of the past decade, and there’s no reason to stop now.
Read the whole story
· ·
Now Playing
State Department can't locate 15 Hillary Clinton emails
New documents released by a federal court show President Obama called then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the night of the 2012 Benghazi attack -- but the contents are being withheld by the State Department.
It had previously been disclosed that Clinton and Obama spoke the night of the terror attacks. But the documents offer additional information about the timing of the call -- after the initial attack on the U.S. consulate, but before the second wave where mortars hit the nearby CIA annex and killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.
The contents of the call, however, are being withheld, not because the information is classified but because the administration claims they represent internal deliberations about the 2012 terror assault.
The claim comes as Clinton also faces accusations that she withheld Benghazi-related emails from her private server in the trove of emails handed over to the State Department.
The contents of the call were only shared with Obama's and Clinton's closest aides. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes sent an email on the call to State Department officials Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, and National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan.
The email was released as part of an ongoing lawsuit by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
The email on the Obama-Clinton phone call bears the subject line, "Call." The text of the email says, "Readout of President's Call to Secretary Clinton," but the rest of the details are fully redacted. The State Department cited the so-called "B5" exception for internal deliberations.
The emails also show that Rhodes, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and before the attack was over, endorsed a statement from Clinton that cited an anti-Islam Internet video.
That statement noted some tried to justify the assault "as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Rhodes told Clinton's aides that "we should let State Department statement be our comment for the night."
The following day, Sept. 12, Meehan sent an email to State and NSC officials saying Rhodes would host a conference call that morning "to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day."
The narrative about protests over an Internet video would later become a point of major controversy. Fox News was first to report, on Sept. 17, 2012, there was no demonstration before the attack.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement: "It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people -- they shine a spotlight on the administration's incompetence and indifference. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source the Internet video lie."
Other emails from Judicial Watch lawsuits have, separately, shown Rhodes played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her Sunday show appearances that weekend where she blamed protests over the Internet video.
In that Sept. 14 email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere in the region.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Getty
Two judges who dealt a significant blow to President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration last month will again play key roles in deciding whether the controversial programs are legally sound.
Fifth Circuit Court Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Jerry Smith, both Republican appointees, in May ruled against the Obama administration’s request to proceed with the executive actions — which would protect more than 4 million immigrants here illegally from being deported — while the larger case on the legal merits of the new programs winds through the courts.
Story Continued Below
And on July 10, they’ll both again hear arguments from Justice Department lawyers and officials from more than two dozen GOP-led states who have sued to stop the immigration actions, when the Fifth Circuit takes up the broader legal case.
The selection of Elrod and Smith was a surprise, since many observers expected that a different panel of three judges would be chosen to decide the broader legal issues. But the selection of Smith — who wrote the opinion denying the administration’s request for an emergency stay — and Elrod suggests Obama likely won’t have much luck winning the case at the Fifth Circuit, considered the most conservative appeals court in the nation.
Obama’s immigration actions — which would also grant work permits to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and green-card holders — were put on hold in February after U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen decided that programs were essentially new government rules that should have been formally published and opened for public comment before they would take effect.
David Leopold, a veteran immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the presence of both Elrod and Smith on the appeals panel indicates that the Fifth Circuit is likely to rule against the administration again — raising the chances that this case would get pushed to the Supreme Court, perhaps during the heat of the 2016 presidential race.
“The merits are broader, but we know exactly where this court is going. Smith’s and Elrod’s opinion pretty much mirrors what Judge Andrew Hanen did, absent the political diatribes,” Leopold said Monday. “Unfortunately for the GOP, if this case goes to the Supreme Court, the Court will have to fix it and the GOP will be facing yet another national loss which will be bad for them politically and further tarnish their brand with Latinos.”
After the Fifth Circuit denied the administration’s request to let the executive actions proceed, the Justice Department announced that it would not seek an emergency stay to the Supreme Court. Instead, it would focus its energy on the larger legal issues at stake.
The third judge who’ll hear the case during oral arguments July 10 is Democratic appointee Carolyn Dineen King, who was selected by President Jimmy Carter.
The Justice Department has argued that the 26 states challenging Obama’s immigration actions lack legal standing to object, but a new move on Monday by the court panel appeared to signal that judges will likely side with the states on the question of standing.
The 5th Circuit panel hearing the immigration case issued an order asking both sides to address a new Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of Arizona’s state legislature to sue over a referendum that put redistricting in the hands of an independent commission.
While the justices ultimately rejected the challenge to that new system, the court’s majority found the legislature had standing to bring the case.
Just hours after that decision was handed down Monday, the 5th Circuit panel called for new briefs on the standing issue.
Josh Gerstein contributed to this story.
Read the whole story
· · ·
US | Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:46pm EDT
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (2nd R, back to camera) shakes hands with U.S. House members who supported trade legislation, including Representative Gerald Connolly (D-VA) (L) and Representative Pat Tiberi (R-OH) (C) before U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to sign...
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
U.S. President Barack Obama signs House Resolution 2146, the 'Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act and Trade Preference Extension Act of 2015' during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington June 29, 2015.
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
U.S. President Barack Obama applauds after signing H.R. 2146, the Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act and H.R. 1295 Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, during a ceremony in the East Room of at the White House in Washington June 29, 2015.
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a bill signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington,June 29, 2015.
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
U.S. President Barack Obama signs House Resolution 2146, the 'Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act and Trade Preference Extension Act of 2015,' during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington June 29, 2015.
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
Cranes and containers sit at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California in this February 6, 2015, file photo.
Reuters/Bob Riha Jr./Files
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (2nd R, back to camera) shakes hands with U.S. House members who supported trade legislation, including Representative Gerald Connolly (D-VA) (L) and Representative Pat Tiberi (R-OH) (C) before U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to sign...
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
U.S. President Barack Obama signs House Resolution 2146, the 'Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act and Trade Preference Extension Act of 2015' during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington June 29, 2015.
Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
WASHINGTON U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday signed into law legislation that gives him "fast-track" power to push ahead on a Pacific Rim trade deal that has been the subject of intense debate in Congress and across the nation.
Flanked by some of the lawmakers who supported the bill through a six-week congressional battle, Obama acknowledged that his fight to secure the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership was far from over.
"We still have some tough negotiations that are going to be taking place," Obama said at a signing ceremony. He noted that lawmakers and the public will be able to scrutinize the trade deal before it is finalized. "The debate will not end with this bill signing," he said.
The package also included aid for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade, and an Africa trade preferences bill.
Obama wants the trade deal to be a central part of his administration's foreign policy pivot to Asia and to help serve as a counterweight to the economic might of China. He also hopes to complete an ambitious trade deal with the European Union.
Republicans, who traditionally support free trade deals, backed Obama and helped get the legislation through Congress. But they faced obstacles from skeptical Democrats, who worry the trade deal will hurt American jobs, and were pressured by unions to vote against the bills.
"I think it's fair to say that getting these bills through Congress has not been easy. They've been declared dead more than once," Obama said, thanking Republican leaders by name as well as Democratic supporters "who took tough votes" to get the bills passed.
"I would not be signing these bills if I was not absolutely convinced that these pieces of legislation are ultimately good for American workers," he said.
Obama urged lawmakers to "summon the same spirit" to work with him to renew funding for highways, bridges and other infrastructure projects. The Highway Trust Fund is on track to run out of money in July.
As Obama signed the legislation, using a set of 20 commemorative pens set out for the ceremony, he remarked: "This is so much fun, we should do it again!"
"No, thank you," came a sotto voce reply from one of the lawmakers, eliciting laughter.
(Reporting by Roberta Rampton, Lindsay Dunsmuir and Emily Stephenson; Editing by Sandra Malerand Dan Grebler)
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
Industry groups and some 20 states had challenged the E.P.A.’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.
The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
The E.P.A. had argued that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate. But the agency added that it had done so later in setting emissions standards and that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs.
The two sides had very different understandings of the costs and benefits involved. Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.
The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the E.P.A. will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration. Industries will be expected to comply with the current rule until a revised one is issued.
“The E.P.A. will have to do more homework on costs,” said Sean Donahue, who represents environmental and public health groups that signed on to the agency’s case. “But I’m very confident that the final rule will be up and running and finally approved without a great deal of trouble. This is a disappointment. It’s a bump in the road, but I don’t think by any means it’s the end of this program.”
An E.P.A. spokeswoman, Melissa Harrison, said the agency remained committed to enacting the rule on emissions of mercury, a toxic pollutant linked with threats to fetal health.
Ms. Harrison said that since the court’s ruling was about how and when the agency considered costs in its decision about limiting mercury and and other toxic emissions and not the agency’s authority to limit them over all, the E.P.A. was committed to protecting the public “from the significant amount of toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utilities and continue reducing the toxic pollution from these facilities.”
The mercury regulation was one in a series of new Clean Air Act regulations from the Obama administration that Mr. Obama hopes to build into a major environmental legacy. Later this summer the agency is expected to release a set of landmark climate change rules limiting greenhouse gas pollution from power plants — restrictions that have faced legal challenges from industry.
In the term that ended in June 2014, the justices heard cases on two other sets of Clean Air Act regulations — one aimed at limiting power plant pollution that wafts across state lines, the other at cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The E.P.A. won the first case and largely prevailed in the second, though the Supreme Court indicated that it remained prepared to impose limits on the agency’s regulatory authority.
Congressional Republicans, who have sought to limit the Clean Air Act rules, celebrated Monday’s decision.
“From its ozone to greenhouse gas to navigable waters rules, the E.P.A. continues to burden the public with more and more costs even as so many are still struggling to get by and improve their lives in this economy,” said Kevin McCarthy of Califoria, the House majority leader.“The Supreme Court’s decision today vindicates the House’s legislative actions to rein in bureaucratic overreach and institute some common sense in rule making.”
Scott Segal, who lobbies on behalf of electric utilities for the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said the decision should come as a warning to the Obama administration as the E.P.A. prepares to unveil the climate change regulations this summer.
“They’ll need to take a hard-nosed economic analysis that the Supreme Court calls for,” he said.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
Lolo Soetoro was the Indonesian stepfather of President Obama.
During a radio interview Sunday, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren reinforced his position that President Obama’s relentless outreach to the Muslim world may be motivated by Obama’s being abandoned by two Muslim father figures.
Last week, Oren had speculated Obama’s purported abandonment issues may have caused him to seek acceptance from the Muslim world.
Sunday, Oren maintained “it’s a legitimate question” to ask whether the “abandonment” of Obama’s Kenyan Muslim father and Indonesian Muslim stepfather have been partially driving Obama’s policy toward Islam , the Middle East, the war on terrorism and Iran.
Oren was speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.
Oren, a historian and author, served as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. from May 3, 2009 to 2013. He is now a member of Knesset and has been promoting his latest book, published last week, entitled, “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide.”
As part of the book promotion, Oren penned an opinion piece last week in Foreign Policy Magazinein which he labeled Obama’s Muslim outreach as “naïve” and “detached from a complex and increasingly lethal reality.”
Oren posited Obama’s policies of rapprochement toward the Islamic world “clearly stem from his personal interactions with Muslims” as well as the president’s academic influences.
Regarding Obama’s Muslim father figures, Oren wrote:
“I could imagine how a child raised by a Christian mother might see himself as a natural bridge between her two Muslim husbands. I could also speculate how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists.”
Estranged: This picture shows the only time Barack Obama met his father, Barack Obama Sr.
Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Muslim who married Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in 1961 and divorced her three years later.
From age five to age ten or eleven, Obama lived in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, where he seemed to have taken on the surname of his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.
During the radio interview Sunday, Klein asked Oren to elaborate on his claim about Obama’s Muslim father figures allegedly influencing his policy toward the Muslim world.
Oren told his interviewer: “The role of an ambassador is to understand your counterparts. The people you have to work with. So when I came to Washington as ambassador in 2009 we had a new president, President Obama. He wasn’t very well known. He hadn’t been in politics that long. And he clearly had some very strong feelings about the Middle East and what he called the Muslim world.”
Oren noted Obama’s use of the term “Muslim world” was “very indicative.”
“That was his term, The Muslim world. Which also is very indicative. I don’t believe there is a Muslim world. It’s a very loaded term. It’s taken from Islam.”
Oren continued:
“And it was my job to figure out. And I went back and I read every speech and every interview. And I particularly read his books. It was very interesting to read his books. Especially the books he wrote before he was running for president. And he talked about all of these connections. And people have very short memories. He would always flag his Muslim family connections in his early speeches, including in his first inaugural address, in the Cairo speech. His first television appearance was to Al Arabiya television in Dubai. His first trips abroad were to Turkey and then to Egypt. And he talked about these connections.”
Oren maintained to Klein that “it’s a legitimate question” to ask whether the “abandonment” by Sotoro and Obama Sr. have been partially driving Obama’s foreign policy.
“It’s a very important question for an ambassador to ask,” he added. “Okay, the president is saying these connections are important to him. And these connections lead him to reach out to the Muslim world. Then certainly it’s in Israel’s interests to find out the way it may impact us.”
The Anti-Defamation League criticized Oren’s piece at Foreign Policy last week, calling the former ambassador’s characterizations of Obama’s alleged issues regarding his father and stepfather “insensitive and unjustified,” and the ADL asked Oren to “walk back” his views.
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman in a statement, that Oren’s essay “veers into the realm of conspiracy theories, and with an element of amateur psychoanalysis he links U.S. policies in the Middle East to the president’s personal history of having a Muslim father.”
“This results in borderline stereotyping and insensitivity,” added Foxman.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
13298 comments · 2 days ago
10299 comments · 3 days ago
7884 comments · 3 days ago
4552 comments · 1 day ago
3761 comments · 2 days ago
3076 comments · 2 days ago
7095 comments · 4 days ago
2249 comments · 2 days ago
8837 comments · 6 days ago
5082 comments · 4 days ago
- Funeral to be held for woman whose husband offered Charleston shooting suspect forgiveness29 Jun 2015, 1:45 AM PDT
- Escaped North Carolina inmate back in custody, prison worker charged29 Jun 2015, 12:43 AM PDT
- North Carolina prisons spokeswoman says escaped inmate back in custody after citizens' tip29 Jun 2015, 12:42 AM PDT
- US training of moderate Syrian rebels sputtering, limited by strict weeding out of extremists29 Jun 2015, 12:35 AM PDT
- Hundreds told to evacuate because of central Washington fire 28 Jun 2015, 11:26 PM PDT
- The Old-School Solution to Cash Flow Problems Hiding in Your Receivables29 Jun 2015, 2:30 AM PDT
- Funeral to be held for woman whose husband offered Charleston shooting suspect forgiveness29 Jun 2015, 1:45 AM PDT
- Escaped North Carolina inmate back in custody, prison worker charged29 Jun 2015, 12:43 AM PDT
- North Carolina prisons spokeswoman says escaped inmate back in custody after citizens' tip29 Jun 2015, 12:42 AM PDT
- US training of moderate Syrian rebels sputtering, limited by strict weeding out of extremists29 Jun 2015, 12:35 AM PDT
- Happening at the World Cup: A look at the teams in the semifinals29 Jun 2015, 12:11 AM PDT
This post has been generated by Page2RSS
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
World
Anti-gay protesters try to tear a rainbow flag during an LGBT community rally in central Moscow, May 30, 2015. The rally wasn't sanctioned by the local government and ended in minutes, with police detaining both pro- and anti-LGBT activists. Maxim Zmeyev / Reuters
Russian officials mostly reacted as you might expect to last week’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, but one member of Parliament said it was time for Russia to stop gay-bashing and accept that equal rights were only a matter of time.
Konstantin Dobrynin, a little known legislator and former lawyer, suggested that Russia should pass legislation that would introduce measures like the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy used by the American military forces from 1993 to 2011.
Dobrynin, who was appointed to the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament, by the local government of the Arkhangelsk region, made his statement on Saturday, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality. His comments were remarkable in a country known for its homophobia. In 2013, a law against “homosexual propaganda” was passed in the country, and gay pride events have been repeatedly banned and dispersed in Moscow and other cities.
Dobrynin said it was important that “Russia doesn’t fall into crass gay-bashing, but try to find a legal way to provide a social balance between the conservative part of the society and all the rest, as far as this subject [gay rights] is concerned.
“The most important thing is to lower…the level of aggression toward minorities,” he added.
Dobrynin said there were too many politicians in Russia cynically engaging in “gay-bashing” for their own political advantage and introducing anti-gay laws like “legislative spam” to no purpose. “It is them who pose a direct threat to the national security, and it is them who we should fight, not gays,” he said.
His comments were in stark contrast to those of other Russian officials. Yelena Mizulina, a member of the State Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) who authored the legislation against “homosexual propaganda” and supported an initiative to confiscate children from same-sex families, said Americans can do whatever they want on their own territory, but “shouldn’t impose their preferences on other countries.”
Vsevolod Chaplin, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church, condemned the Supreme Court's decision. “People who are into ‘the American democracy’ and try to reconcile it with traditional values should think twice after this decision,” he said to a Russian news agency. “You should remember that they want to take away your right to live a life of faith and your soul from you.”
Read the whole story
· · ·
GENEVA—
Israel has boycotted a day long debate in the U.N. Human Rights Council of the Commission of Inquiry’s report into the 2014 Gaza conflict, calling it biased and flawed. The report finds both Israel and armed Palestinian groups may have committed war crimes in Gaza.
The report documents serious violations of international law and human rights abuses committed during Gaza’s seven-week war last year. More than 2,200 people were killed, most of them Gazans.
In her presentation to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Chair of the Commission of Inquiry, Mary McGowan Davis, detailed indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by the Israeli Defense Forces.
She also accused Palestinian armed groups of regularly conducting operations from densely populated areas, firing more than 4,500 rockets and mortars into Israel. In some cases, Davis said they fired from specially protected buildings, increasing the risk to the civilian population and civilian objects in Gaza.
“Throughout our inquiry, we were deeply moved by the immense suffering of Palestinian and Israeli victims, who have been subjected to repeated rounds of violence, which last summer resulted in an unprecedented number of casualties. The information we gathered points to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups, in some cases, these may amount to war crimes,” she said.
The Israeli delegation was not present at the meeting, so only Palestine used its right to speak. Palestinian Representative Ibrahim Khraishi called the report balanced, but he criticized it for not describing the conflict itself as imbalanced. He spoke through an interpreter.
“The report did not take into consideration the massive difference in military capacity and that one side is under occupation and siege and the other is an occupier. The losses are not equitable,” said Khraishi.
The United States, Canada, and most European Union countries did not participate in the debate.
Outside the Council chamber, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Eviator Manor called the Council a biased and morally flawed U.N. organ.
This is not the Human Rights Council. It is the Palestinian Human Rights Council. Two-thousand-six-hundred civilians have been killed in Yemen and a humanitarian catastrophe is taking place there. That is almost double the number of civilians killed in the Gaza Conflict, but the Council has yet to call for a special session or deal with the matter.”
Ambassador Manor notes the Council has adopted 61 Resolutions against Israel and only 55 Country Resolutions against the rest of the world.
He noted that all countries accused of human rights violations, including such serial offenders as North Korea and Sudan, are considered under the same agenda item, only Israel’s human rights record, he said, is debated under a permanent, separate item.
Read the whole story
· ·
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment