Just as long as you agree that they are authoritative.
Why are you working so hard to defend apartheid?
Apartheid analogy common among Israel's left
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Why are you working so hard to defend apartheid?
That resolution IS Falk's mandate, he has no other mandate, no other source of authority. There is no disputing that he works for UNHRC, and that his mandate does not include speaking on behalf of anyone. He is not the UN. He does not speak on behalf of the UN. He is not the voice of the UN. He does not represent the UN.Just as long as you agree that they are authoritative.?
UNHRC are not authoritative in general but they certainly are the only source for what mandate they themselves gave Falk, which I have quoted in full.
In general they are a biased and pathetic propaganda organization that spreads lies and misinformation.
Whine whine whine.That resolution IS Falk's mandate, he has no other mandate, no other source of authority. There is no disputing that he works for UNHRC, and that his mandate does not include speaking on behalf of anyone. He is not the UN. He does not speak on behalf of the UN. He is not the voice of the UN. He does not represent the UN. UNHRC are not authoritative in general but they certainly are the only source for what mandate they themselves gave Falk, which I have quoted in full. In general they are a biased and pathetic propaganda organization that spreads lies and misinformation.
That resolution appointed him, the mandates of rapporteurs is discussed elsewhere.
Wrong, moron. That resolution created the role of Special Rapporteur for Palestine and defined his mandate. It is literally definitive. He has no other mandate, it is not "discussed elsehwere". I get that you don't like that your lie has been exposed and that the facts are against you, but that is just too bad for you.Whine whine whine.
That resolution appointed him, the mandates of rapporteurs is discussed elsewhere.
He works for UNHRC and he has no mandate to speak on behalf of the UN, or anyone else, whether you like it or not.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EF7E1F52C06A9CB885256AD2004B1194
4. Decides to appoint a special rapporteur with the following mandate:
(a) To investigate Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
(b) To receive communications, to hear witnesses, and to use such modalities of procedure as he may deem necessary for his mandate;
(c) To report, with his conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission on Human Rights at its future sessions, until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories;
Did you send him that angry letter yet?He works for UNHRC and he has no mandate to speak on behalf of the UN, or anyone else, whether you like it or not.
]
Prof. Richard Falk
UN Special Rapporteur
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
Are you desperately hoping that OHCHR lending him office space means he doesn't work for UNHCR despite that having been proved to you by way of quoting his definitive mandate?Did you send him that angry letter yet?
Prof. Richard Falk
UN Special Rapporteur
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
You are pathetic if that is the straw you are grasping at.
And are you really trying to suggest that the rapporteur is not mandated to report?Are you desperately hoping that OHCHR lending him office space means he doesn't work for UNHCR despite that having been proved to you by way of quoting his definitive mandate?
.
And are you really still trying to pretend that Falk is the only one at the UN that calls Israel apartheid?
Shooting the messenger being that last ditch attempt to try to stop the apartheid argument, no wonder you spend so much time on it.
But all it does is show how afraid you are of really discussing apartheid policies.
Keep wiggling and flailing. He has no mandate to speak on behalf of the UN, he is not the voice of the UN, he does not represent the UN, nor any of the other imaginary things you ascribed to him.And are you really trying to suggest that the rapporteur is not mandated to report.
He does investigate and send reports to the UN, which the UN do not have to agree with. Sending reports to the UN u nothing like speaking for the UN, obviously.
As for the others you cited, they are similar, but let's do them one at a time. You don't get to run away from being refuted on THIS topic by running off to some other citation until you admit that Falk is not the UN.
Right, here we go again. Rapporteurs aren't allowed to report, in fuji land.As for the others you cited, they are similar, but let's do them one at a time. You don't get to run away from being refuted on THIS topic by running off to some other citation until you admit that Falk is not the UN.
His opinion is backed by numerous others at the UN, in South Africa and around the world.
Why are you so afraid to talk about apartheid?
Lying about what I said is just completely pathetic. Read it again:Right, here we go again. Rapporteurs aren't allowed to report, in fuji land.
He has no mandate to speak on behalf of the UN, he is not the voice of the UN, he does not represent the UN, nor any of the other imaginary things you ascribed to him.
He does investigate and send reports to the UN, which the UN do not have to agree with. Sending reports to the UN is nothing like speaking for the UN, obviously.
Whine whine whine.He does investigate and send reports to the UN,.
He just confirms what others at the UN have said, that Israel is apartheid.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/5588/un-committee-2012-session-concludes-israeli-system
UN Committee 2012 Session Concludes Israeli System Tantamount to Apartheid
So go and tell us now how this committee doesn't speak for the UN, isn't allowed to say the 'a' word or is anti-semitic.
You pick.
Which whine will you have today with your dinner?
I so we are agreed that Falk doors not speak for the UN?
Good. Once you confirm that we can discuss the next one.
It is hilarious that you brush off you lies being exposed and destroyed as whining. Maybe you should write an angry letter to the UN whining that they did not give Falk the the mandate you think he should have.
Good. Once you confirm that we can discuss the next one.
It is hilarious that you brush off you lies being exposed and destroyed as whining. Maybe you should write an angry letter to the UN whining that they did not give Falk the the mandate you think he should have.
You are the one trying to brush off charges that Israel is apartheid by attacking the messenger.I so we are agreed that Falk doors not speak for the UN? Good. Once you confirm that we can discuss the next one. It is hilarious that you brush off you lies being exposed and destroyed as whining. Maybe you should write an angry letter to the UN whining that they did not give Falk the the mandate you think he should have.
You are just that afraid of sling that argument as well, aren't you?
The UN has never, ever called Israel an apartheid nation, and Israel is clearly not one. We have proven that Falk does not speak for the UN and we can go through the rest of your lies if necessaryYou are the one trying to brush off charges that Israel is apartheid by attacking the messenger.
You are just that afraid of sling that argument as well, aren't you?
None of your citations speak for the UN on this topic.
You have failed to find even the slightest citation to show that the UN disavows itself from any of the 4 UN reports and statements provided.The UN has never, ever called Israel an apartheid nation, and Israel is clearly not one..
4 times the UN has called Israel apartheid.
You don't speak for the UN.
You mean other than definitely proving that Falk's mandate does not entitle him to speak in behalf of the UN.You have failed to find even the slightest citation to show that the UN disavows itself from any of the 4 UN reports and statements provided.
DEFINITIVELY.
No, that's your personal opinion.You mean other than definitely proving that Falk's mandate does not entitle him to speak in behalf of the UN.
DEFINITIVELY.
Here, why don't you check the news at the UN:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47585&Kw1=apartheid&Kw2=&Kw3=#.U3WlKFhdX60“Hebron embodies all the worst features of apartheid, colonialism and oppression that are to be found throughout occupied Palestine,” Mr. Falk noted, as he described a divided town of “checkpoints, walls, barbed wires and apartheid roads” where settlers and Palestinians are kept apart despite living within metres of each other.
or maybe this story:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47406&Kw1=apartheid&Kw2=&Kw3=#.U3WlQVhdX60An independent United Nations human rights expert today called for an assessment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the legal status of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian Territory.
“Special steps must be taken to ensure that the human rights of the Palestinian people are protected and the rule of law established in an occupation which has lasted now for more than 45 years,” said Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on occupied Palestine, in a press release ahead of the presentation of his final report to the UN Human Rights Council on Monday.
Asking that the Court – the UN’s highest legal body – weigh allegations that the occupation has legally unacceptable characteristics of “colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing,” the expert also called on the Council to examine the legal implications of the occupation, and urged the international community to act decisively to uphold Palestinian human rights
There's another angry letter you need to write.
Wrong, moron. This DEFINITIVELY states his mandate:No, that's your personal opinion.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EF7E1F52C06A9CB885256AD2004B1194
4. Decides to appoint a special rapporteur with the following mandate:
(a) To investigate Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
(b) To receive communications, to hear witnesses, and to use such modalities of procedure as he may deem necessary for his mandate;
(c) To report, with his conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission on Human Rights at its future sessions, until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories;
Calling that "personal opinion" just proved that you are a lying clown.
Blah blah blahThis DEFINITIVELY states his mandate:
.
whine whine whine
You know full well that his full job description is not listed in the resolution creating his position.
His full mandate includes reporting publicly, which is why his reports are on the UN news page.
You lose.
You're backing the state that the UN calls apartheid.
Pathetic.Blah blah blah
whine whine whine
Shrugging off the facts with this gibberish reply is propaganda clown territory. You know you cannot dispute the facts you moronic liar.
That is his mandate. That document spells out the authority the UN has given him. He has no official power or role not mentioned in that mandate.
The UN does not appoint spokespeople obliquely. They are a formal, procedural bureaucracy. You claimed he spoke for the UN but they have never given him that authority.
I provided his formal, official mandate. That supersedes any ouiji board reading about where his office is. I also pointed out that his reports themselves do not even claim to be from the UN but instead state that they are being "transmitted to" the UN.
You are simply wrong, he is not, never has been, and never will be a UN spokesperson.
