Can Arab/Muslim Countries Criticize Israel Under the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution?

The turning point occurred on June 16, 2008 at 4:40 pm, when David Littman took the floor at a UN Human Rights Council meeting to speak on behalf of the Association for World Education (AWE) and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).

"Mr. President," he said, "In the context of integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system, we wish to draw attention to four examples of widespread violence against women that we believe merits far greater attention from the Council.

"One, regarding FGM [female genital mutilation], we are making available our detailed written statement -- "

And that's as far as it went before the gavel sounded.

Doru Costea, the president of the UN Human Rights Council, noted a point of order, and gave the floor to Egyptian delegate Amr Roshdy Hassan, who raised an objection over the joint written statement that the AWE and IHEU had circulated.

"The first paragraph, you talk about Egypt and the Sharia law. In the second paragraph you talk about Sudan, Pakistan, and the Sharia law. The third and fourth paragraphs are on the Sharia law... If we have no time to come on something new, then we shouldn't speak."

Pakistani delegate Imran Ahmed Siddiqui was given the floor when Costea asked for other requests on the matter.

"Mr. President, the voices which we hear in this Council and the issues they raise are not unfamiliar. There is an agenda behind it... we have strong objections on any discussion, any direct or indirect discussion, any out of context, selective discussion on the Sharia law in this Council... we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council."

After some discussion, including protests against the censorship from Slovenia and Canada and a 40 minute break, Doru Costea returned with a ruling allowing Littman to continue, which he did briefly until interrupted again by the Egyptian delegate, who challenged the ruling.

As part of his objection to the continued discussion on human rights abuses like FGM, child marriages, and the stoning of women, Hassan declared: "I couldn't care less if I will win or lose this vote. My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council."

Following the meeting, the "Defamation of Religions" resolution was proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a body made up of 57 Muslim countries. It was passed by the UN Human Rights Council with 23 votes in favor, 11 against, and 13 abstentions. The complete text of the resolution can be read here.

Although it was triggered as an attempt to quell criticism of Islam, Muslims, and Sharia law, the resolution does call for "all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs" -- which unquestionably also includes Judaism.

So, to what extent does this apply to the right of the Arab and Muslim countries in the OIC to criticize the Israeli occupation -- in particular the building and expansion of settlements in the West Bank?

The members of the OIC almost unanimously consider most aspects of the occupation of Palestinian territory a human rights issue, much like female genital mutilation, death by stoning, and child marriages are.

If discussion on Sharia-based abuses against women and children is now off limits at the Human Rights Council, wouldn't the same apply to the Israeli occupation? The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel is clearly articulated in the Torah, the five books of which are also accepted by Christians as the Old Testament. Take the passages 23:31-2 from Shemot (Exodus):

"And I will set thy border from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines [Mediterranean], and from the wilderness unto the River; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."

Or 1:8 from Devarim (Deuteronomy):

"Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them."

Or 15:18-21 from Breishit (Genesis):

In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates...'"

Additional specific, detailed descriptions of the borders of the Land of Israel are given in passages such as 34:1-15 from Bamidbar (Numbers).

These passages are among many in the Jewish scripture that form the foundation for everything from Zionism to current Israeli policy, just as the Quran and Sunnah (Muhammad's tradition or hadith) form the foundation for Pakistan's Constitution. It is in accordance with them that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has called for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party's charter states the following about the building of settlements and expansion:

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria [ie West Bank], and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

As the debate to make the anti-defamation legislation a legally binding treaty gets underway this week, how do the Arab/Muslim countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference plan to continue their criticism of the Israeli occupation and settlement expansion without, in a way, violating their own proposed resolution?

Are they open to the likelihood that their proposed assault on the freedom of speech of others also potentially curtails their own? Does victimhood take on a new definition when applied to the child brides of Saudi Arabia or the allegedly adulterous women stoned to death in Somalia compared to the victims of the bombings in Gaza last year?

Finally, is criticism of Quranic passages and Sunnah equivalent to criticism of passages in the Torah in the eyes of the UN Human Rights Council? Both books are believed to be the word of God by their adherents, and both prescribe capital punishment for blasphemy by stoning (Vayikra/Leviticus, 24:16) or beheading (Quran, 8:12 and several hadith). Who decides where to draw the line?

The sadly elusive take-home message from all of this was perhaps best articulated by Canada's representative to the Council, who said: "It is individuals who have rights, not religions."

Amen.

 

Follow Ali A. Rizvi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi

Comments

[Macready]

the OT is not a legal document . . . it provides the israelis with no justification for the stealing of Palestinian land and water . . israel was created by a UN resolution . . . and it has extended itself way beyond its borders . . . and refuses to stop stealing more and more land which is illegal under international law . . . international law must be upheld . . . but israel defies it . . and no collection of stories, myths and religious practises, quasi history is going to provide them with that . .

[BubbaC33]

You may a number of false accusations in your posting, comments with no justification. For example, the UN did not create Israel. The partition was a restoration of Israel, not the creation of a new state.
You go on to claim Israel has stolen land and continues to steal land, this is also just not true. Israel has extended itself beyond the borders set forth by the UN partition plan as a result of defending ourselves in three separate wars, each one started by our Arab neighbors. Israel did not simply decide one day to extend the amount of land included within our borders, we took land as the result of failed Arab aggression.
Any land we have taken, has been held legally underinternational law. The idea of extinctive prescription allows for Israel to annex land taken in the course of a defensive war. Given all of the three major wars were defensive we can hold the land. Add to that no Arab entity has any legal standing to dispute Israeli ownership of any land. The Arabs refused to sign the original UN partition and gave up any claims to any of the land included in that partition. You cannot refuse to sign a contract and then expect to make demands based on that contract.

[BubbaC33]

Continued
Until 1964 no Arab living in eretz Israel would have self-identified as a Palestinian. Most would have referred to themselves as Syrian or by the birth nation of their father. It would have been an insult to call an Arab Palestinian until it became politically expedient to do so. The fact is there is no difference between the "Palestinians" and the Arabs living in Jordan. Let the "Palestinians" go home to the state the UN did create, Jordan.
Finally, you accuse Israel of expanding borders and stealing land. Since 1967 Israel has returned the vast majority of the land we took defending ourselves. This includes oil fields in the Sinai capable of supplying Israel with most of its petroleum needs. It includes Gaza. This act, leaving Gaza to the Arabs living there, is far more than either Jordan or Egypt have done. The Egyptians controlled Gaza from 1948-67 and did nothing for the people there. Jordan controlled the West Bank and half of Jerusalem without doing anything for the Arabs living there. All Jordan did was to prohibit Jews from worship at some of our holiest sites. The lives of the people there are much improved under Israeli rule.
The bottom line is Israel has a right to exist within the defensible borders we now have. Nothing in your posting disputes anything going on in the region.

[S1m0n]

There's no conflict. Israel and Judaism are not only not the same thing, they're not even in the same category. Thus, no amount of criticism of the nation of Israel constitutes an attack on Judaism.

Yes, Israel and many of it's backers frequently claim that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism, but this is both wrong and dangerous. The danger is that by encouraging the belief that attacking Israel is attacking jews, Israel also encourages the belief that attacking jews is attacking Israel. This, as you can imagine, endangers diaspora jews everywhere.

[alysheba 3]

Yes, unless Israel is a theocracy., ruled by religious law.

You can condemn a country for it's actions, not a religion for it's beliefs.

[MosheDayanHero]

Look up the term 'blasphemy," Fatima.

[alysheba 3]

Perhaps, if you are replying to Fatima you should have clicked reply under her name, not mine.

[MosheDayanHero]

"Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html
OK. On related subject.
According to Pew Research 2009
Pakistan
78% favor dea.th for those who leave Is-lam
83% favor stoning adulterers.
71% favor giving judicial authority to Sharia.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=265

I am quite certain Pakistan has full legitimacy to provide global leadership on religious tolerance...... ahhh. no.

[HisFootsteps]

One cannot blaspheme a deity such as 'Allah', if they do not exist. The same goes for the 'prophet' Mohamed who really NEVER foretold anything!

[MosheDayanHero]

Well said.

[BubbaC33]

Until the Arab world learns to leave us alone, accept the borders of Israel as they exist today, and go about the business of moving backwards in time.

[califlefty]

We've been hearing the Arab states at the UN for years... "do as I say, not as I do."

[gandolf101]

In July 1988, in response to the accumulated pressures and the months of intifada demonstrations by Palestinians in the West Bank, King Hussein of Jordan ceded to the PLO all Jordanian claims to the territory. Any hopes of a Jordanian-Israeli resolution to the Palestine problem were effectively ended. He dissolved the Jordanian parliament, half of whom were West Bank representatives, and stopped paying salaries to over 20,000 West Bank civil servants. When the Palestine National Council recognized the PLO as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians, Hussein immediately gave them official recognition.

Thursday, July 23, 2009
Palestinians Living in Jordan Citizenship Revoked
Jordanian authorities have started revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan to avoid a situation in which they would be "resettled" permanently in the kingdom, Jordanian and Palestinian officials revealed on Monday.

it really does not matter now , the arabs have thier islamic state called gaza and there is no way in hell hamass will give it up , elections or no elections.

[jamiso]

This is great!

Since the bible preaches blasphemy to muslims and islam preaches blasphemy to christians.....and they both insult polytheists, other religions, and atheists...The only choice is to ban the Bible and Quran!
Hooray!

Good job OIC, you made my Halloween.

[joeinvt]

Actually there were no Muslims to blaspheme when the Bible was written.

[Mortifyd]

Or Christians.

[GrahamInCanada]

"The sadly elusive take-home message from all of this was perhaps best articulated by Canada's representative to the Council, who said: "It is individuals who have rights, not religions."

In Canada, individuals have rights, groups have rights, and religions have rights.

However, the application of sharia law domestically in a country and the Israeli occupation can easily be differentiated: while the former is not clearly illegal in international law, the latter most certainly is.

Occupation is not illegal in international law for Israel alone, it is illegal across the board. The international complaint about the occupation is not because of the religion of the occupiers; while religion may motivate the occupiers, the occupation itself is illegal no matter what the motivation might be.

[Justtellthetruth]

Really well said. Thanks Graham.

[gandolf101]

to be occupied one must be defeated , eygpt lost gaza, not the palestinians ..Jordon lost west bank not the palestinians, syria lost golan. In 1973 the arabs went to war again and still lost everything. The The palestinians never had nothing to lose.It was never thiers in the first place.
The Turkish Empire or Turkey was an empire that lasted from 1299 to November 1, 1922
guess what no palestinian state not even when the muslums controled the area for 100s of years.

[alysheba 3]

So you say that Ben-Gurion lied when he talked about "Palestine" in 1918?

[GrahamInCanada]

If you say the definition of occupied is that one must be defeated, I say that you are sadly ignorant of international law, and a little arrogant that you can divine a definition in international law rather than look it up.

The Turkish Empire? You make up your own names for empires to? You are referring to the Ottoman Empire, which by the way did not defeat Palestine in 1299, but in 1516.

There is no doubt that currently there is an Israeli occupation that is illegal under international law. To propose that there isn't such an occupation is to defy reality.

[Artemis34]

Many of the abuses of women and children are based in culture and NOT religion.

Or, if there is a religious basis, it is no longer applied as specified (that is the bible may permit stoning of anyone male or female, but in current practice is only applied to women, for example).

They are just using religion as a cover for hatred. And that goes for the crazy fundamentalist pseudo-Christians in the US too.

So, what, we should have independent (atheist) scholars determining what proceeds from religion and what from culture?

Funny that they seemed to have gagged themselves with respect to Isreal.

Personally, I'm pro-blasphemy.

[EdwardMRoche]

Documents written more than 2,000 years ago are not valid for current real estate deeds.

[MosheDayanHero]

Yep, but m16s and Ak47s provide an interesting point of debate.

[miguelobrien]

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is clearly articulated in the Torah...." This sentence produces in me an unpleasant visceral reaction.

Throughout history, invaders and occupiers have had documents of their own creation to justify their barbarities. If our author wanted to be honest, he would include some more of Deuteronomy, which describes with names and numbers to murder of the Canaanites, including livestock and even trees.

Prof. Sepulveda at the U. of Toledo, Spain, during the conquest, reasoned that the language of God was Latin and the language of intelligent humans was Spanish. People who spoke neither, therefore, had no souls. Proclamations were read in those languages outside of Indian villages, offering conversion and mercy. Of course, the Indians could not respond appropriately, and were disposed of according to Spanish law.

As Custer said at the Washita, "This is a legal action."

Read your Torah to the Palestinian doctor [who worked in Israel], whose two daughters and a niece were splattered all over their bedroom by an Israeli tank shell. Tell him about your right to his life and land.

[Outwestern]

Pick a religion, any religion, and you'll be able to find a place where the people lay claim to the land because of it.

"This is a [insert appropriate religion] country"

Too bad, really.

[Saidas]

A God who is offended by "blasphemy" isn't much of a God.

[Grada3784]

Just one who needs a lot of therapy to deal with self esteem issues.

[Jude Nagurney Camwell]

I agree that It is individuals who have rights, not religions.When a UN Defamation of Religions resolution, a nice-sounding name loaded with shackling consequences for women, stands to defend discrimination in all forms, restrict free speech, facilitate the mutilation of girls, and allow an age-old bad habit of the violation of human rights in the name of religion, keep it far from me.. keep it far from all of humankind. Use it for no advantage. Don't use or pass such a Resolution it at all. It's wrong on its face and we should recognize that. religion and politics are a dangerous mix. Human freedom is almost always the casualty when they combine.