UN rejects request to remove Israeli organ stealing libel

Apparently, the United Nations Human Rights Council has no problem with the blood libel made against Israel that they remove the organs of Palestinian prisoners to sell on the black market.

A UNHRC document
containing the outrageous charge has not been withdrawn and the Council refused to make any alterations, citing the false notion that the since the document was from a private group - "International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (EAFORD) - the UN had no jurisdiction.

In a letter to the Secretary General, UN Watch makes it clear they want action:

First, we address your office's reply. It justifies doing nothing about the text submitted by the "International Organization for Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (EAFORD)-a group created in Libya and closely tied to Col. Kaddafi's regime-on grounds that the UN purportedly plays no screening role, simply publishing all submissions as received.

That premise is demonstrably untrue.

Mr. Tistounet quotes from the footnote of the UN cover sheet affixed to NGO written statements, which indicates that the latter are "unedited." This quote, however, is selective, incomplete and misleading.

The same cover sheet indicates at the top that such statements are circulated "in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31." As your officers well know, Article 31 of that resolution requires them to engage in a process of "appropriate consultation" with the submitting organization, with the latter required to give "due consideration" to any "comments" that your officers may make "before transmitting the statement in final form."

In other words, contrary to the premise that forms the basis of Mr. Tistounet's decision, the rules say explicitly that your office does play a screening role.

Not only is this the official procedure, it is also standard practice. As already stated in our complaint, your office carefully screens all NGO submissions before deciding whether or not to publish them. Following are three examples.

Not that UN Watch is going to get through to anybody, but the effort must still be made to establish a record that should shame the United Nations for this unwarranted smear.