REPLY TO AMBASSADOR LEVANON´s RESPONSE
Letters to the Editor
July 17, 2008
Ambassador Levanon has made certain accusations based on facts and arguments he presents that, unfortunately, selectively give only a part of the picture concerning the situation reported in my article.
See this page.
In do so, I believe he obscures the full picture.
The Ambassador provides a list of a few visits from UN Human Rights officials that Israel has facilitated, but he does not give any indication of how many visits Israel has blocked.
He states the success stories -- that is, when Israel has cooperated with a UN visit -- but he simply fails to give an accounting of the number of times a visa has been refused to a UN Special Rapporteur, special commission, commission of inquiry, or whatever.
This is information that is necessary to sustain the position he stakes out in his letter.
Most recently, as the Agence France Presse ( AFP ) news agency reported from Amman in the first week of July, " Israel 's government has barred a UN human rights delegation from visiting the Palestinian areas on a fact-finding mission, the leader of the group said on Tuesday. ´Israeli authorities did not allow us to visit the Palestinian territories´, said Prasad Kariyawasam, head of the UN panel, adding that ´no reasons were given by Israel because they do not recognize our mandate´."
Ah, but of course, the Ambassador will say, Israel did not agree with this mission.
But that is exactly one of the points made in my article.
The United Nations simply does not provide a compilation of the numerous UN visits that Israel has refused – mainly by not replying, rather than by outright saying "No" – either on the OHCHR website or anywhere else – for the obvious reason: UN officials bend over backwards to avoid provoking or offending Member States who are as powerful and influential as Israel.
So, contrary to what the Ambassador stated in his letter, no amount of research of the United Nations OHCHR website would give any indication of whether or not the argument made in my article is "completely inaccurate".
Years of experience following these developments – and not just viewing a snapshot of what is listed on any website at any given moment in time – has informed my reporting.
The Ambassador also suggests that Israel has agreed to more visits than many other countries, a proposition he, again, also fails to support with facts or figures.
Then, intriguingly, the Ambassador writes that "Of course, all of these missions were interspersed with regular, twice-yearly visits from the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories , who was always provided with special documentation to facilitate his movements in our region".
What does that mean? Was it a simple letter of introduction? Or something more? The Ambassador was asked, after his letter arrived, but no answer was provided.
It is interesting that the Israeli Mission doesn't give any hint about what it will do, exactly, to facilitate the work of the new Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk – a matter which is discussed in my article.
Again, the Ambassador declined to give any indication when asked.
In addition, the Ambassador is approaching sensitive zones of libel and slander by writing, as he did in his letter, that "Ms. Houk´s decision to insinuate otherwise does both Israel and your publication a great disservice".
Granted, it is an Ambassador´s job is to serve his country. But that is not the business I am in.
Journalists – with very few and rare exceptions -- make every human effort possible to report honestly, openly and clearly what is happening, and what people say and do.
Journalists also are often called upon to provide a "look forward", or retrospectively, to provide analyses of the possible effects and outcomes.
For the record, I am happy to be able to state that it is not my intention to do any disservice, but just to function to the best of my ability. By reporting the situation as I honestly see it, I believe I am doing my human as well as professional duty.
Certainly, there is absolutely no reason for the Ambassador to write that I made any "decision" to "insinuate", or to make any assertions whatsoever about either my motives or my internal thought processes.
What I wrote was stated clearly and openly. The record of my work – which is published and open to public scrutiny – stands for everyone to see and judge.
For the record, I should like to note that, after a preliminary exchange with the Ambassador´s assistant at the Israeli Mission in Geneva, I received a reply stating that "The Ambassador never questioned your journalistic integrity. We merely responded to what we perceived to be missing in your article. You are, of course, free to respond to our "Letter to the Editor" in a way you see fit".
See this page.
In do so, I believe he obscures the full picture.
The Ambassador provides a list of a few visits from UN Human Rights officials that Israel has facilitated, but he does not give any indication of how many visits Israel has blocked.
He states the success stories -- that is, when Israel has cooperated with a UN visit -- but he simply fails to give an accounting of the number of times a visa has been refused to a UN Special Rapporteur, special commission, commission of inquiry, or whatever.
This is information that is necessary to sustain the position he stakes out in his letter.
Most recently, as the Agence France Presse ( AFP ) news agency reported from Amman in the first week of July, " Israel 's government has barred a UN human rights delegation from visiting the Palestinian areas on a fact-finding mission, the leader of the group said on Tuesday. ´Israeli authorities did not allow us to visit the Palestinian territories´, said Prasad Kariyawasam, head of the UN panel, adding that ´no reasons were given by Israel because they do not recognize our mandate´."
Ah, but of course, the Ambassador will say, Israel did not agree with this mission.
But that is exactly one of the points made in my article.
The United Nations simply does not provide a compilation of the numerous UN visits that Israel has refused – mainly by not replying, rather than by outright saying "No" – either on the OHCHR website or anywhere else – for the obvious reason: UN officials bend over backwards to avoid provoking or offending Member States who are as powerful and influential as Israel.
So, contrary to what the Ambassador stated in his letter, no amount of research of the United Nations OHCHR website would give any indication of whether or not the argument made in my article is "completely inaccurate".
Years of experience following these developments – and not just viewing a snapshot of what is listed on any website at any given moment in time – has informed my reporting.
The Ambassador also suggests that Israel has agreed to more visits than many other countries, a proposition he, again, also fails to support with facts or figures.
Then, intriguingly, the Ambassador writes that "Of course, all of these missions were interspersed with regular, twice-yearly visits from the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories , who was always provided with special documentation to facilitate his movements in our region".
What does that mean? Was it a simple letter of introduction? Or something more? The Ambassador was asked, after his letter arrived, but no answer was provided.
It is interesting that the Israeli Mission doesn't give any hint about what it will do, exactly, to facilitate the work of the new Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk – a matter which is discussed in my article.
Again, the Ambassador declined to give any indication when asked.
In addition, the Ambassador is approaching sensitive zones of libel and slander by writing, as he did in his letter, that "Ms. Houk´s decision to insinuate otherwise does both Israel and your publication a great disservice".
Granted, it is an Ambassador´s job is to serve his country. But that is not the business I am in.
Journalists – with very few and rare exceptions -- make every human effort possible to report honestly, openly and clearly what is happening, and what people say and do.
Journalists also are often called upon to provide a "look forward", or retrospectively, to provide analyses of the possible effects and outcomes.
For the record, I am happy to be able to state that it is not my intention to do any disservice, but just to function to the best of my ability. By reporting the situation as I honestly see it, I believe I am doing my human as well as professional duty.
Certainly, there is absolutely no reason for the Ambassador to write that I made any "decision" to "insinuate", or to make any assertions whatsoever about either my motives or my internal thought processes.
What I wrote was stated clearly and openly. The record of my work – which is published and open to public scrutiny – stands for everyone to see and judge.
For the record, I should like to note that, after a preliminary exchange with the Ambassador´s assistant at the Israeli Mission in Geneva, I received a reply stating that "The Ambassador never questioned your journalistic integrity. We merely responded to what we perceived to be missing in your article. You are, of course, free to respond to our "Letter to the Editor" in a way you see fit".
Print
Email
