A panel appointed by the UN Human Rights Council has found Israel guilty of war crimes in connection with its taking of the MV Mavi Marmara last May. Reporting on the panel's findings, the Guardian's Chris McGreal writes:
The report does not have any legal force and the UN human rights council, which has been accused of a disproportionate focus on Israel, is viewed with scepticism by many western countries because it is dominated by the developing world.
What a joke! Talk about trying to displace the real reason on to a spurious one. If the UNHRC is 'viewed with scepticism', that is because, as the Telegraph report on the same item says:
While it [the UNHRC] has passed over a dozen resolutions condemning Israel since it was created in 2006, the council has been more reluctant to censure states such as Sudan, which has been accused of serious human rights violations in Darfur.
Or, again, as I recently quoted the US ambassador to the UNHRC:
Very importantly, we [the US] have vigorously and unequivocally protested the politicized efforts of some members to continually target Israel while ignoring serious problems in their own countries.
But McGreal wants it that 'scepticism' about the Council is due to its being dominated by the developing world. You know: Mavis has her complaint against her employer adjudicated by her ex-husband, who hates her; and the Guardian reports that Mavis's friends are sceptical about the arbitration because Mavis's ex-husband is a Cambridge rather than an Oxford man.