Pillay: Partial settlement moratorium not a concession

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=207877

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Friday rejected any type of partial settlement moratorium in the West Bank and said that only a full halt to any such Israeli activity, including in east Jerusalem, was acceptable under international law.

Apart for the contradiction in terms, it is interesting to see that Pillay, again, shows her total bias by avoiding to balance that with the partial stop of terrorist violence on the 'Palestinian' side, which is not acceptable under international law. Indeed, it is even more unacceptable because Jewish settlements in Judea Samaria do not kill 'Palestinians' while 'Palestinian' terrorist violence does kill Israelis, however few thanks to the security fence and other protective measures.

Israel accepts to negociate under 'Palestinian' fire, Ms Pillay! This IS a concession. Why can't the 'Palestinians' make any similar concession? Please Ms Pillay, tell us where are the concessions made by the 'Palestinians' that the roadmap demanded of them. Israelis evacuated Gaza, much ahead of what was required. Where is the corresponding 'Palestinan' concession, Ms Pillay? Why is it always Israel that does the concessions? Because, Ms Pillay, Israel has no real peace partner in the non-existing negotiations.

She also had harsh words for the Palestinian actions, and called the Palestinian-launched rockets against Israel from Gaza, “a war crime.”

“Rockets continue to be fired from Gaza into Israel, including at least eight since I began my visit last Sunday,” said Pillay.

Yes, Ms Pillay. And that makes it one war crime a day, not just a global one that you can blame once and for all. Why hasn't your so-called Human Rights Council condemned each of these war crimes as such in any pronouncement? Why is there such impunity to 'Palestinian' terrorism?