One of the top candidates to be the new U.N. high commissioner for human rights may bring the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to new lows, warns one pro-Israel watchdog organization.

Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba — who is the front-runner for the post, according to Human Rights Tribune, rarely missed an opportunity to single out Israel for special opprobrium during his year as president of the Council, according to Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch. Neuer clashed with de Alba in this session of the Human Rights Council.

This week, Neuer had this to say to JTA about de Alba, who was president of the Human Rights Council from mid-2006 to mid-2007:

“His record was one of weakness, at best, in the face of the takeover by the Islamic group of the Human Rights Council. He oversaw the massive erosion of what was already a problematic institution. Under his watch, the supposedly reformed U.N. Council ended its scrutiny of Belarus, ended its scrutiny of Cuba, and he refused to let Canada vote on its package of reforms. He also oversaw the singling out of Israel as a permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council.”

The current high commissioner, Louise Arbour, has held the post for four years. She, too, has endured her fair share of criticism from the pro-Israel camp — residents of Sderot stoned her when she visited the town in November 2006, just a few months after she warned during the Israel-Hezbollah war that “those in positions of command and control” could be subject to “personal criminal responsibility” for their actions in the 2006 war. But if Arbour is succeeded by de Alba, the Council will only get worse, Neuer warns.

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, who can be seen here smiling with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a meeting in Tehran in March, reportedly is another leading candidate for Arbour’s position.

The U.N. high commissioner for human rights is an appointee of the U.N. secretary-general. Spokesman Brenden Varma told JTA on Monday that Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon hopes to make his appointment by the end of June.

The New York Times had an article on Sunday suggesting that time might be just about out on President Bush’s plans for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal:

When Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed themselves to peace talks after meeting in Annapolis, Md., last November, Mr. Bush had hopes of ending his presidency on a foreign policy high note, with a deal for the contours of a Palestinian state. But with Mr. Bush headed to the region this week for the second time in five months, peace seems as elusive as ever — and some are looking to his successor.

But in a lengthy interview with the Washington Post and Newsweek, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert argues that the best time to make a Syrian deal is with Bush still in office:

My personal view is that no one can be of better help to this process than President Bush. Because any new president in America, if confronted with this issue, will have to wait two years at least until he learns enough and finds the appropriate time to devote to this, while Bush knows, Bush is familiar, and Bush understands. Therefore, if one is interested in a [Syrian-Israeli] process that ultimately leads to a public endorsement by the United States of America, then he has to hurry up.

I believe, for reasons that I don’t want to go into, that for Syria, the road to Washington must cross Jerusalem. I know what I’m talking about.

Click here for the full Q & A with Olmert.

Shmuley Boteach wonders in the Jerusalem Post why Muslims aren’t speaking out against last week’s shooting attack at a yeshiva in Jerusalem: (more…)

On the eve of U.S. Secretary of Condoleezza Rice’s upcoming trip to the Middle East, Glenn Kessler reports in the Washington Post that the prospects for peace have “shifted dramatically” since President Bush held the Annapolis peace conference three months ago. And, now, the White House’s influence on the players in the region appears to be waning.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said that key players in the region are moving beyond the Bush administration. “The feeling is that if you keep the flash points on a lower or somewhat higher flame, it will give you more cards when a new administration comes in,” he said, speaking in a phone interview from Israel. “Everyone is sucking up to the Iranians,” he added.

The signs of American irrelevance are apparent throughout the region. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, hailed as a potential peacemaker by the Bush administration, mused last week to the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustour that in the future it might be necessary to return to armed struggle against Israel. And Syria, which received an unexpected invitation to Annapolis, believes that the peace summit was “an exercise in public relations” and that Bush has no interest in peace, as Syria’s ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha put it last week.

The stalled process has added to skepticism in Israel, according to Kessler.

A poll published in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth last week showed that 69 percent of Israelis surveyed believed the talks would not bring peace, while 78 percent believed the talks were being held only for political reasons.

During a recent visit to Washington, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad charged that Israel has “not done a thing materially on the ground to help my government.” Israeli officials counter that Israel has taken steps to bolster the Abbas government, but that some efforts — such as new restrictions on settlement growth — cannot be publicized because of the tenuous political situation in Israel.”

Ha’aretz’s Amir Oren argues that Imad Mughniyah, the Hezbollah leader allegedly killed by Israel, is irreplaceable.

Mughniyah’s assassination has a substantive side but also a psychological one. Both challenge the myth commonly disseminated by those who fear (because they know why) that they will be targeted for assassination. It is the myth that “everyone can be replaced.” This myth aims to keep Israel and other countries from targeting senior figures in terrorist organizations. The theory is that there is no point in taking such action if every assassination only further enrages the masses and stokes their determination to rally to the cause. Moreover, sometimes the successor is more effective and worse for Israel than his predecessor.

(more…)

What does the Winograd Commission’s final report on Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon mean for Ehud Olmert’s future? JTA Jerusalem correspondent Leslie Susser speaks with JTA Associate Editor Uriel Heilman about the war, the report and Olmert’s political prognosis.

Click the play button below to listen.

To subscribe to JTA’s Behind the News podcast, click here.