Israel and the UN's selective human rights

Once again Israel has been singled out by the United Nation’s most infamous subsidiary the Human Rights Commission over the way it responded to the violent flotilla that attempted to violate its naval blockade of Gaza in May.

Again Israel is the focus of obsessive scrutiny that no other nation in the world is subjected to when it comes to international human rights, while the rights it should be afforded as a member of the UN are ignored.

It is really important to understand who the UNHRC represents because it has a very specific, politically motivated agenda that is biased against Israel and committed to the delegitimisation of the Jewish state.

The following are undisputed facts about the UN Human Rights Council: it is controlled by an automatic majority of OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) and NAM (Non-aligned Movement) member states, including repeat human rights violators Saudi Arabia, Libya, Cuba and China.

Since its inception in 2006, the Council has disproportionately devoted it’s time to Israel. It has deliberated on 33 anti-Israeli draft resolutions to date, but not discussed even a single draft resolution with regard to Iran, Zimbabwe or Venezuela. In addition, six of the Council's 13 special sessions have been dedicated to Israel. A permanent agenda item of the HRC’s schedule is about Israel in every regular session.

Both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticised the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights.

So the flotilla report was going to be tainted from the outset.

The report totally ignored the involvement of the IHH, the organisation who led the violence aboard the lead ship in the flotilla, the Turkish Mavi Marmara, but it is impossible to examine the events without looking at IHH involvement. IHH is a terrorist organisation, with an extremist-Islamist ideology and has an affiliation with the Hamas terror regime who rule Gaza, as well as with al-Qaida. IHH is proscribed in Israel and Germany, and similar proceedings against it are currently under way in the US and other Western countries.

While onboard the Mavi Marmara the day before the raid, IHH President Fehmi Blent Yildirim’s own words were not about humanitarian aid and helping Gazans, but about provoking Israel into a violent confrontation and entrapping it in a public relations war, with the aim of isolating and delegitimising.

In June the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs released that video footage in which Yildrim incited dozens of fervent “activists”: "And we say: ‘If you [Israel] send the commandos, we will throw you down from here and you will be humiliated in front of the whole world’.” The “activists” chanted in response "Millions of martyrs marching to Gaza!"

The panel interviewed more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman during the course of its work. But video evidence provided by the Israel Defence Force and the BBC Panorama program which retraced the events on the flotilla taking into accounts both sides have been ignored.

Check out Jane Corbin’s piece on Panorama and make up your own mind. It is available on YouTube in two parts, here and here.

Clearly, the UNHRC disregarded any shred of evidence that could have indicated a balanced outcome.

Israel is conducting its own investigation into the flotilla as expected of any democratic nation. The IDF Examination Commission, headed by Major General (res.) Giora Eiland, has already completed its work. The Turkel Commission agreed to the participation of two international observers even though it is not legally bound to do so, and is still working on its report.

As a member of the United Nations, Israel should be supported when it comes to issues of its immediate and future security such as Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to live in peace and the main by-product of Palestinian rejectionism, terror attacks against Israelis from both Gaza and the West Bank.

It has become increasingly clear that Israeli “settlement building” is not the cornerstone of peace negotiations but that the issue of settlements is used as a bargaining chip to maintain pressure on Israel and divert attention away from the issues that the Palestinians don’t want to deal with.

When he implemented the freeze on settlement building for 10 months Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu undertook a major step for peace. It was a gesture of goodwill in the face of much criticism from his supporters. Regrettably no gesture was ever offered in return by the Palestinians.

Instead Israelis just got more of the same that they have come to expect from a fractured Palestinian leadership: terror in the form of rockets from Gaza fired onto population centres in the southern cities of Sderot and Ashkelon and shootings in the West Bank.

Between September 13 and 16, Hamas launched 14 rockets and mortars from in the Gaza Strip. Some of these attacks that deliberately targeted civilians contained white phosphorous, a fact publicly acknowledged by Palestinian statements in the media. In addition, during this same period, Palestinian terrorists fired rocket propelled grenades at Israeli soldiers conducting routine patrols along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

As Netanyahu and Abbas sat down to direct negotiations in Washington a week later, four Israelis including a pregnant woman were shot dead by Hamas terrorists in the West Bank. The PA leadership condemned the attacks but has failed to stop terror against Israelis, one of the original principles set out in peace agreements more than 10 years ago.

President Abbas was recently quoted giving his word that terror would not be the outcome after the building freeze expired but attacks on Israelis continue. Then a pregnant Israeli woman survived another shooting in the West Bank.

Nor is the PA closer to accepting the concept of a two-state solution. During the direct negotiations, a meeting held between Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad and Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon ended abruptly because Fayyad refused to agree to the words “two states for two people” in the meeting summary.

Finally, if the PA wants to take steps forward for peace, it should intervene in the ongoing issue of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit held captive by Hamas for more than four years. Hamas is holding Gilad against his will, in breach of international human rights conventions. Gilad Shalit’s captivity surely stands in the way of any peace agreement.

Israelis continue to support peace efforts but at the same time will continue to be concerned about the issues that threaten their security and future. The United Nations and human rights activists should address these issues and make the statement that they value human rights not just for some, but for all nations.