More than 20 states, including Germany and Austria, have accused the UN Human Rights Council of giving Israel "disproportionate attention." Their criticism followed the first report of a commission of inquiry on "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." "The UNHRC's obsession with criticizing Israel must be abandoned," argues author Andrew Tucker in the following commentary.
On June 13, 2022, 22 UN member states signed a declaration to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. In it, they expressed strong legal and political concerns regarding the establishment in 2021 of the Council's Commission of Inquiry (COI) on "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." This followed the submission of the COI's first report to the Council. Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands were among the European signatories of this declaration. The fact that so many countries felt the need to issue such a declaration reveals a profound problem with the UNHRC and the modern human rights movement in general.
One-sided portrayal of history
In its report, the COI relies on one-sided condemnations of Israel by UN bodies over the years. It concludes that the Israeli occupation is the primary cause of tensions in the region and calls for urgent action to “end the occupation.” The report ignores the region’s history before 1967 and undermines Israel’s legitimate right to secure borders and the protection of its territorial integrity. It downplays Palestinian terrorism, portrays Israel as a rogue state, and appears to be designed to lay the groundwork for accusations of apartheid and other international crimes to be brought before the International Criminal Court.
Worrying developments
The statement issued by the US and other states on June 13 reflects growing international concern about the one-sided approach taken by the UNHRC and many human rights organizations to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “No one is above suspicion,” the statement reads, “but the nature of the Commission of Inquiry established last May is further evidence of the long-standing disproportionate attention given to Israel in the Council and must be stopped. We continue to believe that this long-standing disproportionate attention should end and that the Council should address all human rights issues, regardless of the country, impartially.” It is feared “that the Commission of Inquiry will further contribute to the polarization of a situation that so many of us are concerned about.”.
The concerns raised in this statement should be taken very seriously. Israel is not perfect. But it has a right to be a Jewish state and makes sovereign claims to the territories. The Palestinians also bear some responsibility for their plight. The only way to resolve this conflict is through negotiations. By relying solely on the Palestinian historical narrative, the UNHRC (and other human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) ignores many of the deeper causes of the conflict. This will not promote peace but will only deepen the conflict. A new approach is needed, one based on historical realities and mutual respect. The UNHRC's obsession with criticizing Israel must be abandoned.
background
In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) established its indefinite Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). This Commission of Inquiry (COI) is highly problematic under international law and should never have been established. On June 7, 2022, the COI published its first report. As expected, it is one-sided and biased, and its conclusions are based on factual and legal inaccuracies that reflect its biased mandate.
The COI relies on one-sided condemnations of Israel by UN bodies and ignores the region's history. In addition to factual distortions and inaccuracies, the report's conclusion that the occupation is the primary cause of the conflict rests on a fundamentally flawed legal analysis. Essentially, the COI operates from the legal paradigm that Palestinians have a right to a state and that Israel has no right to control the territories it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War (the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding area, as well as Judea and Samaria). According to this paradigm, Israel is "merely" an occupying power and must end its occupation of the Palestinian territories.
This is a completely false historical and legal representation. The fact is that Jerusalem, as well as Judea and Samaria (later known as the "West Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan"), were always intended to be part of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, the establishment of which the international community decided after World War I. After World War I, the Arabs gained sovereignty over the entire Middle East, even though Jews and other minorities constituted a significant part of the geographical landscape of the former Ottoman Empire, with the exception of the territory then called "Palestine," where the Jewish people were permitted to establish their homeland due to their unique historical connection with that land.
The only reason the Jewish homeland does not encompass all of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria is Arab aggression against Israel, which aims at the annihilation of the Jewish nation. The Arabs could have established their own state alongside the Jewish state in 1947 and on many other occasions, but they have repeatedly chosen not to because they refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state. This is not a matter of legal formality or the mere assertion of historical rights.
Israel's very existence is at stake. Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria form the heartland of "Palestine." If Israel's sworn enemies gain full control of these mountains, they can easily destroy Israel. The COI ignores all of this. Instead, it selectively relies on UN resolutions and reports, accusing only Israel of alleged violations of international law.
Some examples of the unbalanced analysis of COI:
- By focusing solely on international humanitarian law, human rights, and criminal law, the commission of inquiry ignores Israel's territorial sovereignty over Jerusalem and its legal claims to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria: this is the crux of the matter, because these claims (which are perfectly valid) are the main basis on which Israel is entitled to administer the territories, exercise control, and demand a peace treaty.
- The COI recognizes the "State of Palestine" as existing, encompassing Areas A, B, and C in the West Bank. This is incorrect, as "Palestine" is not a state under international law. Palestine can only become a state under international law once an agreement is reached with Israel.
- The COI implies that the Oslo Accords mandate the "handover" of so-called Area C, controlled by Israel in Judea and Samaria, to the Palestinians. This is misleading and ignores the many conditions stipulated in the Oslo Accords before Israel "hands over" Area C.
- The COI ignores the blatant violations of the Oslo Accords by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) since the mid-1990s, including their refusal to amend the National Charter of the State of Palestine to remove the clauses that call for so-called holy war to destroy the Jewish state of Israel.
Andrew Tucker (Netherlands/Australia) is Editor-in-Chief of Israel & Christians Today and Director of thinc – The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation. Further information is available at www.thinc.info.
This article first appeared in our newspaper "Israelaktuell," issue 130. You can order the newspaper free of charge here: https://csi-aktuell.de/israelaktuell. We would also be happy to send you several copies for distribution.
