One of the biggest reasons for the US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council is what US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley called its “chronic bias” against Israel. For good reason does the UNHRC single out Israel. One of the council’s longstanding agenda items, for example, is examining human rights abuses in Palestine and other Arab territories. The special agenda item, known as Item 7, for the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, is the only situation in the world to have a permanent council agenda item devoted solely to it. That is because abusive Israeli practices in Gaza and the West Bank clearly deserve scrutiny as well as condemnation wherever and whenever they occur.
The council voted in 2006 to make a review of human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. There was a good reason for that resolution. Israeli practices against Palestinians must be monitored 24/7. Its treatment of the Palestinians must be scrutinized around the clock.
The US announcement followed criticism by the UNHRC of Israel’s shooting of unarmed Palestinian protesters at the Gaza border. When Haley blasts the council for a “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel,” she fails to mention the disproportionate use of force by Israel against Palestinian protesters that has been on display the last few months and which killed over 120 Palestinians and wounded thousands more. When last month, the UNHRC passed a resolution calling for the establishment of an observer mission in Gaza after near unanimous condemnation of Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters, Haley believed this to be unfair treatment of Israel.
The US has been making this case for some time now, telling the UN body last year that it had a “relentless, pathological campaign” against Israel. The real campaign is the US administration’s insistence on elevating its defense of Israel above all else.
The UNHRC meets three times a year, and reviews the human rights records of all UN members in a special process the council says gives countries the chance to say what they have done to improve human rights, known as the Universal Periodic Review. But Israel is not engaging with the process. It does not avail itself of the opportunity to defend itself – if it can. This defiance by Israel not to cooperate with the UNHRC reveals that it does not have a strong case regarding its violations of Palestinian human rights. Why should states that seek to escape scrutiny of their human rights record submit to this process if Israel’s non-compliance demonstrates that it is no longer universal?
Not so long ago, Israel and many other states and organizations expressed concerns that the Commission on Human Rights was biased and operated on double standards. It was abolished and in 2006 the Human Rights Council was established. With it came a great improvement: the Universal Periodic Review. Finally, a process applied consistently to all states was at hand. So, what did Israel do with this newfound approach? It undermined a mechanism that was designed to remedy the bias Israel protested against.
There is evidence that for many countries throughout the world the Universal Periodic Review has helped narrow the gap between human rights standards and their implementation. It would be a great loss to the global human rights project if the Universal Periodic Review were jeopardized. If Israel fails to fully engage as required, the oppressors of human rights should thank the Israeli government.
The UN Human Rights Council remains an important force for accountability and justice. It has issued more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined. The explanation is obvious: Israel has violated Palestinian human rights more than all the countries of the world put together.
