Three weeks ago, a report of “the independent international fact-finding mission” on behalf of the Human Rights Council of the UN was published. Members of the mission were out to examine the “implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.
Contrary to the Commission’s stated policy of “independence, impartiality, objectivity, discretion, transparency, confidentiality, integrity and professionalism”, the report is undisputedly one-sided. Not in vain did the mission’s representative described it a “weapon for the Palestinians“.
The report’s unilateralism is expressed in different ways: For example, according to it, there is no difference between the Jewish populations living in the settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, to those who reside in remote outposts. More than that: it not only discusses the rights of Palestinians in the territories captured from the Kingdom of Jordan (which held them illegally), but refers to the green line of 1949, including the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. That is, it’s a completely political task force, which ignores previous negotiations, such as the Clinton Parameters – and also the previous attempts of the Arabs to annihilate Israel. Moreover, the report – which have decided, as stated, what is “relevant” to it – completely ignores the terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians, and their implications on the security issue and therefore the lives of Palestinians.
More interesting fact is that much of the report, is not about human rights, but is dedicated to rewriting history in the service of Palestinian propaganda: it notes (at page 24) that the Israeli Declaration of Independence was “In contrast to the provisions of […] Resolution 181 plan on the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two Independent Arab and Jewish States”. The report does not mention – not in a single word – the rejection of the partition plan by the Arab League, the genocidal statements of its leaders and the invasion of the six Arab armies the day after Israel’s Declaration of Independence, an Invasion made for one purpose only: to annihilate the small Jewish state.
Further, the report mentions that the British White Paper of 1939 declares “unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State”, and that “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it”. Well, the Arabs didn’t, and during the years of 1939 – 1945 Jewish immigration was forbidden – only due to the Arabs objection – Jews were exterminated in Auschwitz and Treblinka.
21 resolutions against Israel; 4 against the rest of the world
Should we be surprised? No, because the General Assembly had in 2012 no less than 21 resolutions against Israel; at this time, it issued a staggering number of only four decisions against the rest of the world: Syria, which Assad’s regime is massacring civilians on a daily basis – one resolution only; Iran, which threatens the destruction of Israel, stones women to death and hangs homosexuals – one resolution only; North Korea, which starves its citizens and runs prison camps of sub-human conditions to dissidents – one resolution only ; Burma and its generals regime – one resolution only.
China, however, which disregards human rights and systematically executes people without trial – not even a single resolution. Libya and its leader which prosecutes gays, claiming that they “threatens the future of the human race” – not even a single resolution. Saudi Arabia, which denies women the most basic human rights and prevents religious freedom completely – not even a single resolution. Somalia, a lawless country where connections to human rights do not exists even in theory – not even a single resolution. And this is really an abbreviated list, of the worst countries. Sudan, however, which continues to massacre civilians in Darfur was selected in the same week the report was published as Deputy President of the Social Economic Council of the United Nations – no less.
The Human Rights Council Report and Ha’aretz
“Warning sign“, is the title of an editorial written after the publication of the report, in which Ha’aretz called Israel to treat the report as a:
Summary of the international consensus on the question of its policy in the territories; and to recognize that this policy has made Israel an isolated, vulnerable state
Further, the article explains that:
The “Inherent bias” against Israel in the UN should not be used any longer to excuse a policy at least half of the country’s citizens oppose
The report, according to the references, mentioned articles and editorials of one Israeli newspaper only – Ha’aretz. Most of the newspapers and the Israeli media frequently criticize various aspects related to the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, but the report did not use those.
How come? Is it because Ha’aretz coverage of the conflict often characterized by ideological bias – not to say deliberate distortions – much like the Human Rights Council’s reports about Israel? It may be so, for Ha’aretz ignores the fact that in each and every meeting of the Human Rights Council it maintains a special agenda item and special day against Israel and that Israel is the only country treated in this malicious fashion. Ha’aretz also does not mention that half of the council’s condemnation resolutions directed against Israel, and that Israel is the only country which is subject to regular investigation mandate, in which only one party’s actions are reviewed; acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the like – are not reviewed at all.
This morally perverted double standard is not surprising, given the fact that the representative who is responsible for the implementation of this mandate is Professor Richard Falk, an anti-Semitic Hamas supporter, which denies the Holocaust of the Jewish People, while dubbing the Arab – Israeli conflict “Palestinian Holocaust“.
Assuming that all mentioned above is not known to Haaretz’s editorial board; well, it’s definitely a “Warning Sign” for future editorials. However, Ha’aretz – known for its crystal clear, authoritative decisiveness on issues in dispute – did not shrug off the report, and does not criticize its writers for its tendentious, one-sided and anti – Israeli agenda, nor the organization that sponsored it; an organization that under its patronage the worst countries in the world receives kings honor, and the darkest regimes serves as moral critics of pluralistic democracies.
On the contrary, Ha’aretz is calling for Israel to internalize the commission’s conclusions and “treat the accusations pertinently”, as if these charges were really factual allegations and not an anti-Semitic propaganda, deliberately detached from political, historical, ethnic and factual contexts. Talking about “inherent bias”? It is doubtful whether Ha’aretz did in fact delve into the report from start to finish. Assuming it did, then the apparent conclusion is even grimmer, and that inherent bias, without quotation marks, is not the inheritance only of the Human Rights Council of the UN.