Wednesday, May 25th | 24 Iyyar 5782

Subscribe
February 24, 2022 11:15 am
0

Why Israel Refuses to Cooperate With the UN Commission of Inquiry

avatar by Dore Gold / JNS.org

Opinion

The Human Rights and Alliance of Civilizations Room of the Palace of Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland. The room is the meeting place of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Photo: Ludovic Courtès via Wikimedia Commons.

JNS.orgOn Feb. 17, 2022, Meirav Eilon-Shahar, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and International Organizations in Geneva, officially rejected UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) chair Navi Pillay’s request for cooperation. The council is a fundamentally anti-Israel body, and the commission members have consistently expressed anti-Israel views.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Amb. Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote an open letter to Pillay in support of Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the commission, noting that previous UNHRC investigations displayed a clear bias and hostile predisposition towards Israel. His letter follows.

To Commission of Inquiry (COI) chair Navi Pillay:

As president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in Israel, I feel it is incumbent on me to express my bitter disappointment with the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva for establishing a Commission of Inquiry against Israel.

Related coverage

May 24, 2022 11:42 am

Palestinian Incitement to Murder Is Based on Anti-Jewish Discrimination

The international community provides hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian people every year, through the Palestinian Authority (PA). We...

This is not the first time I have encountered the biased work of the Human Rights Council. In 2009, I was invited to Brandeis University to debate Justice Richard Goldstone about the report that was issued by a body created by the Human Rights Council concerning Israeli military action against Hamas in “Operation Cast Lead” in 2009. Goldstone headed the investigation.

The most distasteful statement made in the conclusion to that report was that Israel engaged in “deliberate attacks on civilians.” In preparing for the debate, I reviewed material from the Israeli army. The more I read, the more enraged I became at the UN Human Rights Council, for it was apparent that the IDF took unprecedented precautions to avoid civilian casualties on the Palestinian side.

This was a repetition of what went on in the Jenin refugee camp in 2002, which was known among the Palestinians themselves as the “Capital of Suicide Warriors.” To limit any possible civilian casualties, Israel sent in its ground troops and lost 23 of its own soldiers. The concern among the Israeli military to avoid causing Palestinian civilian losses led to a decision to risk Israeli soldiers in battle.

These considerations were part of Israel’s preparations for counterinsurgency wars, but the UN appeared oblivious to this fact. The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, in fact commented in 2014 that the IDF went to “extraordinary lengths” to limit attacks on civilians. How a UN Fact-Finding Commission could reach conclusions that were diametrically opposed to what the highest-ranking US military officer would declare raised serious questions.

The answer that became apparent had to do with the hostile predisposition towards Israel that was to be found among the experts that the UN chose for their Fact-Finding Commission. Professor Christine Chinkin published a letter in the Times of London even before she began her work stating, “Israel’s action amounted to aggression and not self-defense.”

Despite the fact that the IDF had indisputable photographic evidence that Hamas was using mosques to store munitions, Desmond Travers, another member of the Fact-Finding Commission, remained convinced that there was no evidence of this. He attributed the Israeli position to the “Western perception in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion.” This was a ridiculous charge and did not address the material Israel had gathered.

Finally, I must conclude by saying that the UN Human Rights Council should have been an ally of Israel. As a state, we emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the worst war crime in human history. It comes as no surprise that many of the founders of the human rights movement came from Jewish origins. Sullying the Jewish people as a whole flies in the face of what we have represented since the Second World War and feeds into the regeneration of antisemitism that we are witnessing in recent decades.

We cannot cooperate with a UN initiative that is so deeply flawed in an area which we hold so closely to our own self-definition. It is for this reason that both the Jewish state and the Jewish NGOs will not stand for the process you have undertaken.

Dore Gold is the former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and the current president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

This article was first published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.