UN Human Rights Council Targets Israel But Gives Pass to Hamas—as Usual

On April 5, 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution against Israel with 28 votes in favor, six against, and 13 abstentions. As we have reported numerous times, the HRC’s bias against Israel is not something new. Every year, the HRC passes more resolutions against one State, Israel, than all the other States combined. Not even States like North Korea or Iran become the subject of the HRC’s condemnation that often.

The recent resolution (A/HRC/55/L.30), among other things, calls on “all States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel.” It also requests “the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel to . . . analyse the legal consequences of these transfers, applying international humanitarian law [and] customary international law.”

Before we talk about the HRC’s request to the so-called Independent Commission of Inquiry, let us point out some other glaring hypocritical antisemitic aspects of the resolution.

The resolution condemns only Israeli actions that have not been proven to violate the International Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), also called International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Yes, you read it correctly. The HRC will tell you that it condemns both sides. But that’s just not true.

It’s an eight-page resolution, with over 4,500 words, and 45 numbered paragraphs (in addition to non-numbered paragraphs). It levies every absurd accusation against Israel in detail in those eight pages, but only generally and in passing condemns “militants and armed groups” (without naming them), without any details or demands for prosecution, in two sentences. That’s called one-sided.

While the resolution reaffirms the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, the HRC only applies the principle to Israel. It has never told Hamas and other terrorist organizations that they may not use force against Israel to take any territory they claim as Palestinian. Hamas fires thousands of indiscriminate rockets every year toward Israeli population centers; and on October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists murdered, raped, and mutilated innocent civilians (including babies, women, and the elderly). Yet the HRC has not told Hamas that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.

The resolution calls conflicts between Israeli settlers and Palestinians “terror attacks” by Israeli settlers without ever labeling Hamas’s October 7 attacks terror attacks. This is outrageous and unacceptable.

The HRC condemns Israel for detaining Palestinians, accusing Israel of torturing them and withholding bodies of those killed, but it doesn’t call Hamas’ mutilations and rapes of civilians torture, nor does it say much about the hostages held by Hamas other than the two passing sentences mentioned above.

The resolution deplores the allegedly “deliberate targeting of . . . protected persons by Israel” and calls for “ending the violence and protecting the Palestinian civilian population,” but no such allegation is leveled against Hamas, nor is a call issued against Hamas to end the violence.

The HRC further unashamedly expresses concerns “at statements by Israeli officials [allegedly] amounting to incitement to genocide” but expresses no such concern about years of statements by Hamas operatives (including its Charter) that clearly show genocidal intent. Indeed, what Hamas did on October 7 was an act of genocide. However, the HRC does not see it as genocide. This is not surprising but nonetheless despicable.

The resolution also calls “all measures and actions taken by Israel” illegal and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention without any legal analysis of such actions under the LOAC. Again, no such statement is made about Hamas’ actions. In fact, as per the HRC, Israel may not even invoke the right to self-defense. Instead, the HRC calls Israeli self-defense actions acts of violence, terror, and provocation by Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians.

The HRC further expresses deep concern at the alleged “conditions of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, including minors,” and accuses Israel of “psychological torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The HRC fails to express any concern whatsoever for the torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Coming back to the HRC’s request to the Commission of Inquiry we mentioned above, the resolution requests the Commission to analyze the legal consequences of the transfer of arms to Israel. First, as in other issues above, the HRC has made no such request regarding the transfer of arms and munitions to Hamas.

Second, while the HRC has asked the Commission of Inquiry to analyze the legal consequences of such actions, members of the Commission claim, among other things, that the Commission is not even a legal body.

During an HRC session last year, we met with Mr. Miloon Kothari, one of the three commissioners on the Commission of Inquiry. We asked him if the Commission had made legal conclusions in its reports regarding Israeli actions without analyzing the law and the facts. In response, he said, “You know, the Commission is not a legal body.” Exactly. So why is the Commission making legal conclusions, and why is the HRC asking the Commission to analyze the legal consequences of anything?

This year, we met Mr. Kothari again. We asked him if the Commission was doing anything for the release of the Israeli hostages. He said, “No. That’s not the mandate of the Commission.”

We asked, “Isn’t the mandate to investigate all actions on both sides in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank?”

He answered, “Yes, but we cannot be one-sided.” Then he said the most concerning thing: “Everyone in the Gaza Strip is a hostage, and what about the prisoners Israel is holding as hostage.”

We all were dumbfounded. We asked him if there was any difference between a “hostage” and a “prisoner.” He said, “Who’s to say who is a hostage or who is a prisoner?”

We said, “The law.”

But remember, the Commission (according to Mr. Kothari himself) is not a legal body. So it probably doesn’t know the legal difference between taking a“prisoner” (a lawful practice during war) and taking a “hostage” (a war crime).

Such is the state of the HRC and its so-called “Independent” Commissions of Inquiry. The loss of innocent lives on both sides is tragic. At the same time, the law cannot be partially applied. As long as the U.N. special rapporteurs and the commissioners on such Commissions of Inquiry continue to provide one-sided legal conclusions and refuse to hold the perpetrators accountable, there will be no justice for the innocent.