NGO Monitor: Promotion of Apartheid Rhetoric and BDS at the UNHRC 50th Session
The 50th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), held in June 2022, perpetuated the bias and hypocrisy that has come to define the UNHRC specifically and the United Nations in general. NGO Monitor was present, speaking before the Council and documenting the false accusations made by self-proclaimed human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Several statements made during the session by NGO officials, many of which receive large portions of their funding from European governments, promoted the apartheid canard and advocated for BDS.
Item 2: Commission of Inquiry
In May 2021, the UNHRC established a permanent Commission of Inquiry (COI) tasked to “investigate” crimes allegedly committed by Israel since April 13, 2021. Fuelled by disinformation provided by NGOs, the COI is yet another UN body marred by secrecy and tainted by conflicts of interest, whose objective is to target Israel and disseminate false and antisemitic narratives about the conflict.
On June 14, the COI presented its first report to the UNHRC, perpetuating outright falsehoods and relying on information provided by terror-linked and anti-Israel NGOs.
During the debate, the Commissioners, who were appointed despite conflicts of interest and prejudicial backgrounds, made statements illustrating these biases. Navi Pillay, Chair of the COI, used her opening remarks to call for boycotting the State of Israel, claiming that the COI “will carefully assess the responsibilities of third states along with that of private and other actors in the continued violations and abuses of human rights law, and violations of international humanitarian law in Palestine and Israel. This includes, but is not limited to, the transfer of arms…” to Israel.
Commissioner Chris Sidoti attacked those who raised the concern of antisemitism, calling their statements an “outrage,” denigrating the IHRA definition internationally- recognized consensus definition of antisemitism, and accusing pro-Israel NGOs of being agents of the Israeli government: Even the definition of antisemitism promoted by the government of Israel and its GONGOs (government sponsored non-governmental organizations) acknowledges that criticism of Israel, similar to that leveled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Rather than engage with Jewish and Israeli groups who expressed concern of antisemitism to try and understand, Sidoti instead belittled them, stating that “accusations of antisemitism are thrown around like rice at a wedding. That legitimizes antisemitism. Trivializes antisemitism. Defiles the memory of the 6 million victims of the Shoah.”
The third Commissioner, Miloon Kothari, drew false equivalencies between Russia/Ukraine and Israel. Kothari addressed the alleged “double standards,” affirming that “The question needs to be asked why in the case of Ukraine the international community is rightly appalled in the face of aggression and occupation and has correctly moved to act swiftly and forcefully to ensure compliance with international law, while in the case of Israel and Palestine there has been inaction for decades. Are these glaring double standards? The answer has to be yes.”
It’s Time to Stop the UN Human Rights Council’s Downward Spiral
In this backwards reality – where the world’s worst abusers of human rights hold the power at the UNHRC – it comes as no surprise when a monstrous amount of time, effort, and money is spent in an endless, coordinated effort to condemn a single country – the Jew in the room – rather than allow attention to be drawn to their own regimes’ crimes.UNRWA's Teachers of Hate: Hillel Neuer on i24 TV News
This strategy works quite well for the human rights abusers, with the UNHRC funneling significant resources into attacking Israel. Israel has had more resolutions condemning it than all other countries in the world combined, more Commissioners of Inquiry (COI) into its actions, and it is the only country with an entire regular debate on the Council’s agenda dedicated to it. Nowhere near this level of scrutiny is placed on countries actively committing genocide, such as China.
In its latest endeavour, the UNHRC has embarked on an unprecedented journey prompted by the 2021 Gaza war and led by China, Venezuela, and Russia (while it was still a member of the Council) to investigate Israel – and only Israel –for alleged crimes committed for the entirety of the conflict, its “root causes,” and in perpetuity. With such an outrageously broad mandate, which omits mention of any Palestinian terror groups, comes an outrageous budget, provided by the UNHRC’s donor states, including Canada, which contributed $4.5 million to the UNHRC in 2022.
The COI is led by actors who hold well-documented anti-Israel biases, a choice that contravenes the UN’s own guideline that Commissioners have a “proven record of independence and impartiality.” It is no surprise that, in its first report to the UNHRC published on June 7, the COI’s focus was disproportionately on Israel, mentioning it 157 times, while mentioning Hamas – despite its targeting of Israeli civilians with over 4,000 rockets – just three times. During the presentation of the report to the UNHRC, Chair of the Commission Navi Pillay further emphasized alleged crimes committed by Israel while minimizing the role of Palestinian terrorist organizations, with Syria intervening to accuse Israel of committing “war crimes” and Russia to note it would be a suitable partner to facilitate peace negotiations.
Something must be done to stop the UNHRC’s downward spiral. The answer is not incremental votes by the UN General Assembly to kick members off the Council, with the red line being outright invasion and war crimes. Democracies, including Canada and its allies, should use the leverage they have – diplomatic pressure, public statements, and, if necessary, withholding funds – to ensure that the UNHRC operates as it was intended: as a Council of the world’s human rights role models who act for the benefit of all populations. As the great rabbinic sage, Hillel the Elder, said, “if not now, when?”
UN Watch's Hillel Neuer on i24 News.
Background: As the U.S. and other Western states gather today at the United Nations in the presence of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to pledge funding for the UN agency that runs schools and social services for Palestinians, a watchdog group urged them to stop funding hundreds of UNRWA teachers and other employees who call to murder Jews.
Over 120 UNRWA educators and staff have been found to promote violence and antisemitism on social media, according to the latest report in a series published by the non-governmental organization UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group based in Geneva.
Entitled “UNRWA’s Teachers of Hate,” today’s report uncovers 20 new cases of virulent UNRWA staff incitement which violate the agency’s rules and stated values of zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or antisemitism. June 23, 2022
Elliot Abrams: Human Rights NGOs: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
But the very large size of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch raises several problems, starting with the threat to the “pluralism” that Thomas Melia mentioned and the “democratic gap” that van Boven said NGOs might fill. When two gigantic NGOs dominate the field, their voices can drown out those of many other, far smaller organizations. What’s more, NGOs and their leadership are not immune from harboring prejudices and political biases.
Both organizations have been deeply critical of Israel and have attracted accusations of bias against that country. In February 2022, Amnesty issued a report entitled “Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity.” The UK foreign ministry rejected the use of this terminology, and the German foreign ministry said "We reject expressions like apartheid or a one-sided focusing of criticism on Israel.” The spokesman for the U.S. State Department said "I reject the view that Israel's actions constitute apartheid….we must ensure there isn't a double standard being applied."
The attitude of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International toward Israel presents at least two problems. The first is simply the merits of the argument: are these two organizations biased against Israel, engaging in “one-sided focusing of criticism on Israel?” What other biases might they have, with respect to particular countries or on particular issues? Are they playing some matters down and playing others up in ways that would be controversial if fully understood outside the organization?
That the U.S., U.K., and German governments felt compelled to respond to the Amnesty report is a measure of Amnesty’s influence and of the attention that its reports receive—far more than is typical for the scores of NGOs active on Middle East or human rights/democracy issues. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty also have a considerable ability to affect press coverage and the views of other NGOs, setting the agenda for debate for the media and campuses as well as for foreign ministries.
Moreover, when two such NGOs dominate the field, questions may arise as to their own internal “democratic gap.” Such large and rich organizations report to no one, nor of course are they democratically run internally. Their top officials theoretically report to boards of trustees, but the boards are themselves self-perpetuating and independent from any oversight. The very independence of NGOs, one of their greatest strengths, can become an issue when two organizations so dominate the field.
The ancient question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or "Who will guard the guards themselves?" arises here—and is difficult to answer. Others in the field of democracy promotion may be reluctant to criticize such powerful players—in part because anyone in the field may think he or she might one day seek employment as part of their large (and at the top very well-paid) staffs, and in part because they do not wish to tangle with organizations having such influence.
NGOs are critical participants in promoting democracy and human rights around the world. They play roles that cannot be filled by governments, and their many and varied voices provide perspectives and information that would otherwise be unavailable. The dominance of the two largest organizations is at the same time worth careful attention, especially given how controversial have been some of their activities. The independence of NGOs is invaluable, but the issues of oversight, governance, and bias at the two largest NGOs, which dominate the field globally, cannot be overlooked.