- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Today, in yet another example of the UN’s lack of impartiality, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution that condemned Israel and omitted any references to Hamas and Hamas’ conduct that led to Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip. In the 33-1-13 vote, Canada provided the lone vote against the resolution. The U.S. is not a member of the UNHRC. Thirteen other states abstained.
Briefly, the UNHRC’s resolution:
• Accused Israel of carrying out “aggression” against the Gaza Strip.
• Charged Israel with “grave violations of human rights” in the Gaza Strip.
• Demanded that Israel immediately withdraw its military forces from the Gaza Strip.
• Called for Israel to open all of Gaza’s crossings.
• Decided to send a “fact-finding mission” to investigate Israeli violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
The resolution’s omissions included:
• A failure to recognize that Hamas’ indiscriminate rocketfire, which is a violation of international law was the cause of the ongoing combat. Self-defense is not aggression. Hamas, not Israel, was the aggressor.
• Ignored Hamas’ responsibility for civilian casualties through its indiscriminate attacks on Israel and its use of Gaza’s population as human shields, both of which are violations of the Laws of War.
• A failure to call for an end to Hamas’ rocketfire and rigorous enforcement mechanisms toward that end, as well as toward the objective of ending weapons and money smuggling by Hamas.
• No recognition of Israel’s security needs in assuring that the crossings are not used to smuggle weapons and money to Hamas.
• No call for a fact-finding mission to examine Hamas’ violations of international law and international humanitarian law.
This latest decision provides a fresh example that the UNHRC denies Israel’s people of a “common standard” of human rights. It denies them equality in rights, including that of “life” and “security of person” on account of ignoring the relentless acts of aggression carried out against them.
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter declares, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The UNHRC’s decision violates Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention declares with respect to the civilian population and other protected persons e.g., military members who are hors de combat:
…the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever…(a) violence to life and person…
Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions declares:
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects…
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
The UNHRC’s silence on the rocket attacks constitutes de facto support for stripping Israel’s civilians of their protections under international law from being made the object of attack. Its silence on Hamas’ human shielding also constitutes an implicit acceptance of that practice, even as it violates international law.
All in all, this latest decision undermines prospects for peace by providing cover to Hamas. At the same time, by blaming the party acting in self-defense, it feeds the ideology of hate that sustains rejectionist elements such as Hamas that are responsible for the current violence and remain an insurmountable barrier to peace. Finally, its decision highlights the reality that the UNHRC does not treat all civilians equally and that differentiation is inconsistent with the provisions of the UN Charter and international law.
Briefly, the UNHRC’s resolution:
• Accused Israel of carrying out “aggression” against the Gaza Strip.
• Charged Israel with “grave violations of human rights” in the Gaza Strip.
• Demanded that Israel immediately withdraw its military forces from the Gaza Strip.
• Called for Israel to open all of Gaza’s crossings.
• Decided to send a “fact-finding mission” to investigate Israeli violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
The resolution’s omissions included:
• A failure to recognize that Hamas’ indiscriminate rocketfire, which is a violation of international law was the cause of the ongoing combat. Self-defense is not aggression. Hamas, not Israel, was the aggressor.
• Ignored Hamas’ responsibility for civilian casualties through its indiscriminate attacks on Israel and its use of Gaza’s population as human shields, both of which are violations of the Laws of War.
• A failure to call for an end to Hamas’ rocketfire and rigorous enforcement mechanisms toward that end, as well as toward the objective of ending weapons and money smuggling by Hamas.
• No recognition of Israel’s security needs in assuring that the crossings are not used to smuggle weapons and money to Hamas.
• No call for a fact-finding mission to examine Hamas’ violations of international law and international humanitarian law.
This latest decision provides a fresh example that the UNHRC denies Israel’s people of a “common standard” of human rights. It denies them equality in rights, including that of “life” and “security of person” on account of ignoring the relentless acts of aggression carried out against them.
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter declares, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The UNHRC’s decision violates Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention declares with respect to the civilian population and other protected persons e.g., military members who are hors de combat:
…the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever…(a) violence to life and person…
Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions declares:
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects…
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
The UNHRC’s silence on the rocket attacks constitutes de facto support for stripping Israel’s civilians of their protections under international law from being made the object of attack. Its silence on Hamas’ human shielding also constitutes an implicit acceptance of that practice, even as it violates international law.
All in all, this latest decision undermines prospects for peace by providing cover to Hamas. At the same time, by blaming the party acting in self-defense, it feeds the ideology of hate that sustains rejectionist elements such as Hamas that are responsible for the current violence and remain an insurmountable barrier to peace. Finally, its decision highlights the reality that the UNHRC does not treat all civilians equally and that differentiation is inconsistent with the provisions of the UN Charter and international law.
Last edited:
