Crosstalk: Should U.N. dictate Israeli policy?

In the last eight years, Israel had been condemned in 45 of the general resolutions brought forward by the U.N. Human Rights Council, almost as many as the other 192 countries together.

Israel has also been condemned in 46 percent of resolutions devoted to specific countries — all of these resolutions initiated by Arab states.

Not only does the UNHRC defer to nations who have vowed Israel’s destruction, the country received only $3 million of funding that was allotted for Middle Eastern countries in 2013. Syria received $316 million despite having slaughtered thousands of its own citizens.

In 2006, the council adopted Article Seven, which made an annual review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent focus.

Israel is the only country subject to this U.N. rule, despite massacres in Sudan, Iran and other oppressive regimes.

The special investigator appointed to advise on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a person who had been publicly critical of Israel.

The former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, a South African of Indian Tamil descent, was tasked in 2008 with gathering facts about the effects of Israeli settlements on Palestinian human rights.

She immediately rendered a verdict against Israel’s treatment of civilians and totally failed to address the almost daily problem of Israeli citizens being attacked by Hamas terrorists.

Four years later, Pillay declared that Israel was as guilty of restricting human rights as Zimbabwe, Egypt, Ethiopia and Venezula.

On March 28, 2014, the UNHRC passed five anti-Israeli resolutions, which caused Paula Schreifer, head of the U.S. delegation, to state that she was “deeply troubled” by the many repetitive and one-sided votes.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Bejamin Netanyahu, has complained repeatedly that the U.N. holds Israel to a different standard of behavior than other nations.

As an example, he said the U.N. has taken little action to stop the genocide in Syria.

Netanyahu argued in October that the UNHRC defends Hamas and has refused to deal with terrorists using U.N. facilities to fire at Israel.

He also argued that Hamas using Gazan civilians as human shields and firing rockets to target civilians in Israel was given almost no attention by the U.N.

At the heart of the problem in the Middle East is the refusal of the Arab world to recognize the tiny country with eight million residents as a sovereign state.

Until that change in attitude happens, there can be no true hope for lasting peace in the Middle East.

by Mark Gibson

The UN General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight is no one-off Arab-backed attack on Israel: Israel is the only Middle-Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They should be.

Generations of unresolved conflict between Israel and its neighbors have created a dangerous, no-win situation that gives every indication of remaining forever unresolved as things currently stand.

Bad faith negotiations between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and both sides bear responsibility in this, give little hope for the future despite the general belief that a “two state” solution is the only way forward. America’s support of Israel has been too complete, too willing to accept violations of negotiated agreements, particularly in the building of settlements in the occupied territories.

America’s lock-step support of Israel has become a liability, a political necessity rather than a strategic or moral stand.

To question or oppose any aspect of Israel’s action in regards to its neighbors threatens to raise the cry of anti-Semitism, even when Israel’s actions are in violation of negotiated agreements or are generally condemned.

America stands almost alone in voting against the U.N. Resolution, joined only by Canada, Palau and Micronesia.

In refusing to sign the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Israel walked away from regional negotiations on this critical issue.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, a question under investigation by the international community. Unlike Israel, Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty, thereby opening the door to investigation, however problematic and incomplete it may be.

Israel has not signed the treaty, nor have they confirmed the “rumor” that they have nuclear weapons. The international community has no legal ability to confirm Israel’s nuclear status or investigate their weapons program.

It may have made sense, when Israel was newly established in a hostile region, for them to remain isolated. Perhaps it made sense to arm them with nuclear weapons as a deterrent. A great deal has since changed, however, and Israel’s isolation has allowed too many wounds to fester, closed too many doors to dialogue. There have been atrocities on both sides, violations on both sides, and no state or political group can claim the moral high ground.

If Israel and the United States cannot either move forward on the question of a two-state solution, or address the ongoing violence and conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, it’s time for the international community to step in and signal a way forward on this issue, so vital to the future of the region.