Israel against the world
The new UN Human Rights Council is heading straight into the anti-Zionist morass that helped destroy the body it's meant to replace.

By David Matas
May 8, 2006
Ottawa Citizen
Original Source: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=badc812f-b1b1-4ef1-973f-bc3dbe296c9e&p=1 
We have witnessed the death throes of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, soon to be replaced by a newly created Human Rights Council. The inauguration of this body should rightly signal a promising new era in human rights-building. However, with the General Assembly due to elect members tomorrow to the Council and its first meeting set for June 19, the ostensibly new and improved body looks as if it will fall into the same pitfalls that led to the commission's abolition.
The commission was abolished because it had ceased to function. Human rights violators had come to realize that they could avoid accountability by becoming members of the commission and then diverting attention away from their violations. The principle diversionary tactic was to focus on Israel. Of the commission's two agenda items dealing with country-specific human rights violations, one was reserved solely for Israel, while the other was meant to cover the rest of the world.
The commission became an Israel-bashing consortium, automatically condemning whatever the Jewish state was doing to defend itself against terrorist attacks. For years, one-third of the time and the resolutions of the Human Rights Commission were devoted to Israel alone. At the same time, there were no resolutions on major human rights violators, not on China or Zimbabwe or Iran.
Will the new council be different? Although it was the UN in New York that decided to create the council, it will be the UN in Geneva deciding its agenda and working methods. In the Geneva discussions, Israel has been sidelined -- a bad sign.
Country representatives have met in regional groupings in Geneva to discuss the council. Israel was not allowed into any meeting, the only country so excluded. Israel was never allowed into the Asia regional group even though it is the geographic area in which Israel belongs, because the anti-Zionist states have never allowed its
inclusion. The next logical choice was the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), which includes Canada. The WEOG group has allowed Israel membership in New York, but not so far in Geneva.
Although Israel should on principle have full membership in WEOG in Geneva, it has expressed a more modest ambition for the run-up to the council, simply to be part of the WEOG Geneva discussions on the new body. Even this, WEOG has so far refused.
The French essayist Rochefoucauld once said that the absent are always wrong. By barring Israel from discussions on how to prevent the new council from becoming a replica of the Israel-bashing commission, UN member states look well on their way to re-creating the old commission problems in the new human rights body.
In meetings I had in Geneva in March as part of the B'nai Brith International delegation at time when the commission was effectively disbanded, I heard a number of comments that give us insight into what we can expect at the new Council. A representative of one state said that Israel is not like-minded to the members of WEOG, that its behaviour disentitles it to membership or even joining in discussions on the new council. Yet, what Israel is criticized for is its attempts to defend itself; ceasing its self-defence would no doubt please some states, but at the cost of its existence.
This is very much like the old response individual Jews used to receive when complaining about discrimination that barred their membership in private clubs -- just convert to Christianity and you can join us.
Another state said membership in a regional grouping does not really matter because the members of the regional groups have such different points of view that they do not generate any useful consensus. This response obviously contradicts the premise that WEOG gathers together like-minded states. As well, it should undoubtedly be left to Israel to judge whether its participation in regional meetings is useful, not to those trying to keep Israel out.
Yet another response I heard is that Israel is friendly with the United States, the U.S. is a member of WEOG, and the U.S. can bring Israel's views to the table. But surely if Israeli opinions are appropriate and useful enough to be conveyed through an intermediary, then they can be conveyed directly. As well, the U.S., of all countries, clearly has its own interests at stake in the new council and cannot be expected to act as the voice of another member state. No other country is required to use the good offices of another member to convey its points of view.
Perhaps the feeblest response I heard, though the competition is steep, was the answer that Israeli participation in WEOG discussions on the new council would annoy the Arab and Muslim states. There are too many of these states, the argument ran, and it is politically unwise to get on their bad side. This answer indicates more than any other that the new council is heading into the anti-Zionist morass that, in part, led to the abolition of the old commission.
Canada is a member of WEOG and to its credit has striven for the inclusion of Israel in WEOG in Geneva. These efforts need to be redoubled to ensure that Israel is accepted as a full partner with all other WEOG members in all discussions, including those on the new Human Rights Council.
Furthermore, if Canada, an avid promoter and architect of the new Human Rights Council, wants the new body to be taken seriously, it must work to prevent the Council from falling into the anti-Zionist trap of its predecessor.
Given the proclivities of many of the contenders in tomorrow's election, not just for rabid anti-Zionism but for egregious human rights abuses in their own home ground, the prospects for a truly reformed Council appear dim.

David Matas is senior honorary counsel to B'nai Brith Canada and the author of Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism. He is a Winnipeg lawyer and was present in Geneva during the concluding commission session just before its final collapse.