STATEMENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
by
B’NAI BRITH INTERNATIONAL

RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ITEM 14(B)

Jewish minorities today are harassed, intimidated and under attack around the world. In the past two years, particularly in recent months, there has been a wave of antisemitism not seen since the 1930’s. Antisemitism has again permeated global culture. There have been terrorist bombings against synagogues and Jewish communal institutions in Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey, with massive loss of life, as well as attacks, including firebombings, of Jewish schools, synagogues, and community interests in such countries as France, the UK and Canada. There has been a dramatic increase in physical attacks on individuals, including both the elderly and schoolchildren.^[i] An unholy alliance between international antisemitism and global terrorism appears to be in the making.

The rise in antisemitism has a number of causes and sources. But one of the causes, in fact one of the sources, can be seen right here, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The UNCHR has provided a platform for attacks on the Jewish State. The use of this forum has given these attacks a credibility that they would not otherwise have.

The Commission, year after year, hears speeches and passes resolutions condemning Israel for the worst crimes known to humanity. These accusations have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the political desire to delegitimize the State of Israel and undermine its existence. This ongoing vitriol has the purpose of criminalizing not only Israel, but also the Jewish people worldwide for their actual or presumed support of the State. The expression of the right of self determination of peoples, considered a basic human right for every other people, has become a crime in the chamber of this Commission, in the case of the Jewish people alone.

Governments and non-governmental organizations come to Geneva from around the world to advocate improvement in human rights. But, while others tinker with the wording of resolutions in an attempt to increase respect for human rights, anti-Zionists have turned this Commission into a forum for the disrespect of the human rights of Jews; a place of incitement to discrimination and hatred against Jewish minorities worldwide, in violation of the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Though the main instigators are the states at war with Israel, many countries vote in favour of unbalanced resolutions endorsing fabricated charges against the world’s only Jewish state. Most member countries and non-governmental organizations sit silently by while this chamber is turned into a hall of incitement against Jews.

When human rights organizations assess the human rights situation in Israel in the context of a global assessment of all countries, using the same standards for all, that is one thing. But here, at the Commission, Israel’s alleged shortcomings are a matter of constant preoccupation, while other countries with records of real human rights violations are passed over in silence.

This is all the more ironic given the fact that many of Israel’s detractors lack the very elements that make up a democratic, human rights respecting country. This would encompass free elections of the head of state and/or government and legislative representatives, and a political opposition that is able to organize and campaign freely. Freedom from domination by the military, or from oppression based on totalitarian ideologies or religious tyranny, are key elements present in Israeli society, but absent in a number of Israel’s detractors. The same is the case with the protection of the rights of religious, cultural, ethnic and other minorities, freedom of expression through media independent of the state, freedom of association and of assembly, rule of law with an independent judiciary and police force, personal autonomy and economic/social rights. ^[ii]

As well, there is a problem in what is said about Israel, in contrast to what is said about other countries that are mentioned. Condemnations of Israel are in the most inflammatory language imaginable. Condemnations of real violations by other states, when they are noted, are, in contrast, phrased in language that is mild, polite, and even diplomatic.

Even the independent human rights mechanisms within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have been tainted. When the mechanisms mobilize to point out and condemn antisemitism, they are chastised. I remind this Commission that it voted in 1997 to excise from the Report of Mr. Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, a text stating only the obvious, that antisemitic motifs in Muslim extremist publications are on the rise.

The Commission has granted a mandate to a rapporteur whose very title “Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967” is a phony accusation against Israel. The territory that came under Israeli control in 1967 was Egyptian and Jordanian territory before that time. Both states have renounced all claims to that territory. This Commission never labeled Egypt and Jordan as occupiers of Palestinian territory.

The mandate of the Rapporteur similarly pre-judges the human rights situation in the area. A previous incumbent, Hannu Halinen of Finland, stated that he had been “constantly asking for an amendment of the mandate, which was so distant from reality that it must be reviewed if one wanted to improve the human rights situation. According to the current mandate he reported on human rights violations by Israel. He wanted to be able to report on the situation of human rights [in the areas under his jurisdiction] as did other Special Rapporteurs, and not be told beforehand what the violations were and by whom they were committed.” ^[iii]

Just one example of the virulent anti-Israel invective that has become the lingua franca of the UNCHR relates to the blatant 1997 allegation by the PLO representative who accused the Israeli authorities of “having infected by injection 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the years of the Intifada”, a charge which is reminiscent of the age-old antisemitic blood libels. To date, six years later, this outrageous and inflammatory falsehood remains in the official UN Summary Record without any public withdrawal or apology.

The reports by special rapporteurs whose mandates in principle have nothing to do with Israel have continued this trend towards one sided, malicious, fantastical accusations against Israel. We draw your attention, to take one example, to the report of Miloon Kothari on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, whose addendum on the West Bank and Gaza, gratuitously mislabelled “occupied Palestinian territories”, is, in its entirety, little more than a piece of anti-Zionist propaganda.

German theologian Martin Niemöller reminded us: “first they came for the Jews”. We address the Human Rights Commission to protest its perversion into a launching pad for global antisemitism, not just because we are concerned about the respect for human rights of Jews, but because we are concerned with the respect for human rights of all. There is a direct link between the anti-Zionism of the Commission and its silence on real violators.

Many human rights non-governmental organizations have been wringing their hands about the transformation of the Human Rights Commission into an abusers’ caucus. Some of the worst human rights violators are members of this Commission. These violators join together to block any criticism that might be made of them.

The disintegration of the human rights mandate of the Human Rights Commission may now have reached the point of an inability to muster votes against violations in many countries that are scenes of horrific human rights abuses. But it began with votes against Israel. Once it became plain that the Commission could be a political playground disrespectful of even the most basic human rights principles, violators got the message. If Israel could be condemned for violations it did not commit, simply because it could not muster enough votes, then violators could escape condemnation for violations they did commit, if they could garner enough votes.

In 2002, for example, a draft resolution on the “Situation of human rights in Zimbabwe” was introduced by Spain on behalf of the European Union, denouncing the absence of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe and requesting Special Rapporteurs to carry out missions there. What happened next is instructive. ^[iv] Nigeria, speaking on behalf of The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), introduced a “no motion” action, stating - with incredible irony - that the Commission should not be “political”. The OIC was able to mobilize the automatic majority it usually relies upon to have this fledgling resolution quashed.

The obsessive voluminous fixation of the Human Rights Commission on Israel, and its silence about egregious violations elsewhere, are two sides of the same coin. Any institution has only so much time and energy. Time and energy spent on Israel are not available to deal with the human rights situations in other countries. Focus on Israel is, for many violators, the tactic of choice to avoid attention to their own misdeeds.

We commend the point of order made this year by Germany on behalf of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), objecting to the odious parallel made by the Palestinian Authority between Zionism and Nazism. We appreciate the reply made by the United States that criticizes the Commission for its unfair, unbalanced, work and its inflammatory and reckless language against Israel. We would welcome a substantial increase in similar interventions by more states and non-governmental organizations alike.

We live in a world where, around the globe, religious and ethnic minorities are routinely harassed, their voices marginalized and their rights curtailed, including vulnerable groups under the rule of member states of the UN Commission on Human Rights. As just one example, anti-Christian discrimination and violence has been widely documented, particularly in certain countries in Africa and South East Asia. ^[v] In some Muslim countries, religious minorities must be officially recognized in order to receive what amounts to second class citizenship. Non-recognized religions, such as the Baha’i in Iran, face ongoing persecution, while religious minorities in India, for instance, have been targeted by waves of violence. There is a systematic campaign of defamation against Jewish religious beliefs and practices throughout the Arab world. Recent television programs aired in Egypt and Lebanon contain the most atrocious antisemitic incitement.

In the aftermath of 9/11, many religious and ethnic minorities have faced an increase in harassment. Sikh and Hindu temples, as well as Islamic mosques, were targeted in the initial backlash. There was also a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents. However, in the case of antisemitism, the pace has not diminished but has rather intensified. ^[vi] Yet this creeping scourge of antisemitism is all but overlooked.

As an example of the prevailing mindset that minimizes antisemitism, the UN Commission on Human Rights has again asked the “Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” to examine “the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world with special reference to physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centres, businesses and properties in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001”. Other religions and nationalities were not included in this request. There are reports that the current Special Rapporteur on Racism, Mr. Doudou Diène, requested a mandate to examine antisemitism within a similar framework, but this request was denied, and his present investigations on the subject are at his own initiative.

Religious intolerance is a matter of great concern to all - in all areas of the world and for all peoples. The promotion of respect for cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity should be an integral component of the work of the United National Commission on Human Rights. It is time for the Commission to express serious concern at the growth of religious and racial intolerance and acts of violence that have recently targeted members of all minority groups, including those in Jewish communities worldwide.

In a related vein, we must recall that the UNCHR has reaffirmed that “terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, can never be justified in any instance...” ^[vii] The resolution deplored “the large number of civilians killed, massacred and maimed by terrorists in indiscriminate and random acts of violence and terror, which cannot be justified under any circumstances”.

However, these cardinal principles are entirely and routinely ignored in the discourse of the UNCHR when it comes to acts of terrorism directed against Israel and related assaults on Jewish communities around the world. This was amply illustrated in the 2002 resolution validating Palestinian “resistance” and thereby implicitly legitimizing acts of terrorism against Israel. ^[viii] Since acts against the Jewish community globally now appear to be part of this anti-Israel strategy, developments such as these, right in the UNCHR arena, clearly have implications for the safety and wellbeing of Jewish minorities worldwide.

We come to the Commission like no other non-governmental organization has come here before. We do not ask the Commission to work to end human rights violations somewhere else. We ask the Commission to stop its own human rights violations here, inflicted within these walls. We call on all victim minorities to show solidarity with us as we have shown solidarity with them. We call on all representatives and states and non-governmental organizations that come to the Commission out of concern for human rights to turn first and foremost against the human rights violations being committed here, now in front of you - the incitement to hatred against the Jewish people world wide through the attempt to criminalize the Jewish state and justify any tactics, including terrorism, against it.

We say: stop providing a platform to anti-Zionism; stop the use of this Commission as a legitimizer of hate propaganda and violence against Israel and the Jewish people. The safety of Jewish minorities around the world depends on it.

Prepared for B’nai Brith International by David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, and Ruth Klein, National Director of Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada
November 27, 2003

[i] See Antisemitism Worldwide 2001/2, The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University, 2002 http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/annual-report.html

[vi] This can be seen, for example, in 2002 in the 459 documented incidents in Canada, where one would not expect such blatant indications of prejudice and bias given the country’s strong traditions of multiculturalism. These incidents, reported to B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights, reflected a 60.48% increase in antisemitic incidents compared to the previous year, including physical violence against individuals of all ages and attacks on places of worship, cultural centres, businesses and properties. Data from both the League and the Toronto police confirm that while attacks against other minorities have decreased, the same cannot be said about antisemitic incidents. See 2002 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, League for Human Rights, B’nai Brith Canada, Toronto, 2003

Index to Briefs | B’nai Brith Canada