The B’nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs has a mandate to protest the abuse of human rights throughout the world and advocate on behalf of worldwide Jewish communities in distress. The Institute has a special focus on pro-Israel advocacy and education.
Rochelle Wilner President	Frank Dimant Chief Executive Officer	Amos Sochaczevski National Chair	Ruth Klein National Director

STATEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

in preparation for the 59th session of the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights

D. THE MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

The language and terminology used in the reporting and discourse of the Commission is also highly suspect. UNCHR mechanisms provide for Special Rapporteurs, Representatives or Experts to examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories. In practice, there are only eight country-specific mandates, only two of which relate to Commission members. This compares to 25 thematic-related appointments. In theory, when the Commission decides to appoint a special Rapporteur for a specific country, this mandate can be extended indefinitely if the Commission so decides. In practice, while this is the case in terms of the Rapporteur reporting on Israel, the same rules do not appear to apply to all states.

As the Department’s briefing paper on Iran points out: “In 2002 the Iranian government avoided a country statement at the UNCHR on its human rights record and a resolution at the UNGA. As a result, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Iran came to an end.” The starkness of this statement belies the apparent ease with which Iran was able to evade attention at the Commission and condemnation at the General Assembly and — unilaterally, in effect — to end the mandate of the Rapporteur. The political will of the Commission members is therefore clearly a pivotal factor in deciding which countries will or will not be scrutinized.

The mandate of the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967” was created in 1993 in perpetuity; it was no temporary mandate that must be renewed periodically, as is the case with every other such arrangement involving a Rapporteur. It has survived the resignation of three incumbents and is now held by John Dugard (South Africa). Whereas other Rapporteurs are enjoined to make reports on the “situation of human rights” in their allotted country, Dugard’s mandate is solely “to investigate Israel’s violations…”, thus denoting a priori judgement in advance of the investigation.

This mandate clearly does not cover the totality of the human rights situation in the area in question, something that previous Rapporteurs have tried to address by alluding to human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority against their own people. A previous incumbent, Hannu Halinen of Finland, reiterated to reporters 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.”^iv

The current Special Rapporteur has chosen to make the causes and consequences of terrorism a central theme in his 2002 interim report, which was presented to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General. In this Report, Dugard declares (paragraph 2):

“Since 11 September 2001, the response to terrorism has dominated the world’s agenda and the protection of human rights has been reduced in importance… The relationship between terrorism and human rights is nowhere more evident than in the Middle East, where the violation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has produced acts of terrorism in Israel, violating the most basic right to life, and this in turn has led to acts of military terror in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, with the inevitable suppression of basic human rights.” [our emphasis added]^v

By this statement, the Rapporteur betrays his political viewpoint that terrorism against Israel is a result of its actions, when in fact it is Israel’s very existence that “provokes” this terrorism. He admits attacks on Israelis are “terrorism”, yet the phraseology he uses, “acts of terrorism in Israel”, as if they occur spontaneously, should more correctly be “Palestinian acts of terrorism against Israel”. He terms Israel’s defensive action against this terrorism as “military terror”, thereby completing his description of a cycle of violence that, in his worldview, has been initiated by Israel.

Dugard’s a priori acceptance of the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is a clear indication of his preconceived assumptions. As human rights expert David Matas, B’nai Brith Canada’s Senior Legal Counsel, has pointed out:

“When there is an occupying power, there is also an occupied State. The Fourth Geneva Convention uses the phrases “Occupying Power” and “Occupied State”. Who, then, for the West Bank and Gaza, is the occupied State?

The Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War do not recognize the legal possibility of the occupation of a people, only the occupation of the territory of a state… If the accusation of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is now made against Israel, it should have been made earlier against Jordan and Egypt.”^vi

When these territories were captured as a result of the aggression of Israel’s Arab neighbours in June 1967, they were in the hands of Egypt and Jordan. There was no Palestinian state at the time, and no resolution by Egypt and Jordan of the status of these lands which were under their rule from 1948-1967. The Special Rapporteur’s use of the terminology “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is inacurate and feeds into the perpetuation of a UN-wide — as well as general — application of this distorted terminology to what should be termed “disputed territories”. Given that many of Israel’s opponents consider all of Israel to be on “occupied” land, Matas explains the underlying philosophy of the term:

“The only answer [to why Israel is called an “occupier” and Jordan and Egypt never were]… is that Israel is [considered] alien or foreign to the region, but Jordan and Egypt are not… the distinction depends on a belief in anti-Zionism… ”^vii

In an Addendum to his Report, the Rapporteur returns again to the issue of Israel’s security concerns. He seems on the one hand to acknowledge to a certain extent “Israel’s security needs and interests”:

“There can be no doubt that Israel has legitimate security concerns. Waves of Palestinian suicide bombers have inflicted deep wounds on Israeli society. Israel has both a right and an obligation to protect its people from further attacks.” [our emphasis added]

However, having acknowledged that right and obligation, he goes on to make statements that restrict that right and frustrate the implementation of that obligation:

“At the same time, it is necessary to ask whether the measures resorted to by Israel, particularly curfews and closures, always serve a security need. Often they appear so disproportionate, so remote from the interests of security, that one is led to ask whether they are not in part designed to punish, humiliate and subjugate the Palestinian people… Human rights have been sacrificed to security. This in turn produces a greater threat to Israeli security: the hopelessness of despair which leads inexorably to suicide bombings and other acts of violence against Israelis.” [our emphasis added]^viii

Yet again, the Rapporteur presents as fact the cycle of violence rationale for terrorism, laying the culpability for initiating this cycle squarely on Israel’s shoulders.

Miloon Kotheri, the “Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living”, visited the Palestinian territories from January 5-10, 2002. He presented his report at the 58^th session of the Commission with the request that it be processed under Agenda item 10 (Economic, social and cultural rights). This is an example of how every thematic agenda item can be focused on Israel. In this case the Raporteur’s biases are so evident as to mark the entire report as a propaganda device for the anti-Israel lobby at the Commission. He fails to acknowledge any legitimate security concerns for Israel, and his language throughout is so incendiary and scornful of Israelis that it leaves no doubt that he views Israel’s entire existence as illegitimate.

His repeated use of terms such as “settler colonies” and the “implantation of settlements and settlers” relies on subjective and highly specious terms to describe Jews living in areas where they are an indigenous people. This presupposition of colonialism is prima facie evidence that the Special Rapporteur ignores the basic connection of the Jewish People with the Land of Israel. He gives implicit support to those who advocate that these areas should become judenrein (that is, cleansed of Jews), as is much of the Arab world today. He thus betrays what is, in effect, a denial of the Jewish people’s right to self determination. At the same time, he decries “the continuing violation of the right of return” and refers en masse to Palestinians as “holders of the right of return”, even though this aspiration is entirely incompatible with the continuing existence of Israel.

The Special Rapporteur cites “violations of the Geneva Convention, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, on which Israel has reneged”, ignoring the following Palestinian practices that put civilians at risk and effectively undermine Israeli efforts to ensure their own protection:

• Use of civilian areas, including private homes, for the planning and logistics of attacks on Israeli civilians
• Use of civilian areas, including private homes, as weapons laboratories and factories
• Use of public institutions, including UNRWA facilities, by terrorist organizations
• The presence — in plain clothes — of elements of the Palestinian security forces which have been implicated in attacks on Israeli civilians
• Use of public conveyances, even Red Crescent ambulances, for the transportation of known militants and terrorists, as well as the conveyance of explosives and suicide bombers in such vehicles
• Use of educational facilities, such as An Najah University in Nablus, by organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for recruitment and demonstrations

The Special Rapporteur writes: “Essentially, the institutions, laws and practices that Israel had developed to dispossess the Palestinians (now Israeli citizens) inside its 1948 border (the Green Line) have been applied with comparable effect in the areas occupied since 1967.” The malignancy of this statement is evident in a number of ways:

• Over one million Arab citizens of Israel enjoy democratic rights and continue their way of life in Arab towns and villages throughout Israel. Each adult citizen has the vote. Contrast this with, for example, the lot of a Jew in Iran where the entire Jewish community is allowed just one Member of Parliament to represent all its constituents or, indeed, the lot of millions of Arabs who live under repressive regimes where universal suffrage is just a distant dream.
• As for intentional dispossession, the facts speak for themselves. On September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, as saying: “The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously...”
• At the conclusion of the June 1967 war, Israel offered to return virtually all of the territories it had captured, in return for recognition and normalization. The Khartoum Declaration of the Arab League in September of that year unequivocally rejected Israel’s offer.

¤ Canada should cease using the politically charged and inherently biased phrase “occupied territories”, and instead refer to the areas under discussion as “disputed territories”

¤ Canada should resist all attempts to label as either “illegal” or “alien” the presence of Jews living in territories where there has been a Jewish presence for millennia

¤ Canada should disassociate itself from the “cycle of violence” rationale that puts the blame for Palestinian suicide bombers on their victims — the Israelis

¤ Canada should distance itself publicly from Reports of the Special Rapporteurs and express its dissatisfaction with resolutions of the Commission that betray the type of warped reasoning found in these Reports.

Table Of Contents | Introduction | The Need For Reform Of The UNCHR | The UNCHR Agenda | The Mandate of The Special Rapporteur
Canada’s Voting Record At The UNCHR | Positions Of The Department Of Foreign Affairs | Terrorism | Racism And Racial Discrimination
Freedom Of Expression | Conclusion | Summary Of Recommendations | Footnotes