Spring Break
Report's accusations against Israel are unmerited
by Sarah Geller
Op-Ed | 11/3/09
Posted online at 1:55 AM EST on 11/3/09
In 1945, the United Nations was founded on the principles that the member nations would do everything in their power to preserve and seek peace. While the functions of its organizations are well-intended, serious flaws exist, especially regarding Israel. After Israel's response to the 12,000-plus rockets shelled into Sderot and the Western Negev over the past nine years, the United Nations Human Rights Council launched an investigation of Israel. Certainly, an investigation is an appropriate response to the combat between Israel and Hamas, and the speculation of war crimes is enough to initiate a report. However, the way the council went about its mission was biased and discreditable.
First, Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria is president of the Human Rights Council, while his country simultaneously commits gross human rights abuses. Nigeria's police unlawfully kill detainees, frequently using torture and other ill-treatments to interrogate suspects (there is no standardized mechanism to prevent such practices) and to extract confessions. Such confessions continue to be used as evidence in court, contrary to international law. Also, authorities consistently fail to exercise due diligence in preventing and addressing sexual violence. Uhomoibhi's record of terrible human rights abuse undermines the creditability of the United Nations to launch a mission that questions other countries' policies on human rights.
Moving beyond that little technicality, three other people were involved besides Goldstone: Christine Chinkin of the United Kingdom, Hina Jilani of Pakistan and Desmond Travers of Ireland. Chinkin announced her position stating that Israeli officials were guilty before the investigation began. Even when the committee was aware of her biased views, she still remained a leader in the investigation. I am not quite sure how the United Nations can justify this report and send it to the Security Council. In an issue as sensitive as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the most neutral position must be taken to handle such a situation. Initiating a report in this manner does not pave the path toward peace.
First, Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi of Nigeria is president of the Human Rights Council, while his country simultaneously commits gross human rights abuses. Nigeria's police unlawfully kill detainees, frequently using torture and other ill-treatments to interrogate suspects (there is no standardized mechanism to prevent such practices) and to extract confessions. Such confessions continue to be used as evidence in court, contrary to international law. Also, authorities consistently fail to exercise due diligence in preventing and addressing sexual violence. Uhomoibhi's record of terrible human rights abuse undermines the creditability of the United Nations to launch a mission that questions other countries' policies on human rights.
Moving beyond that little technicality, three other people were involved besides Goldstone: Christine Chinkin of the United Kingdom, Hina Jilani of Pakistan and Desmond Travers of Ireland. Chinkin announced her position stating that Israeli officials were guilty before the investigation began. Even when the committee was aware of her biased views, she still remained a leader in the investigation. I am not quite sure how the United Nations can justify this report and send it to the Security Council. In an issue as sensitive as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the most neutral position must be taken to handle such a situation. Initiating a report in this manner does not pave the path toward peace.
Be the first to comment on this story