Written evidence submitted by Jewish Leadership Council (MUO0008)

Jewish Leadership Council

• This submission is on behalf of the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), a charity and umbrella body representing 37 of the largest UK Jewish organisations. The JLC regularly engages with the Foreign Office in order to raise topics of relevance and concern to the Jewish community.

Executive Summary

• Multilateral organisations are highly respected and play a vital role in global diplomacy. Unfortunately, some of these organisations are too often used to single out Israel for criticism above any other issue in the world. Israel is often subject to more condemnatory resolutions than any other country at multilateral organisations regardless of the organisation’s scope. No country should be immune from criticism where this is justified but this should be proportionate. This anti-Israel bias has been recognised and condemned by UN Secretary Generals and the UK Government. In many cases, it can be argued that the disproportionate focus on Israel goes beyond legitimate criticism by applying double standards and demonizing the world’s only Jewish country.
• The UN Human Rights Council has an anti-Israel bias built into its infrastructure through Agenda Item 7 – the only such permanent item for a specific country. The UK has taken a stance against Item 7 by committing to vote against all resolutions tabled in this slot but the Council’s anti-Israel bias is by no means limited to an agenda item.
• Other multilateral organisations such as UNESCO, WHO and the Commission on the Status of Women, have become increasingly politicised with annual condemnatory resolutions of only Israel despite all other global events. The UK has begun to take a more vocal role in opposing this politicisation.
• Multilateral organisations are weakened by their disproportionate treatment of Israel and this must be addressed by the UK if we are to have a role in strengthening them.

Introduction

1. The UK rightly takes a leading role in multilateral organisations in order to promote our nation’s foreign policy objectives. These organisations are widely respected in the UK and their reports, resolutions and announcements are lauded as an authoritative source in the British media. While these organisations serve an important purpose and are established to tackle some of the most egregious global issues, this submission will highlight an area of concern which unfortunately detracts from the work they should be undertaking.
2. A common theme across multilateral bodies is a disproportionate bias against the State of Israel. The treatment of Israel by multilateral bodies has been a long-term concern of the Jewish community and we have raised this with various UK governments.
3. The fact that it is the world’s only Jewish state which is subject to being singled out for criticism at multilateral organisations cannot go unrecognised. Natan Sharansky identified the “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses the threshold into antisemitism. The 3 “D”s are demonization, double standards and delegitimisation.[1] The UK must be vigilant in ensuring it does not engage in any activity which goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel and into the realm of the 3 “D”s of antisemitism.
4. To criticise the actions of the Israeli Government is not antisemitic. Indeed, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, recognised by the UK Government and all major political parties, states:

“Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”[2]

5. We have always been clear that no country should be immune from criticism but this should be proportionate and within the scope of the body doing so. In this submission we will highlight what we believe to be an anti-Israel bias within multilateral organisations including the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, the World Health Organisation and the UN Commission on the Status of Women. We believe that many of these criticisms also apply to the UN Security Council and General Assembly but note that they are outside the scope of this inquiry.
6. This bias has been acknowledged by serving UN Secretary Generals. In 2016, Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council:

“During the past ten years, I have argued that we must never accept bias against Israel within UN bodies. Decades of political manoeuvrings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel. In many cases, rather than helping the Palestinian cause, this reality has hampered the ability of the UN to fulfil its role effectively.”[3]

7. In his 2006 leaving speech, Kofi Annan told the UN General Assembly:

“Supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged, by standards that are not applied to its enemies – and too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”[4]

8. In recent years the UK has increasingly acknowledged the anti-Israel bias within some multilateral bodies. A major step has been the decision to actively vote against all resolutions tabled under Item 7 at the UN Human Rights Council; the only permanent agenda item focused on a single country. This step has been recognised by those in the Jewish community as an attempt to eliminate the disproportionate and often unfair treatment of the only Jewish country. Further action will be needed in order for the Government to strengthen multilateral organisations.

UN Human Rights Council

9. The UN Human Rights Council should play a key role in upholding human rights wherever they are threatened. However, it has consistently focussed a disproportionate amount of its time and resources on just one country. Since it was founded in 2006, the Council has passed 85 resolutions condemning Israel which makes it the most condemned country by far. This compares to 32 against Syria despite the brutal civil war ravaging the country, 22 against Myanmar, 12 against North Korea, 9 against Iran and 9 against Eritrea which are the next most condemned countries by the Council[5]. This imbalance is also reflected in terms of the number of commissions of inquiry and special sessions Israel has been subject to.[6]
10. 19/30 countries listed by the Foreign Office as “human rights priority countries” have not had a single condemnatory resolution passed against them since the Council was founded; this includes: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Indeed, 10/30 of these priority countries are themselves members of the 2020 Human Rights Council; these are: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Venezuela.
11. The clear bias of the Human Rights Council is best illustrated by agenda Item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. Israel is the only country which is subject to a permanent agenda item and this, in part, contributes to the Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel.
12. In recent years the UK has increasingly acknowledged the issue of Item 7. In his 2018 speech at the 38th Session of the Council, then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said:

“And I will say that we share the view that a dedicated agenda item focused solely on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace and unless things change, we shall move next year to vote against all resolutions introduced under Item 7.”[7]

13. In 2019, then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt followed up on his predecessor’s remarks by writing in the Jewish Chronicle:

“By any standard of fairness or proportion, elevating this dispute above all others cannot be sensible; indeed it is an unhelpful illusion to suppose that Israel’s conduct deserves special scrutiny…

“…Instead of promoting reconciliation and compromise, Item 7 strengthens the hard and trampled road of self righteousness, a narrative that one side alone holds a monopoly of fault…

“…Sadly, our concerns have not been heeded. So I have decided that we will do exactly what we said: Britain will now oppose every Item 7 resolution. On Friday we will vote against all four texts proposed in this way.”[8]

14. As such, the UK voted against all Item 7 resolutions in 2019. The UK is not a member of the Human Rights Council in 2020 but Lord Ahmad still used his closing statement at the 43rd Session in May to say:

“We support justified scrutiny of Israel and the OPTs under appropriate agenda items, but continue to be concerned by the Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel.”[9]

15. The British Jewish community has largely welcomed the UK’s opposition to Item 7 and the commitment to vote against all resolutions tabled under Item 7. However, we believe that while the UN Human Rights Council’s institutional bias is best illustrated by Item 7, it is by no means the limit of the issue.
16. In stating its opposition to Item 7, the Government has said that it is still committed to raising concerns regarding the actions of the Israeli Government and will continue to do so at the Human Rights Council when tabled under the “appropriate” agenda items. This has led to some resolutions being moved to other agenda items to circumvent the stance taken by countries like the UK. In 2019, the UK abstained on a resolution tabled under Item 2 (the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Report) which condemned Israel.
17. We believe that the UN Human Rights Council’s disproportionate focus against Israel is part of an inherent institutional bias. Although the UK may no longer consider Item 7 to be a suitable place for scrutinising the actions of the Israeli Government, it nonetheless remains a permanent item on the agenda where these issues will receive disproportionate focus. Resolutions condemning Israel continue to vastly outnumber those condemning any other country and therefore the bias remains the same whether these motions are tabled under Item 7 or any other agenda item.
18. We wholeheartedly support the right of the UK Government to hold any and all countries to account where it feels this is necessary. However, the UN Human Rights Council’s continued anti-Israel bias makes this an inappropriate place for the UK to properly scrutinise the actions of the Israeli Government.
19. The UK should therefore continue to vote against all resolutions tabled under Item 7. However, as the Council shows no signs of reform, the UK should consider extending this position further to cover all resolutions condemning Israel at the Council.

UNESCO

20. The disproportionate focus on Israel can also be found within other UN bodies including UNESCO. Resolutions which are critical or condemnatory of Israel are passed on an annual basis whereas such explicit criticism of other individual nations is extremely rare. These resolutions are usually extremely one sided and fail to take into account other factors such as Palestinian terrorism or incitement within the Palestinian curriculum.
21. Worse than the disproportionate focus on Israel, UNESCO has shamefully been used to deny the Jewish connection to major holy sites. This reached its peak in 2016 when two resolutions were passed which only referred to Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank by their Muslim names or referred to the “Western Wall Plaza” in quotation marks.[10] The UK voted against both resolutions.
22. Subsequent resolutions have sought to avoid this criticism by including in the resolution its reaffirmation of the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions”. While this is an improvement, the resolutions still contribute to an ongoing disproportionate focus on Israel and continue to take a heavily one-sided view of the situation.
23. In 2017, the UK delegation to UNESCO used its explanation of vote to note the body’s disproportionate focus on Israel and how this is unhelpful to resolving the important issues in the region. The delegation said:

“But whilst we agreed with many points in the Culture resolution, we could not vote in favour of a text that ignored terrorism. According to the Quartet’s report last year, 30 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks. In past years we have seen repeated one-sided, inflammatory, and unacceptable UNESCO resolutions on Jerusalem, which sought to deny the Jewish people’s ancient connection to Jerusalem. The Old City of Jerusalem is sacred to the world’s three great Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. We welcome some improvements in today’s Jerusalem decision that better acknowledge this essential truth.

“But the Jerusalem text still suffers from grave deficiencies. Absent agreement by both parties and safeguards to ensure objectivity, the monitoring mission as presently conceived risks hardening positions, as well as maintaining an excessive focus on Israel, at a time when regimes and terrorist groupings elsewhere in the world trample on cultural rights. For these reasons, today the UK has voted against the Jerusalem resolution.

“UNESCO’s founding constitution calls for the “principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men”. We are keen to work with like minded partners in support of this noble vision and ensure much greater balance in UNESCO on the Israeli-Palestinian file. Ultimately, only an even-handed approach can help realise our shared objective of two states for two peoples.”[11]

24. We welcome the UK’s approach to voting against resolutions at UNESCO when it is felt that they do not fully reflect the situation in Israel and especially when they deny Jewish heritage. UNESCO’s record of repeated condemnations of only Israel is another clear example of a multilateral body being abused as an opportunity to delegitimise Israel.
25. The UK should not take an active role in allowing UNESCO to be used to delegitimise Israel through a disproportionate focus and resolutions which deny Jewish connections to holy sites. The Government should therefore continue to vote against these resolutions and work to encourage international partners to take a similar stance.

World Health Organisation (WHO)

26. The WHO is another multilateral body which applies a disproportionate focus on Israel. The World Health Assembly is used on an annual basis to pass a resolution which condemns Israel. This is usually the only resolution focussed on an individual country.
27. In response to the 2019 resolution[12], Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch said:

“Out of 21 items on the meeting’s Agenda, only one—Item No. 14 against Israel—focused on a specific country. There was no agenda item or resolution on any other country, including Syria, where hospitals and medical infrastructure have suffered devastating bombings by Syrian and Russian forces; Yemen, where 19.7 million people lack access to health care service due to the current crisis; or Venezuela, where the health system has collapsed, causing millions to flee the country.”[13]

28. In recent years the UK has begun to recognise this abuse of the WHO as yet another tool for delegitimisation of Israel and has been voting against these resolutions. In its explanation of vote in response to the 2019 resolution, the UK Mission said:

“The UK is voting against this text because it is the only country-specific resolution at the WHA. It singles out Israel and unhelpfully politicises the WHO.

“However our voting must not be taken to imply that we are not deeply concerned by the health situation and needs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the health impact of the Israeli occupation…

“…However, it is troubling that The World Health Assembly does not consider any of the many other dreadful conflicts, civil wars, or political impasses around the world in the same way. The resolution on the health situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remains the only one of its kind.

“We fail in our duty to serve people around the world who are facing vitally important heath needs if we allow the WHO to become politicized. This is equally true for the business of other UN and international bodies. So today, the United Kingdom voted, as we have before, against this politicisation of the World Health Assembly.”[14]

29. We agree with the UK Mission’s view that even if the text of the resolution is agreeable to Government policy, it must still be seen within the context of the forum discussing it. We therefore support the UK’s policy of voting down resolutions of this type at the World Health Assembly.
30. The UK should continue to oppose the politicisation of the WHO by voting against resolutions which condemn Israel while it does not do so for any other country. The Government should work with international partners to encourage them to take similar action while this continues to be the case.

UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

31. The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women is a good example of how criticisms of Israel can be shoehorned into any multilateral body. Once again, Israel is singled out for condemnatory resolutions while no other country specific resolutions are approved.
32. At the CSW, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not treated as a geo-political issue but as a women’s rights issue. The situation is particularly ironic because many of the countries which vote to condemn Israel have some of the worst records on women’s rights in the world.
33. The UK has supported such resolutions in the past but in 2018 voted against the Israel resolution[15] due to it being the only country-specific resolution and it not reflecting the role of the Palestinian Authority. In the UK’s explanation of vote, Ambassador Jonathan Allen said:

“We cannot accept in the name of equality the inherent discrimination of singling out one country alone, Israel; as this resolution clearly does. No other country is singled out in the same way.

“The fact that the occupation has a detrimental impact on the status of Palestinian men and women in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is without doubt. But today’s resolution focuses solely on Israel; how can this be acceptable in a region where women’s rights are so often and so tragically trampled upon?

“The resolution fails to fully reflect the challenges that Palestinian women endure each and every day due to gender stereotypes, negative social and cultural norms, and the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that exist. Nor does it reflect the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority for the wellbeing of women in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

“Our vote today against this resolution is a vote against the politicization of the Commission on the Status of Women. We remain committed to strengthening the Commission and the invaluable role it plays in the empowerment of women.

“Indeed, many in this room share our longstanding position that Commission on the Status of Women is an inappropriate place for this sort of country-specific resolution to exist. Today we have acted in line with our longstanding position.”[16]

34. We agree with the Government’s view that multilateral bodies should not be politicised beyond their remit. It is objectively false to say that Israel is the worst, or anywhere close to being the worst, offender in the world on women’s rights and yet it is the only country to be singled out for condemnation.
35. The UK should continue to vote against anti-Israel resolutions at the CSW and continue to speak out on its politicisation.

Conclusions

36. As has been detailed in this submission, multilateral organisations are too often hijacked into being a forum for disproportionate criticism of Israel. In political bodies this is done through a clear anti-Israel bias and disproportionate focus. In supposedly non-political bodies, Israel is singled out as the only country worthy of condemnation despite other world events.
37. The activity highlighted in this submission shows clear violations of Sharansky’s “3D” test outlined in the introduction. Israel being subject to a disproportionate number of resolutions is a clear example of a double standard when compared to the number of resolutions passed against some of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. This can also be seen as a demonization of Israel in which it is characterised as a world pariah worthy of more criticism than any other country in the world.
38. The Israel focus within these bodies is not only morally wrong but also undermines their authority and weakens their other important work. As has been noted on several occasions by the Government, such activity does not help the situation in the region.
39. We welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of this issues as well at the action they have taken in recent years. In voting against all Item 7 resolutions at the Human Rights Council and increasingly calling out the politicisation of bodies like the WHO and CSW, the UK is making it clear that it does not want to play an active role in this damaging disproportionate focus on Israel.
40. We believe that the Government should continue to examine the overall context of a resolution when deciding on its vote. No country should be beyond criticism where this is warranted but international organisations should not be used to single out individual countries on a disproportionate basis. Therefore, there are likely to be many more examples of resolutions which might be agreeable with UK policy but which still must be opposed due to being tabled at an inappropriate forum or being part of a disproportionate focus.
41. Ultimately, multilateral organisations can only be strengthened if they cease to allow their agendas to be disproportionately focussed on Israel. The UK has played a leading role in identifying this trend and should therefore lead the way in ending it.

August 2020