Israel expects its inflicted human rights violations be treated as acceptable

After boycotting a scrutiny session earlier this year, deputy foreign minister Ze’ev Elkin has confirmed seeking reconciliation with the UN Human Rights Council, depending upon the council’s willingness to establish ‘fair treatment’ for Israel.

Elkin stated, “After much deliberation I have recently agreed to diplomatic engagement with the council and major actors in the international community to see if we can arrive at understandings and guarantees that will enable our return to the council, while ensuring that fair play and international standards are applied towards Israel.”

Israel’s expectations always exceed the stipulated norm for other countries. It expects its inflicted human rights violations be treated as an acceptable allowance due to the regurgitated argument of security concerns. Any diverging view immediately met with cries of anti-Semitism and, in Elkin’s words, ‘anti-Israelism’.

It is difficult to envisage under what circumstances and conditions Israel will rejoin the council. Asserting that Israel wants ‘equal treatment’ creates a remarkable dissonance, considering its track record in human rights violations and fortified diplomatic defence carried out by international leaders and organisations. In turn, this shows a discrepancy in UN affiliated organisations – a lack of cohesion which allows for manipulation of the discussion of human rights. While the Geneva council has been, reportedly, singling out Israel and condemning its actions, the UN has repeatedly sustained Israel in its infringements of international law, exhibiting only ‘concern’ with regard to the prisoners’ hunger strikes, illegal settlements and Operation Pillar of Defence. In asserting Israel’s right to defend itself, the UN has ignored the blatant exhibition of state terrorism against Palestinians.  The concept of UN organisations being ‘against Israel’ is vague at best, with both Israel and the UN reflected serious breaches of accountability and responsibility.

The portrayal of ‘this inherently unfair situation’ which, according to Israel, necessitates diplomatic solutions, fades when compared to the fact that Israel effectively absolves itself of human rights violations within its own concepts of moral and legal authority. Any criticism levelled against Israel has been mild, compared to the magnitude of violations it has endorsed and practiced throughout decades of colonial and apartheid rule.

Israel has voiced concerns about Arab and Muslim states shifting the balance against Israel when it comes to ‘hostile resolutions’. Although it has been stated that Israel will accept criticism if it is treated fairly, it is likely that the occupying power’s definition of fairness is based upon its distorted vision of the right to superior influence.

Speaking about Israel as a country which requires equal footing with others simply negates the fact that the state of Israel was created at the expense of massacres against the legitimate and indigenous Palestinian population. Any serious scrutiny into equality and human rights would require a dismantling of the occupation, which would have serious repercussions not only upon Israel, but also upon the international community which diligently practiced alienation in order to maintain political and economic ties with Israel. ‘International standards’ are already applied with regard to Israel, part and parcel of being a strategic partner in the quest for imperial dominance.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.