Normalising Israel despite blatant human rights violations

As with other UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk’s first experience in attempting to reach the region was characterised by Israeli refusal to comply with the official request, leading to meetings in Jordan with Palestinian officials and community and NGO representatives, rather than the opportunity to witness colonial violence first hand.

Lynk’s mission statement, which precedes the full report to be presented to the UN in October, is a recapitulation of the endless violations which have become a common occurrence particularly since the commencement of the Jerusalem Intifada – the reason being that Israel capitalises upon particular episodes of the Palestinian struggle to inflict an accelerated dose of brutality with consistency, so much so that after a period of time, such violations are rendered synonymous with the colonial state in a manner that elicits impunity rather than sustained outrage. Normalising violence is inherent to Israel’s existence and the cycle has become internalised by the international community which observes rather than acts in accordance with international law.

Lynk’s statement follows the perfunctory reporting adopted by international institutions as regards Israeli state violence against Palestinian civilians: “I would urge the Israeli authorities to thoroughly investigate cases which may have amounted to an excessive use of force or to an extrajudicial killing … I am particularly concerned by the recently published police regulations which state that Israeli police forces may react to stone throwing with live ammunition.”

Reducing known and documented human rights violations to mere hypothesis is an insult to Palestinians and a mockery to the human rights organisations which have prepared and presented reports replete with testimonies of violence suffered by the Palestinian population. Israeli impunity has developed to the extent that despite abundant evidence of transgression, UN officials employ leniency towards the aggressor rather than affirm the importance of legitimate anti-colonial struggle. The lack of assertiveness minimises the importance of Palestinian resistance, diluting it to a mere, rhetorically-manageable, conflict doused in the illusion of two equal sides involved in a dispute. There is no absolving the UN of this intentional misrepresentation, exacerbated by its persistent differentiation between Israel and the “illegal settlements”, which should be regarded as contentious.

In his statement, Lynk’s specific reference to Israel’s military occupation and settlement expansion may serve to highlight the swift unfurling of immediate violence but absolves Israel of the violation which is its own colonial existence. Lynk stated: “The existence and spread of the Israeli settlements amount to a grave breach of international law, and they spawn a host of other violations under international human rights and humanitarian law. This has long been stated by the international community, and as the 50th year of the occupation approaches in 2017, more of the world’s attention should be focused on reversing the seeming intractability of the situation.”

Any alleged intractability is a result of the fact that the UN prefers to wallow in its self-constructed oblivion that colonialism is obsolete, which in turn allows it to condone abominations such as Israel exercising its authority over the UN Sixth Committee and, in previous years, in the Fourth Committee pertaining to Special Political and Decolonisation. Perhaps the UN might do well to ponder its selective memory and preference to keep “the occupation” a jargon priority, while ensuring that colonial Israel in its entirety, including the more visible settlement expansion, is shielded from recognition. A reversal of the current propaganda would consist of a straightforward admission that settlement expansion is a manifestation of Israeli colonialism, hence the entire state and settler presence in Palestinian territory should be held accountable. It is the Zionist ideology and implementation, not 1967, that should feature on the UN’s agenda.

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