Third Committee -- Report of the Human Rights Council (Agenda Item 64)

Mr. Chairman,

When the Human Rights Council was established, as part of a comprehensive UN reform effort headed by former Secretary General Kofi Anan, the international community had high hopes for a revitalized human rights body.

Clearly among the most difficult challenges facing the Council in creating a professional and responsible body is establishing legitimacy and overcoming the "credibility deficit" left by the Commission on Human Rights. Israel, like many other States, has advocated substantive reforms in the working methods, mandate, functions and composition of the Human Rights Council in order to enable it to play a leading role in promoting a proactive, effective and responsible human rights agenda.

Regrettably, however, while showing some marginal improvements, three years after its creation and less than two years before the upcoming mandatory review, the Council so far has failed to live up to the promises of its constitutive and to its founding principles. The erosion of the Council's credibility and professionalism is reflected in its report to the General Assembly (A/64/53). The report, like its predecessors, demonstrates a disregard for serious human rights violations in many parts of the world, including by members of the Council.

At the same time, however, the Council continues to maintain a discriminatory standing agenda item that singles out one country alone while all other human rights situations from all over the world are addressed in a separate item. On paper, the constitutive resolution 60/251 which created the Council requires it to base its work on “the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, and non-selectivity…without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner".

However, in the Council's three and a half years of operation, it has already demonstrated a one-sided preoccupation with a single country situation alone, devoting half of its special session for that matter, and adopting more resolutions and decisions on Israel than on all other 191 U.N. member states combined. Such behavior is a telling indication of the Council's politicization and inherent flaws. The Council's deafening silence with regard to flagrant violations suffered by Israelis from suicide terrorism and terrorist attacks is equally telling of its lack of credibility and integrity.

But perhaps even worse, when human rights are increasingly manipulated and exploited by some members of the Council, such a reality threatens not only the principles of human rights, but the very integrity and legitimacy of the Council and the United Nations to promote and protect its founding values.

Israel, like many other democracies, is committed to safeguarding human rights and engaging in a candid and professional dialogue in various UN mechanisms, including before the Council's Universal Periodic Review. Israel is not asking for special treatment.

Like any other member state in this hall, Israel should be subject to review and constructive criticism on a fair and impartial basis. All we ask is that the international community stands by its own values and principles. Anything less will compromise human rights around the world and the hope of a better future for all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.