Today and tomorrow, the UN Human Rights Committee is reviewing Israel's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR.)
The Committee is flooded with submissions by anti-Israel NGOs that purport to describe how Israel violates the ICCPR.
NGO Monitor gave its own submission that refute the false charges of the NGOs, meticulously going through the ICCPR and the false charges that Israel violates it.
Anne Herzberg of NGO Monitor tweeted, "My invitation to attend the Tuesday informal NGO meeting with the [UN Human Rights] Committee was rescinded because on Monday I asked them to adopt IHRA [Working Definition of Antisemitism] and refused to smear Israel with the apartheid calumny. PFLP-linked NGOs were welcomed at both events."
Her statement was going to include this:
But the discrepancy in NGO attention here is not just about open vs. closed societies, it is also indicative of the obsessive demonization of Israel because it is a Jewish country. Many of the submissions, rather than make constructive policy recommendations to improve the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians, have chosen instead to delegitimize Israel’s existence and advocate for the elimination of Jewish self-determination, using highly offensive terminology like “apartheid regime”, portraying it as uniquely evil, and relying on discriminatory tropes to do so.
The NGO Monitor submission and Herzberg's planned speech can be seen here. Here, I highlight a couple of the points in the submission that do not get enough attention, and which show how legal concepts in international law get twisted by today's antisemites.
The right to self-determination is a core principle in the ICCPR. All too often, however, in UN frameworks (particularly the Human Rights Council) and in publications relating to Israel, including those presented to this committee, self-determination rights are presented as if they belong to the Palestinians alone; the equal rights of the Jewish people are ignored. Moreover, many of these statements seek to erase or deny the Jewish historical presence and connection to the region.Several, for instance, repeatedly and offensively accuse Israel of engaging in a policy of “Judaization”. The PLO developed the term “Judaization” to erase the Jewish historical connection to the region, as well as to suggest that the very presence of Jews is alien and unacceptable. The use of the term Judaization, therefore, is an expression of anti-Jewish racism.While it is perhaps not surprising that the PLO would employ such terminology, it is immoral for human rights organizations to use phrases supporting ethnically-based exclusion. In addition to erasing the self-determination rights of the Jewish people, many NGOs distort this vital concept as it applies to Palestinians.
And:
It is also legally and factually false to claim that Israel has imposed a “siege” on Gaza. Restricting the flow of goods in a war environment does not constitute a “siege” under international law and does not refer to the legal act of retorsion (e.g. sanctions, blockades). In fact, pursuant to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which sets standards for the provision of limited humanitarian aid), Israel has no obligation whatsoever to provide any goods, even minimal humanitarian supplies, if it is “satisfied” that such goods will be diverted or supply of such goods will aid Hamas in its war effort. As numerous accounts have reported, Hamas has diverted supplies from Gaza’s civilian population. Although Israel is under no legal obligation, and despite the diversion as well as attacks on the Israeli border crossings, Israel continues to provide thousands of tons of humanitarian supplies and goods to Gaza on a weekly basis.
