The UN’s treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict needs greater balance. Its one-sidedness against Israel is a dis­ser­vice both to Israel and the Palestini­an cause.

Alexander Ryvchin theguardian.com, Thursday 28 November 2013 10.27 AEST

When foreign minister Julie Bishop announced that Australia would once again support Israel at the United Nations general assembly in order to give “balance” to the debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict, her position was pre­dict­ably slammed by avowed critics of Israel. Among others Michael Brull, writing on this site, claimed that the shift in Australia’s voting patterns under­mined the government’s support for a two-state solution, and con­sti­tuted a betrayal of the Palestini­ans.
The need for greater balance in the UN’s treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict recently came to light in the most unex­pec­ted of cir­cum­stances.
Earlier this month, the UN general assembly convened to engage in its annual ritual of passing a series of res­ol­u­tions con­demning Israel. Not a single res­ol­u­tion critical of the Palestini­an lead­er­ship, or con­cern­ing any other global issue for that matter, was adopted during the meeting. The point of interest was the candid reaction of a Spanish-speaking UN inter­pret­er, oblivious to the fact that her micro­phone remained on as she addressed her colleague:

I mean, I think when you have five state­ments, not five, like a total of ten res­ol­u­tions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening [around the world], but no one says anything about the other stuff.

The interpreter’s remarks were amplified through­out the chamber and drew knowing snickers from the delegates. No doubt the embar­rassed inter­pret­er wished that the earth would swallow her up at that moment. Yet through her frank admission, the inter­pret­er, unen­cumbered by rank or protocol, was perhaps the only person in the room who had nothing to be embar­rassed about.
She had spoken an incon­veni­ent truth, and the delegates in the chamber knew it. In 2006, the then UN secretary-general Kofi Annan cri­ti­cised the UN human rights council for its “dis­pro­por­tion­ate focus on viol­a­tions by Israel” while neg­lect­ing other parts of the world such as Darfur. His successor Ban Ki-Moon uttered similar sen­ti­ments the following year. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent rep­res­ent­at­ive at the UN, accused the Council of having “a patho­lo­gic­al obsession with Israel”.
It was for good reason that Israel’s legendary statesman and one of its founding fathers, Abba Eban, once remarked:

If Algeria intro­duced a res­ol­u­tion declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 absten­tions.

The con­sequences of the UN’s one-sidedness against Israel are grave. For one, it is a dis­ser­vice both to Israel and the Palestini­an cause. A complex struggle for national self-determ­in­a­tion by two peoples over a territory less than half the size of Tasmania, has seen the Palestini­ans cast as victims, and Israel depicted as the brute. As a result, the world overlooks the true causes of the conflict, and by logical extension, is unable to see the solutions.
For example, the EU recently found that the Palestini­an lead­er­ship in Ramallah had squandered close to €2bn of aid from European taxpayers; aid intended to build Palestini­an insti­tu­tions, enfran­chise the people, elevate their quality of life.
Meanwhile, the Palestini­an Al-Quds Uni­ver­sity is reported to have staged a Nuremberg-style rally by members of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organ­isa­tion, replete with black uniforms and Nazi salutes. Yet such issues con­cern­ing incite­ment and mis­man­age­ment, which strike at the heart of why the Palestini­ans’ national goals remain unful­filled, are routinely over­looked by the UN.
The UN’s one-sidedness has also damaged the larger cause of human rights. So far this year, the UN general assembly has passed 21 res­ol­u­tions con­demning Israel. Four res­ol­u­tions have been passed against all countries in the rest of the world combined. In the meantime, one can only guess at what truly motivates self-declared sup­port­ers of the Palestini­an cause who remain rel­at­ively silent about the Egyptian blockade of Gaza, or the suffering of Palestini­ans embroiled in the Syrian conflict.
To echo the sen­ti­ments of the UN inter­pret­er, one could be forgiven for thinking that Palestini­an human rights are the only rights of con­sequence. Or perhaps put more accur­ately, alleg­a­tions of impro­pri­ety against Israel are the only ones worth a look in.
Australia’s support for Israel at the UN is not a com­ment­ary on set­tle­ments or a denial of Palestini­an national aspir­a­tions. It is a prin­cipled and judicious attempt to wrench the agenda of human rights away from pro­pa­ganda and vul­gar­isa­tion and return the community of nations to a sensible, measured and pro­por­tion­ate debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/28/australia-is-right-to-challenge-the-uns-anti-israel-bias?commentpage=1