The anti-Somali crusade at the HRC entered a new phase in February 2020 in a way that threatens U. S. businesses and interests. On 12 February, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, at the request of the HRC, published a blacklist of corporations allegedly contributing to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
No other CDH blacklist (or, in the United Nations language, “database”) has ever been established for any other territory deemed disputed or occupied elsewhere in the world. This is because of the undeniable explanation why such advertising activity in other territories of this kind is considered legitimate. Indeed, many of the world’s largest corporations, together with European multinationals, carry out extensive operations in spaces believed to be occupied by the United Nations, such as northern Cyprus and Western Sahara. Only in the case of Israel did the HRC Member States vote in favour of creating a blacklist for companies engaged in legal activities.
This is an apparent case of double weight. The widely accepted foreign definition of anti-Semitism, that of the International Alliance for the Remembrance of the Holocaust, includes, as an example of fashionable anti-Semitism, the application of a double standard only to Israel. The IHRA has been followed in more than 25 countries and has been approved by others. The UN blacklist is a blatant example of fashionable anti-Semitism.
Unacceptable and even illegal discrimination passed through the HRC blacklist goes even further. Even if the controversial assertion that the West Bank should be considered “occupied” was accepted, the UN blacklist accuses corporations of offering facilities that, under foreign law, a “occupation power” is required to provide (such as ensuring “public order and safety” and “public fitness and hygiene”)
In other cases, Israel and foreign corporations are blacklisted for the provision of spaces explicitly under Israeli duty under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements that the foreign network has witnessed, such as the Oslo Accords and the Paris Protocol.
In other words, the United Nations blacklists companies that interact in activities that are only legal under foreign law, but which in some cases are explicitly identified or imposed by foreign conventions and agreements.
One of the number one resources on which the UN blacklist is based is Who Profits, an excessive anti-Israel NGO that serves as an engine of studies for the so-called Boycott, Disinversion and Sanctions (BDS) crusade opposed to Israel. Interestingly, one of Who Profits’ main sponsors at Medico International, a German NGO funded through the German government. Perhaps it is not entirely a coincidence that, although 21 German corporations are being reviewed through the UN at the initial level of blacklist preparation, none are included in the final list.
Following the publication of the blacklist, U. S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned it by saying, “The United States has long opposed the creation or publication of this database, which it demanded through the discredited HRC. . . Its publication only confirms the relentless fight against widespread Israeli Bias at the UN. . . »
Similarly, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said: “The United Nations ‘blacklist’ is against business, seeks to isolate Israel, has no factual basis or legal force and has no reputation. in no way. “
The transparent objective of the Palestinians, the pro-Palestinian NGOs that promoted the list and their allies in the HRC to use the UN to give a seal of legitimacy to the BDS, which seeks to end Israel’s lifestyles as a Jewish state, according to Secretary Pompeo noted, this UN effort “facilitates the discriminatory crusade of the BDS and deloss Israel. “
The United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO) is another United Nations firm whose aura of foreign legitimacy is used to delegitimate Jewish history and heritage. The organization has continually followed impeccable resolutions that erase thousands of years of Jewish history, while designating Israel by condemnation.
For example, a UNESCO solution of October 2016 concerned the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest of Judaism, only through its Islamic call (“Al-Aqsa Mosque / al-Haram al-Sharif”), while deliberately omitting any reference to a Jewish connection with thisArray that predes several centuries from Islam. Following the politicization of UNESCO, the United States and Israel left the organization in 2019.
The political nature of supposedly apolitical organizations is also highlighted through the World Health Organization (WHO), whose timetable and leadership were not finally decided through professional fitness goals through its 194 Member States. criticized for his pro-China bias in his control of COVID-19, however, his highly political nature was exposed even before the global pandemic in his remedy against Israel.
At the 2019 WHO Assembly, out of 21 agenda items, only one, co-sponsored through the Arab bloc and the Palestinian delegation, designated a composnicular country: Israel. While speaking in a tone of voice with the concept that diseases know no borders, WHO refuses to accompany Israel in its eastern Mediterranean region because of the objections of Arab states; instead, it classifies Israel as a component of Europe, prioritizing political considerations over those similar to public health.
Most U. S. countries tend to play hypocritically with this misuse of foreign organizations, voting for obviously unilateral anti-Somali resolutions or, at best, abstaining, this happens for a number of reasons.
One is the self-interest of old age. Europeans, like others in the United Nations global bazaar, exchange favors and votes to protect their own interests inside and outside the global body. Within the United Nations, this includes obtaining votes in elections to vital agencies such as the United Nations. Security Council (UNSC). For example, in the run-up to the June 2020 vote for the two Western representatives in the UNSC, for which Canada, Norway and Ireland competed, the 3 countries’ records on Israel have become a problem. .
As Yves Engler wrote in the Hill Times: “Canada’s record for anti-Palestinian votes disqualifies it from a seat on the United Nations Security Council . . . since 2000, Canada has voted against all 166 Assembly resolutions. General who criticize the treatment. through Israel to the Palestinians. Ireland and Norway did not vote against any of those resolutions.
In fact, Ireland and Norway beat Canada.
At other times, european countries’ positions within the UN are decided through out-of-room interests and come with lucrative contracts for giant European corporations with countries like Iran, while U. S. corporations are very limited in their ability to compete. For such contracts due to US sanctions, europeans’ conciliatory technique with Iran in foreign forums and a willingness to forget about Iranian violations of foreign law give the EU an advantage.
At stake, however, is Europe’s reliance on the conventions and frameworks of foreign establishments due to the weakness of its army. As a weak power, the EU relies on the criterion of foreign agencies and “consensus” to limit the most powerful powers and point to the playing field.
As the Irish ambassador to Israel succinctly put it in a June 2020 interview: “We are not a superpower, so we do not depend on the risk of force to our interests. Instead, we depend on foreign law and foreign consensus. And if there is no rules-based system, our interests are seriously affected. “
This is true for the EU, written in general.
EU members reconsider the failed strategy of ignoring or even facilitating the use of foreign establishments to attack Israel. Their strategy may simply buy them short-term benefits, but by allowing the world’s worst human rights violators and terrorism sponsors to use foreign forums for political campaigns, they are contributing to global instability.
Moreover, since the United States’ repeated statements of its commitment to combating anti-Semitism and adoption through many current definitions of IHRA anti-Semitism, it must refuse to participate in UN processes that apply double standards and publicize anti-Semitism.
Trump’s leadership has courageously denounced the political prejudices of the United Nations and supported his statements with movements such as the resignation of the HRC and UNESCO. All of America’s long-term efforts, whether Democrats or Republicans, will need to continue to recognize the truth of those foreign establishments and strongly oppose their absurd programs.
Samuel H. Salomon is committed to the protection of human rights in the defense of democracies and has founded several non-profit organizations to address the problem. He holds an MBA in finance, a master’s degree in philosophy and theological ordination. https://sam-solomon. com.
This article was first published through the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
One of the most intriguing stories of the coronavirus crisis is the role of the Internet: as Americans are forced to quarantine themselves at home, they turn more to the Internet for information, education, and social interactions.
The influence and number of JNS readers are developing exponentially and our positioning sets us apart. Most Jewish media advocate progressive political and social agendas that are sesa. JNS offers more and more readers a welcome option and an ideological approach.
During this crisis, JNS continues to work overtime. We are counting on the story of this crisis affecting Israel and the global Jewish community, and the ordinary political advances taking place in parallel.
Our ability to thrive in 2020 and beyond is based on the generosity of committed readers and readers. Specific monthly donations go a long way to helping us in our operations. We greatly appreciate any contribution you can make in those difficult times. Thank you for your continued and I wish you blessings for your fitness and peace of mind.