The New York-based Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) opened its four-week session last week, this year at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. During its final week of deliberations, ECOSOC member-states are expected to directly adopt or otherwise to vote on a myriad resolutions. Unsurprisingly, among them there will be three one-sided resolutions on Israel, which, in light of the latest political developments on the ground, seem anachronistic.
Analysis: ECOSOC is composed of 54 members elected for a three-year period. It coordinates the work of the 14 UN specialized agencies, 10 functional commissions and 5 regional commissions. It receives reports from 11 UN funds and programmes, and issues policy recommendations to the UN system and to Member States. The Council’s purview extends to over seventy percent of the human and financial resources of the entire UN system. This year’s theme is “Promoting an integrated approach to rural development in developing countries for poverty eradication and sustainable development.” But, as observers of UN politics know, politicization almost always makes its way. Thus, three anti-Israel resolutions will be presented to the Council:
–Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan. This resolution is based on a report submitted by the secretary-general. While the resolution is at present being drafted, last year’s resolution (47 for, 1 against, 3 abstentions) sheds light on what is to be expected. Said resolution blamed Israel for the dire economic situation in the territories, spoke of the “permanent sovereignty of peoples under foreign occupation over their natural resources,” and called upon Israel “not to exploit, endanger or cause loss or depletion” of natural resources in the “Syrian Golan.” Whatever hardships the “people under occupation” are enduring, according to this resolution they are all solely Israel’s fault.
—Situation of and Assistance to Palestinian Women. This resolution originates from the Committee on the Status of Women. Last year’s resolution (46 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) expressed concern about “the severe consequences of continuous Israeli settlements activities,” it condemned “the excessive use of force,” it called upon Israel to facilitate “the return of all refugees and displaced Palestinian women,” and reaffirmed that “Israeli occupation remains a major obstacle for Palestinian women.” Conspicuously absent from the text of the resolution was any reference to female genital mutilation, slavery, forced prostitution, societal segregation and other grave manifestations of women’s subjugation in the Arab and Muslim world.
—Human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel. This resolution originates from the Commission on Human Rights. Last year’s resolution (25 for, 1 against, 22 abstentions) expressed concern at the “persistent violation by Israel of the principles of international law,” it censored Israel’s breaches “of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon,” and called upon Israel “to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens.” In addition to being devoted to just four Hizbullah terrorists Israel holds in detention, the resolution fails to acknowledge Israel’s complete unilateral withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000, it makes no mention of Hizbullah’s attacks on Israeli citizens, nor about the Israeli soldiers abducted by this fundamentalist group.
What makes these resolutions especially lamentable is not so much their one-sided content, but the fact that they have become part of a yearly UN ritual and, consequently, are now going to be voted upon at a time when the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships are making efforts to implement the latest peace initiative known as the Road Map. Member States that are going to vote later this month on these resolutions should bear in mind that the UN, as part of the Quartet, is expected to show impartiality and fairness toward the parties. Failing to do so would likely leave Israelis wondering how they can have faith in a peace initiative co-sponsored by such an untrustworthy —if not hostile— international actor.
