The 135-page report by commissioners Joao Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece—appointed by council president Luis de Alba of Mexico—amounts to an unmitigated denunciation of Israel and whitewash of Hezbollah violence.
It is bad enough that the commissioners knowingly undertook a mission directed against only one side of a conflict, a priori excluding consideration of Hezbollah’s July 12 attack that provoked the clash and its firing of 4,000 missiles against Israeli civilians.
Worse, though, is that even as to that one party there was never to be any real inquiry. The August meeting already declared the verdict: Israel was guilty—of the “massacre of thousands of civilians” and more. The commissioners were appointed only to elaborate on Israel’s prejudged guilt. This they have done.
The report that will be presented on Friday adopts Hezbollah’s version of history, of this summer’s conflict and of international law.
First, the organization is introduced as a reasonable outgrowth of unprovoked Israeli aggression. “During the 1980s,” says the report, “Israel carried out frequent military operations, including shellings and air attacks.” Excluded were facts like the preceding takeover of Southern Lebanon by Yasser Arafat and 15,000 PLO guerillas, their massive artillery assault against villagers in the Galilee, and 270 terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians in the 12 months leading up to June 1982. These details just didn’t fit the narrative.
Instead the commissioners voice Hezbollah’s claim—which they repeat without ever challenging—to be a legitimate “armed resistance against Israel’s unlawful occupation of Lebanese territory.” The report’s passing reference to Israel’s UN-certified withdrawal in the year 2000 artfully obscured the world body’s rejection of Hezbollah’s claim regarding the Shaba Farms, which is a rejection of Hezbollah’s declared raison d’etre.
Second, the commissioners render Hezbollah’s flouting of Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680 as mere “non-compliance,” or, even daintier, as “non full implementation.” Worse, they diminish those resolutions to the single requirement that Hezbollah disarm—omitting its equal obligation to disband. Recalling that international law requires Hezbollah’s outright dismantlement, once again, simply did not fit the narrative.
Third, and by far their greatest lapse, is the commissioners’ selective approach to evidence. Statements by any Lebanese source—including Hezbollah-linked organizations and individuals like former Minister of Labor Trad Hmadeh—are accepted fully.
By contrast, the commissioners disregarded submissions to them by Amnesty International, UN Watch and other NGOs regarding Hezbollah violations. The report does this not only in its fundamental failure to address Hezbollah actions as a subject in itself, but even in the few areas where, in criticizing Israeli actions, it purports to consider relevant Hezbollah activities.
For example, the commissioners insist they had “no evidence” of Hezbollah’s use of human shields or its Al-Manar TV station’s incitement of war crimes. This is false. The UN Watch submission alone provided the commissioners with credible evidence of Hezbollah’s resort to human shields—such as their killing of a man trying to leave Bint Jbail—as well as expert testimony on Al-Manar’s role in encouraging suicide bombings.
Despite all of this, the commissioners try to save their honor by pleading they were “bound by the mandate” they willfully accepted. More bizarrely, they concede that “any independent, impartial and objective investigation … must of necessity be with reference to all the belligerents involved”—but then explain that investigating Hezbollah would have exceeded their powers.
They could have acted differently. Asma Jahangir, the UN’s religious freedom expert, proved it. In June, the Council’s Islamic states won adoption of a resolution instructing her to report on “defamation of religions”—part of their ongoing campaign to stoke the flames of outrage over the Danish cartoons. To their horror, however, the exercise backfired: Jahangir reported that human rights law was about protecting individuals, not religions.
Independent experts can defy politically-motivated attempts to subvert the council. It just takes courage.
With malice and indifference the fledgling council has been turned into a body that ignores violations in 191 countries, including many mass abuses, instead reserving 100% of its condemnations to Israel alone. Human rights mechanisms are being exploited for political demonization.
A credible inquiry, High Commissioner Louise Arbour urged in August, would have to address “all violations by all parties.” With a little courage, commissioners Soares, Othman, and Perrakis could have found the discretion to heed Arbour’s plea and contribute a modicum of balance. But they had their orders.