EU supports Israel on Golan at UNHRC as Agenda Item 7 grows

The Czech Republic and Great Britain, however, stood out for their support for Israel on the two Palestinian texts, which were agreed on Wednesday when the UNHRC in Geneva convened their 46th session.

Resolution against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem passed 42–3, with two stops. The one against Israeli settlements was agreed 36-3, with eight refusals to vote, including Austria and Bulgaria. Eventually, the resolution criticized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which had the least support past 26-18, with three refusing to vote. All resolutions were voted on under Item 7 of Agenda.

“I thank all the countries that have chosen not to join in this circus and the systematic discrimination against Israel,” he said.

The United Kingdom, which began its three-year UNHRC term this year, read a sharp statement criticizing the 47-member International group for singing out Israel over Agenda Item 7. It is this is a UNHRC mandate that Israeli human rights violations must be debated. at all sessions. No other country has any command against it.

British ambassador Rita French said her country opposed the three texts discussed under Agenda Item 7, including the one criticizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

“Today we will vote against these three resolutions as a vote against Item 7,” French said.

Her country, French said, supports Palestine’s right to self-government and opposes Israeli settlement activity, but remains opposed to the resolutions addressing these issues because they have been forward under Item 7. referring, said French, Britain believes in a legitimate investigation and criticism of Israeli actions in the West Bank while it did not occur under Agenda Item 7.

“Our votes today are a vote against the continued unequal focus on Israel and the unfair and understandable claim that Israel’s conduct deserves more scrutiny than any other country,” he said. French.

She raised an issue in particular with Israel’s demolition of structures, tents and Palestinian hunting, including the herding town of Humsa in Jordan Valley.

Czech ambassador Petr Gaidusek, whose country suspended pro-Palestinian resolutions last year, also voted against and voted against them this year, also as a statement against Agenda Item 7.

The European Union and Germany also had harsh words for their opposition to Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, an action they oppose. But they stood by Israel and resisted criticism of that sovereignty because of the biased nature of the intention.

Austrian Ambassador Ellisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger issued a statement on behalf of the EU, explaining that Israeli sovereignty over the Golan was a “clear violation of international law. “

But the preceding text did nothing to address the imbalance of a text that speaks of “the suffering of Syrian citizens as a result of Israeli actions but nowhere does it mention the suffering caused by rule Syria, “she said.

EU-proposed changes to the text have been ignored, she said.

“The EU cannot support the resolution and the EU member of the UNHRC will vote against it,” she said.

German ambassador Michael Frelherr von Ungern-Sternberg said “while hundreds of thousands of Syrians are suffering at the hands of the government, this text focuses on Israel alone.”

PLO Ambassador Ibrahim Khraishi said it was surprising that some countries had found that Agenda Item 7 was aimed at Israel, when they had for years accepted the position.

Instead he painted the face as a remnant of the Trump administration that Khraishi said sought to weaken international organs and organs, such as the UNHRC.

“It is important to overcome this legacy” and strengthen international law, Khraishi said.

More importantly, the resolutions put forward issues that should have global support, such as the Palestinian decision.

“It is not possible under any guise to vote against or stop voting on the right of our Palestinian people to self-determination,” Khraishi said.

Opponents of settlements should support those resolutions that criticize them, he said.

“If you want to show a bias for international law and you want to show the power of ownership that it must carry the responsibility in accordance with the law and stop the breaches,” should be supported to Agenda Item 7, he said.

“This is our land, we will not leave our land and we rely on our friends to end this post one day so that we can fulfill our right to self-determination,” he said. Khraishi.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Meirav Eilon Shahar Item 7 “was not created to advance Palestinian human rights, it was created to neglect Israel and establish hatred and prejudice against the one Jewish State.”

As long as Item 7 is on the council ‘s agenda, “it represents a general failure to address human rights in a fair and equitable manner,” Shahar said.

“The removal of Item 7 will not happen if states do not work. It will only be accomplished by those with a conscience, those who declare not only the hatred that this thing inspires, but the deeper and more troubling reason for this institutional bias and hatred against it. Israel, “Shahar said.

In addition to the three resolutions against Israel and pro-Palestine agreed on Wednesday, a further resolution against Israel was agreed on Tuesday.