UNHRC’s arms embargo call against Israel passes with EU OK, Bahrain’s absence

The UN Human Rights Council approved a resolution calling for an armed embargo against Israel that was backed by many European countries but received a nod of disqualification from Bahrain, which was absent for Tuesday’s vote. .

The measure, with the resolution of accountability, passed 32-6, with eight abstentions. It included some of the toughest anti-Israel language out of the four resolutions expected to be approved by the 47-member UNHRC, as the 46th session concludes this week. .

The six countries that opposed the resolution were Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Malawi and Togo.

In an unusual move, Bahrain, which usually allows texts that killed Israel at the United Nations, was present for the vote. This is the first time this has happened.

In addition, the following eight countries stopped: Bahamas, Czech Republic, India, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Philippines, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Among the 32 countries that approved the text were five European countries, including countries that generally abstain from voting as a show of support for Israel. Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland all voted for the resolution.

Last year, support for this text fell to a low level, as it passed 22-8, with 17 abstentions. None of the European countries supported the measure last year, seven attendees and three opponents all agreed.

European countries have increasingly sided with Israel at the UNHRC over two moderate protests: the number of repetitive texts and the mandate to debate claims of Israel’s human rights violations at its h all sessions under Topic Topic 7. No other country has such a consistent command.

In support of the resolution, his supporters have been brought in for discussion under Agenda Item 2, but approval was low. This year, that resolution was accompanied by a second text on general allegations against Israel on human rights, and support rose.

The text calls on UN member states to “stop the movement of arms [to Israel] when, in accordance with appropriate national procedures and international obligations and standards, they consider that there is a clear risk that such weapons will be used to commit or violate or violate international human rights law. to make international humanitarian law. “

At the UNHRC in Geneva, the Austrian ambassador, Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger, thanked the Palestinian Authority for its flexibility in a short speech delivered on behalf of the European Union.

“We want to thank the Palestinian mission for its involvement and its efforts on this and other resolutions. We welcome the option of presenting this unified text under Item 2, thus reducing the overall number of resolutions and having regard to our principled position on Item 7. We recognize the great efforts made by the Palestinian mission and look forward to communicating with them in a positive spirit, ”she said.

British ambassador Julian Braithwaite also thanked the PA, but said it had yet to stop, as it also did not include Hamas criticism.

PLO Ambassador Ibrahi Khraishi said he was sent diplomatically to attack Israel, no matter how many steps he took to heed criticism. If the Palestinians cannot call accountability, no country should be able to call accountability, he said.

“The Palestinian case has been a foreign property issue for over 45 years. The idea of ​​accountability, treatment and compensation should be a consensus issue for all countries, ”he said.

The Israeli Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Meirav Shachar said that the resumption of the resolution did not address the issue of prejudice against Israel.

“This resolution can be presented under Item 2 but has the same one-sided, inseparable understanding of ground conditions as before in Item 7.

“When I look through this resolution, I am amazed that Council members could always consider this to be a fair and equitable resolution. It does not reflect the truth on the ground, and if there is anything this intention will increase the polarization of the conflict, ”said Shachar.

The text makes no reference to Hamas and “refers only to terrorism and incitement when criticizing Israel, and does not place any blame on Palestinian actors,” she said.

It does not comment on the progressive cooperation between Israel and the PA on combating the COVID-19 pandemic, she said.

The purpose of this text is “not to ensure accountability and justice, or to make a reasonable assessment of the human rights situation. One purpose of this resolution, by those who wrote it and those who support it, is to neglect Israel.

“No member state that votes for this resolution, and supports its statement, can be an honest broker when it comes to peace in the Middle East,” Shachar said.