Executive summary:

In May 2021, the UN Human Rights Council, whose membership includes some of the world’s worst human rights violators, voted to create a malevolent “Commission of Inquiry” aimed at Israel.

The scheme is run by a judge, a lawyer, and a former UN operative, who were all chosen because of their anti-Israel antipathy, and who have retained their jobs despite outbursts of overt antisemitism. They have now released their third report. While adorning their methodology and findings with a cloak of legitimacy, in reality, the “inquiry” mimics a medieval Inquisition.

The report was produced for the UN “Human Rights” Council’s June 2023 session and will be presented on June 20, 2023. The United States is expected to deliver a joint statement on behalf of numerous other countries objecting to the process and the merits of this human rights travesty.

The third report, released on June 8, 2023, takes the stream of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish invective from the United Nations to new heights. It encompasses a direct assault on Israel’s “supporters” worldwide and launches an extraordinary campaign to undermine the fight against antisemitism by the world’s leading representatives of Jewish victims of antisemitism. In summary, the members of the “inquiry”:

• appropriated a license to “reframe antisemitism” – to avoid their obvious culpability of just that.

• staged “hearings” in which they added a few Jewish “witnesses” – provided they were prepared to condemn the Jewish state.

• authored a report on the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict that specifically names Palestinian (and Israeli) victims of alleged Israeli crimes but doesn’t name a single Israeli victim of a Palestinian crime.

• responded to the influx of voluminous submissions with the names of Israeli victims of Palestinian crimes and the crimes of related perpetrators, along with the dates, places, and circumstances of the crimes, by inventing a cut-off date to exclude past submissions – after first dismissing their relevance as “pro-Israel.”

• moved the vast majority of “witnesses” and global consultations behind closed doors to avoid accountability – in the name of pursuing accountability.

• squirmed when public “witnesses” targeted Palestinian authorities and omitted their testimony from the report.

• gathered “evidence” by ravaging the basics of due process; they tried to duck the basics by claiming they were not a court – and then made “findings” of Israeli criminality anyway.

• found that Israelis violate the rights of Palestinians but never the other way around.

• made “recommendations” to Israel about the treatment of Palestinians and zero recommendations to Palestinians about the treatment of Israelis.

At the center of the report are two recommendations:

First, the report calls on UN members to “publicly denounce campaigns by State and non-State actors against civil society organizations in Israel, the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories – OPT,’ and worldwide that criticize Israeli policy and action or support Palestinian rights.” Put simply, civil society operations or organizations that criticize Israel or support Palestinians are to be granted immunity from fact-checking and an exemption from accountability for racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism. In contrast, the report casts Jewish non-governmental organizations (insufficiently supportive of Palestinian “rights”) as surreptitious Israeli government agents, illegitimate, and part of the problem.

Second, the report issues a call to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC to pursue the designated offenders across the planet and lock them up. The report demands that the Prosecutor “prioritize” his investigation into the situation in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including “individuals who aid or abet the commission of crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction.” In short, this report launches a global dragnet for the guardians, builders, and defenders of the Jewish state.

This scandalous report epitomizes modern antisemitism in action.

Table of Contents

Background

An Overview of the Report

The Methodology

Priorities

The Inversion Strategy

Other Standout Features of the UN Report

1. Unaccountability

2. Absence of context

3. Virtue-signaling without virtue

4. Sweeping conclusions without proof

5. Expanding the focus – for Israel

6. Contracting the focus – for Palestinians

7. Negative inferences despite contrary evidence

8. “Fact-finding” for a party of one

9. Sources: Israel-bashing enterprises

10. Risible conclusions

11. Equating Israel and terrorist organizations

12. Rendering “Findings”

13. Glaring Bias

14. Undermining Israel’s attempts to fight back

15. A UN attack on non-state actors

16. Acceptance of the BDS campaign against Israel

17. Antisemites define antisemitism and attack the IHRA definition of antisemitism

18. The report harnesses the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Summary

Acronyms used in the UN report:

COI = Commission of Inquiry

CSOs = civil-society organizations;

HRDs = human rights defenders

OPT = “Occupied Palestinian Territory”

ICC = International Criminal Court

A UN “Commission of Inquiry” has released a shocking report that launches an unprecedented attack on “Israeli authorities and their supporters”¹ – including private individuals and non-governmental organizations – worldwide. The report was produced for the June 2023 session of the UN Human Rights Council.

Background

In May 2021, the UN Human Rights Council voted to create a malevolent “inquiry” intended to take direct aim at Israel. The move was pushed by Islamic states with the help of China, Libya, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, and Venezuela. The move garnered no support from Western democracies, who were nevertheless outvoted given the Council’s composition.

The venture was unprecedented, combining a vast scope, an enormous budget, and the absence of any end date. However, the UN’s selection of inquiry members who all had notorious anti-Israel records was not unprecedented. UN rules requiring impartiality, independence, and objectivity were dismissed out of hand. Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay from South Africa was chosen as the Chair. Chris Sidoti (Australia) and Miloon Kothari (India) are the other two members.

Since their appointment in July 2021, all three have made a name for themselves by belittling Jewish victims of antisemitism and spreading more of the same. Upon presenting the “inquiry’s” first report in June 2022, Sidoti told the Human Rights Council that “accusations of antisemitism are thrown around like rice at a wedding.”² In a July 2022 online podcast, Kothari voiced the blatantly antisemitic trope that “the Jewish lobby” controls social media and suggested Israel be kicked out of the UN.³ Pillay defended both of her colleagues.⁴ When presenting their second report to the General Assembly in October 2022, Pillay scoffed at charges of antisemitism by telling the press, “This is always raised as a diversion.”⁵

Despite their scandalous behavior and appeals by many states for the removal of one or more of these disreputable officials, the UN shielded them all from accountability. So, the “inquiry” proceeded to convene an array of secret meetings with unnamed individuals and groups and to conduct multiple days of “hearings” that were only partially open to the public. The new report, issued in two parts,⁶ emerges from an almost entirely covert process that leaves one clear conclusion: the UN’s “Commission of Inquiry” is more accurately described as an Inquisition, a Kangaroo Court, or a Star Chamber.

It is one of the most vicious, antisemitic, and dangerous assaults on the homeland of the Jewish people in UN history.

An Overview of the Report

The centerpieces of the report are two recommendations:

First, the “inquiry” has “recommended” to all the “member states of the UN” that they “publicly denounce campaigns by State and non-State actors against civil society organizations in Israel, the OPT, and worldwide that criticize Israeli policy and action or support Palestinian rights.”⁷

Put simply, it means that a UN “inquiry” has launched a worldwide campaign against anybody disputing the legitimacy, accuracy, or bona fides of Israel’s critics or the reliability and integrity of Palestinian militants. It has issued a call for every state to make war on all those who offend the UN-Palestinian tag team of haters, inciters, demagogues, and extremists – who they treacherously label as mere Israel “critics” and Palestinian “supporters.”

“Inquisition” is an apt description of this so-called inquiry. The only people on earth to be granted immunity from fact-checking and an exemption from accountability for racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism, are Palestinians and their “supporters.” The only people on earth, per the inquisitors, to be denied free speech as a matter of UN policy, and the only victims whose life experience of persecution and violent intolerance is to be erased as a matter of UN policy, are Jewish Israelis and their defenders.

A second recommendation of the “inquiry” – its punchline – is closely linked to the first. It is a call to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC to pursue the designated offenders across the planet and lock them up. The report demands that the Prosecutor “prioritize” his investigation into the situation in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including “individuals who aid or abet the commission of crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction.”

This demand is made in the knowledge that (1) some crimes in the ICC statute, and therefore under the Court’s jurisdiction, were deliberately drafted to target Israel,⁸ and (2) the ICC has already declared that the Prosecutor can move forward on war crimes allegations against Israel in what the Court says is the territory of the (non-existent) “State of Palestine.”⁹

“Aiding or abetting,” in the Palestinian lexicon and parroted by the members of the “inquiry”, is a capacious realm that can ensnare tens of millions of people worldwide who support in word or deed the well-being of the Jewish state.

This report, even more than its predecessors, exposes the true goal of this UN “inquiry”: To launch a global dragnet for the guardians, builders, and defenders of the Jewish state.

The Methodology

In this profoundly cynical exercise, the report set up its deeply discriminatory conclusions by launching a preemptive strike, hoping to vanquish the “inquiry’s” most conspicuous legitimacy defect: systematic bias emanating from every corner. The report begins with an account of “methodology” and an attempt to cast itself as fulfilling the normal elements of fairness and due process. In truth, this report is a master class in inverting reality.

In the “methodology” portion, we learn that “the Commission relied on 127 interviews and testimonies.”¹⁰ That is more than five times the 24 interviewees who have ever been publicly identified. In other words, 80% of the “inquiry’s” sources have been deliberately masked. They are purposely situated beyond scrutiny or accountability.

The report also announced the “inquiry” members had only considered 21 submissions, ones they said were received post-November 2022.¹¹ This was an incredible sleight of hand.

At the outset of their mission in 2021, the “inquiry” members put out a general call for submissions. In a direct challenge to the usual UN-Palestinian campaign strategy, non-governmental organizations and individuals made over 5 million unique submissions¹² – all of which Pillay later disparagingly labeled “pro-Israel.”¹³ This author participated in this effort, produced some of them, and ensured their delivery was meticulously recorded. Millions of submissions arrived well before the first report in June 2022, but Chair Navi Pillay told reporters none of them had been read in time for report number one.¹⁴ We then made almost two-hundred thousand additional unique submissions were made in the summer of 2022.

And yet, we now hear that all of our submissions were “too soon” for June 2022’s report and “too late” for June 2023’s report with the sudden introduction of a pre-November 2022 elimination rule. The unparalleled millions of what Pillay claimed to be “pro-Israel” submissions magically evaporated, along with the Jewish victims they named – all wiped off the “inquiry’s” agenda.

The “methodology” description repeats the manipulable nature of their program and what Pillay has called its “time immemorial”¹⁵ scope. In the report’s words:

“The information reflected in the report primarily covers the period 2020-2023. Information and developments pre-dating this period were also included, where relevant.”¹⁶

Deemed relevant were the report’s multiple references to “the 1948 Nakba”¹⁷ – the so-called catastrophe of the creation of the Jewish state – and the inclusion of a filmmaker’s claim that Jews created Israel through “ethnic cleansing.”¹⁸ The UN report describes the film as a “historical fictional account.”¹⁹

Deemed irrelevant was not historical fiction, but the actual names, points of departure, and dates of arrival in the land of Israel of more than 600,000 Jewish refugees and victims of Arab persecution we had submitted to this fraudulent UN “inquiry.”

The “methodology” section claimed that the “inquiry” members had been “guided by standard practices of commissions of inquiry and human rights investigations.”²⁰ Part two of the report preposterously announced: “Only material that met the standard of proof of ‘reasonable grounds to conclude’ was included.”²¹ Actually, their practices were the converse of “standard;” proof was “historical fiction,” and the ethical bearings were those of the reasonable antisemite.

Close examination of the days of public hearings,²² the witnesses selected,²³ and the knowledge of groups who made submissions and were never contacted, makes it possible to identify specifics of what transpired. The “inquiry” members heard “witnesses” from only one side, conducted a year of “discussions with stakeholders and experts” from only one side, called for submissions, and then expunged all those from the other side. They also carved out an agenda from an enormous original mandate that was shaped to advance pre-determined conclusions – what could be called gerrymandering for antisemites.

Pillay told UN WebTV that she stood “ready to hear alternate voices,” and couldn’t help but draw negative inferences (against Israel) in their “absence.”²⁴ But all the hearings and meetings were invitation-only, and alternates didn’t make the cut.

The mandate of the “inquiry” from the Human Rights Council – as inquisitor Pillay herself recounted it at one of the hearings – was vast: “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability, and protraction of conflict, including the systematic discrimination and repression based on national ethnic, racial, or religious identity.”²⁵

And yet the first set of “hearings” in November 2022 “focused on the closure orders and on the terrorism designation of several Palestinian NGOs, and on the incidents surrounding the killing of the journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh.”²⁶ In other words, they narrowed the mandate to a tiny fraction of the subject that was one hundred percent focused on (false and inflammatory) accusations against Israel.

For the second round of “hearings” in March 2023, the only subject matter of interest to the “inquiry” members – their so-called “focus”²⁷ –was “the shrinking space for civil society in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem and in Israel.” In plain language: their point was protecting the infrastructure of antisemitism.

The topic of any Palestinian violations of the rights of Jews was not on the agenda.

The “hearings” themselves were a legal farce. The “inquiry” members:

• asked leading questions,

• configured lines of inquiry to manufacture a pre-conceived storyline,

• demonstrated partiality,

• schooled witnesses to parrot their jargon,

• testified as to “facts” themselves,

• manipulated witnesses and steered testimony to avoid unwanted remarks,

• invited hearsay,

• used non-experts as experts,

• ignored and sidestepped inconvenient testimony when given,

• sought to turn the hearings into PR spectacles, and

• excluded context that would have debunked the distortions and deceits.

Here is a small taste of what the “inquiry” members thought they would pass off as professional behavior. Pillay, on Day One of the first hearing, said: “Notice that in these proceedings, we are not drawing any conclusions or making any judgments. We’re just here to listen.”²⁸ This was followed by such “questions” as:

Sidoti: “So taking this information would in fact be a breach of the right to a fair trial and the right to defense?”²⁹

Kothari: “You said you have not been able to get support from countries. Why do you think that is, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the work you’re doing, of the violations that you are working with?”³⁰

Pillay: “This obstruction to you providing legal defense for your clients who are subject to these designations doesn’t only affect you as a lawyer. It affects the legal profession. Does it not? It affects any kind of legal representation. So if you would like to comment on that.”³¹

Kothari: “Arrests, raids, killings have been going on since at least before 2012. So there’s definitely a pattern here…pattern of repression. So I was wondering if you could make that link.”³²

Kothari: “The IDF kept firing. So they did not even want anyone to come to help those of you who were injured. Right?”³³

Scores of additional examples of the unprofessional, unethical, speculative, leading, and manipulative questions and statements made by the “inquiry” members are evident in the hearings.³⁴ In sum, the “inquiry’s” methods of investigation did not meet the bare minimums of any honest investigative endeavor, let alone the stringent requirements of the criminal standards supposedly applied by the ICC.

Priorities

The report itself reveals what the sham hearings did with the rare instances of inconvenient testimony directed at Palestinians.

Two “witnesses” spoke in detail about the killing in June 2021 of Palestinian activist and political critic of the Palestinian Authority, Nizar Banat.

One said: “the killing of my friend Nizar Banat. The PA [Palestinian Authority] killed him.”³⁵

The other said: “How was Nizar killed? Fourteen officers of the Preventive Security were under the direct directives of Ziad Hab al-Reeh, the director of the Palestinian Preventive Security in the West Bank.”

The witness added: “The one who gave the direct order to kill Nizar Banat became…the Minister of Interior. One of the main functions of the Minister of Interior is to defend human rights.”

Regarding the sham trial of some of Banat’s alleged killers, the witness said:

“The PA…formed a military court. Why a military court? Nizar is a civilian… This military court is under the control of the PA, and the Palestinian Authority, and under the control of the same system. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas controls the system, the Judiciary. Fatah [Abbas’ political party] also controls the court and the Judges.”³⁶

What did the UN “inquiry” then do with this information? In its report, the “inquiry” refused to say that the Palestinian Authority was responsible for Banat’s death, period.³⁷ It refused to say the Palestinian “trial” was a charade. It refused to recognize a well-known truth, that the Palestinian judicial system is a travesty and there is no rule of law. It refused to condemn the promotion of the killer to high office in the Palestinian Authority.

The report did, however, say: “The Commission understands that…the Palestinian Amended Basic Law of 2003 guarantees freedom of expression and assembly.”³⁸ (By the way, so do the constitutions of Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.)

At the same time, the report contained some harsh criticism of the Palestinian Authority and something it called “the de-facto authorities in Gaza,” a.k.a. Hamas. Hamas is an internationally recognized terror organization, but not for the UN or its “inquiry” members. On closer inspection of this criticism…

• all of the negative attention given to Palestinian actions was about Palestinian behavior towards other Palestinians, never Israelis,

• three times as much attention was paid to Israelis as Palestinians,

• the criticism of Palestinians was prefaced by exculpatory language about the “occupation” posing “severe challenges to its [the “State of Palestine”] ability to fulfil its obligations as duty-bearer,”³⁹

• the critique was set up to treat the democratic state of Israel as a human rights equal to the genocidal terrorist entity running Gaza and the Palestinian Authority – which openly pays Palestinians to kill Jews, for being Jews.

Central to the report was a definition of “civic space” as an “environment that enables different civil-society actors to participate meaningfully in the political, economic, social, and cultural life of society.”⁴⁰ The rest of the report then zeros in on Israelis allegedly ruining that environment for Palestinians (and the odd Palestinian harming that environment – but only for other Palestinians).

It never occurred to the members of this UN “inquiry” to consider dead Jews, or Jews in bomb shelters, or the millions of Jewish fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters forced to endure years of fear and separation from loved ones and put their lives on hold because Palestinian Arab violence makes national or military service a necessity. They are the ultimate examples of civil society actors prevented or inhibited from “participating meaningfully” in all aspects of the “life of society.” “Civic space” for these three UN extremists does not include the homes, the schools, the buses, the cars, the restaurants, or the places of worship where Israeli Jews have been targeted non-stop for more than 75 years.

In this twisted UN report, Israel is said to be guilty of a “strategy… of delegitimizing and silencing civil society.”⁴¹ The ultimate silencing is killing Israeli Jews. The ultimate delegitimizing is official Palestinian antisemitism and the official Hamas Charter exhorting genocide of Israeli Jews. Those “strategies” are never raised.

Outrageously, the report did not identify a single Palestinian terrorist or terrorist organization. There are only Israelis guilty of wrongly “labeling them as ‘terrorists.’“⁴² The word “terrorist” appears in quotation marks.⁴³

The “inquiry’s” interest in Palestinian “civil society” actors includes internationally-designated terror organizations in need of protection from Israelis. No mention is made of Israelis needing protection the other way around.

This “inquiry” couldn’t locate any incendiary antisemitic “civil-society discourse.” So there were no conceivable reasons to deny these actors a “platform.” “Lobbying donors…to cut sources of funding to civil society” (when the dollars were for Palestinian wants) was all bad since their mere “discourse” was all good.⁴⁴ There was something called “abusive rhetoric,” but only Jews did that.⁴⁵

In this total inversion of right and wrong, the pitch was to label terrorists as something else, give a platform to antisemitism and incitement of violent Jew-hatred, and open BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) hunting season to targeting Israel and non-state actors alike.

The Inversion Strategy

Inversion is the central modus operandi of the report. Some examples:

• The “inquiry” members alleged Israel was guilty of “delegitimizing civil-society.”

Whereas in reality, Israel is a vibrant democracy with vocal political diversity that makes its presence felt every day of the week in parliament, in the media and on the streets.

• The “inquiry” members accused “private individuals and organizations” of working with the “purpose of preventing, interfering with, and silencing civil-society, HRDs [human rights defenders], and events focused on Palestinian rights locally and globally.”⁴⁶

Whereas in reality, private individuals and organizations in the inappositely named Palestinian “rights” camp are hell-bent on interfering with and silencing their opposition: BDS campaigns, “apartheid week,” anti-IHRA⁴⁷ definition operations, massive drives to disrupt, shut down, and cancel speakers, marches, college classes, and teachers who challenge the dangerous historical falsehoods of the so-called Palestinian “narrative.”

• The “inquiry” members expanded their dominion to cover Europe and the United States, making the wild claim that “CSOs in Europe and the United States” are subjected to “a shrinking space of freedom of expression in relation to criticizing Israeli authorities’ human rights conduct and speaking up for Palestinian rights.”⁴⁸

In reality, the takeover of college campuses in America and Europe by the anti-Israel left, the ubiquitous presence of anti-Israel media in all these countries, and increasingly anti-Israel European populations, have dramatically magnified the public space for Israel haters. That is in addition to the UN’s own decades-long campaign – with global reach – fixated on multiplying criticism of Israel and pushing the Palestinian agenda. Pillay herself did that job as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for six long years.

• The “inquiry” members slammed their civil society critics as clandestine and nefarious Israeli government stooges. It is a familiar antisemitic trope of Pillay, who often refers to the “Israel lobby”⁴⁹ operating behind the scenes worldwide. In this report, the “inquiry” members castigated their civil society opposition for having any association with the Israeli government – for alleged offenses like working “alongside actions by the Israeli government” or “collaborat[ing] on the drafting of Government bills.”⁵⁰

Whereas in reality – in addition to “so what?” – it is the “inquiry” members themselves who are required by UN rules to have no associations with the parties. This has made no impression on the duplicitous “inquiry” member Chris Sidoti who “is a close friend and ally” of a Palestinian “national institution” created by Palestinian “Presidential decree.”⁵¹

• The “inquiry” members ludicrous claim that “pro-Israel” civil society advocates are Israeli government agents (whatever their citizenship) is intended to discredit them as not actually being civil society actors at all. Sidoti tried this same ploy with the “inquiry’s” first report in June 2022 when he referred to the “inquiry’s” critics as “GONGOs” – or government-organized (fake) NGOs.⁵²

In reality, these grotesquely partisan “inquiry” members are running a fake “independent” inquiry. They bitterly complain that their opponents’ “organizations effectively implement and promote the Israeli Government’s strategy”⁵³ – which the last anybody heard is the prerogative of NGOs and private individuals in free societies. Actually, it is Pillay, Kothari, and Sidoti who effectively implement and promote the strategy of the non-existent “State of Palestine” and those “de facto authorities in Gaza:” fabricating the “Nakba” and apartheid, employing lawfare and the ICC, etc.

• The “inquiry” members claim that their critics are “engage[d] in well-organized smear campaigns against human rights organizations and individuals.”⁵⁴

Whereas in reality, the smear campaign is coming from the “inquiry” members themselves and the “human rights” organizations and individuals who – in the “inquiry” members’ logic – are unassailable, unaccountable potentates. The three inquisitors are obsessed with smearing their critics. Can’t take the heat? Then get out of the business of igniting the flames of violent antisemitism.

• The “inquiry’s” report “concludes that attacks and arrests of civil-society members have had significant impact on children,”⁵⁵ referring “in particular” to the “threats and attacks by ISF [Israel Security Forces] or settlers.”⁵⁶

Except that, in reality, arrests are what law-abiding countries do to criminals and terrorists, and the impact on children is not caused by the arrests but by the crimes in the first place. By contrast, Israeli children are attacked by Palestinians directly and deliberately. Importantly, criminal acts against all children committed by Israeli civilians are repudiated at the highest levels of society and subject to prosecution. The other way around? Palestinian society, at the highest levels, praises and rewards attacks on Jewish children.

• The “inquiry” members fumed that Israel was engaged in what they said was “a strategy called lawfare.”⁵⁷ Israeli prosecution of Palestinians accused of crimes was described as “silencing and criminalizing Palestinian opposition and activism.”⁵⁸

This reality flip comes from the authors of a report that culminates in a demand of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to go after Israelis, their aiders and abettors. The report repeatedly tosses proclamations on “law” and allegations of “crimes” against Israelis. The listener hears: “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.” This is quintessential lawfare in the real world of UN projection.

• Throughout the report are myriad other contortions – such as this quotation highlighted in their “detailed findings” document:

“‘We live under occupation, and in the face of that, we are subjected to oppression and violence by the Palestinian Authority.’ – Palestinian journalist in the West Bank.”⁵⁹

(There is a footnote after the quotation. It reads: “Interview on file.”)

Other Standout Features of the UN Report:

1. Unaccountability

The report is peppered with the phrase, “The Commission documented,” – which is followed by the absence of assessable evidence of documentation. Quotes with no names, dates, or places. And a plethora of footnotes reading: “interview on file” – by which is meant under lock and key.

2. Absence of context

Central to this scam is the omission of context.

One example involves the trial of a terrorist, implanted by a terrorist organization in a humanitarian organization, with the purpose of diverting international aid for the benefit of the terror organization. The report objects that the “evidence [was] not presented in open court.”⁶⁰

The “inquiry” members didn’t care that in Israel – as in other democratic states facing similar terrorist threats – the state routinely takes steps to protect national security. Nor did the “inquiry” mention that although the evidence could not be presented in open court, all the evidence used in the prosecution was fully disclosed to the defendant and his attorneys, both of whom were always present during the proceedings.⁶¹

In another example, the report vehemently protests: “Israeli authorities often accuse Palestinian journalists of incitement to commit terror attacks in their journalistic work and content they have published or social-media posts.”⁶² The “inquiry” members never asked – well, are they? Quite the opposite. The report could find no incitement to terror against Israelis.

Here’s another telling example of the shameful omission of context when it comes to Palestinians harming Israeli Jews. The report devotes a full paragraph to tell the following story:

“On 29 January 2023, two Israeli Channel 13 news reporters were harassed and assaulted by [Israeli] crowds, while they were reporting at the scene of a shooting attack against Israelis in the Newe [sic] Yaacov settlement neighborhood in East Jerusalem. The attack in the neighbourhood resulted in seven people being killed. The journalists were reporting on the aftermath of the attack, when people from the crowd pushed down the surrounding fences, threw them at the newscasters, damaged and tried to steal equipment and shouted: ‘left-wing people go home!’ and ‘go away.’“⁶³

It is hard to figure out what is even going on. The lead is an alleged affront to reporters, who had equipment damaged and were told to “go away.” Apparently, people of totally unknown identity were killed by an unknown assailant(s) of totally unknown identity and the heart of the matter is the “aftermath” about reporters being told they were “left-wing.”

What actually happened?

A Palestinian terrorist got out of his car and started killing Jews on a Shabbat eve near a synagogue. He shot seven people dead and wounded three more. Six Israeli Jews and a Ukrainian citizen murdered. Among his victims – shot at point blank range – were an elderly man on his way to the synagogue, a 14-year-old boy, a 56-year-old father of four who stopped his car and was shot and killed when he got out to render assistance, and a recently-married couple that rushed out of a house to help the wounded. The shooting was the deadliest Palestinian terror attack since 2008.⁶⁴

As for the aftermath, Palestinian media reported celebrations in Gaza and across Judea and Samaria, including in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, and parts of East Jerusalem, following the attack. Videos show fireworks, celebratory gunfire, drivers honking horns, bonfires, crowds chanting, and trays of sweets being distributed. Hamas praised the attack.⁶⁵

None of those facts made any impression on the members of this UN “inquiry” – or found their way into their UN report.

3. Virtue-signaling without virtue

The “inquiry” members set out to manufacture liberal street creds by smearing Israel as:

1. anti-gay:⁶⁶ A hard-sell considering that gay Palestinians flee for safety to Israel,⁶⁷ and that Israel has an openly gay parliamentary Speaker, elected with the overwhelming support of the governing coalition.

2. anti-female. The report, as did its predecessor,⁶⁸ concocts images of a sinister Jewish Israeli soldier prowling after Palestinian women and girls. A so-called “gender dimension” is invented from material like this: a Palestinian woman accused Israel (without explanation) of “interfering with her daughter’s college application.”⁶⁹

The “gender dimension” that didn’t make the report: Israeli women routinely serve in the military and border police; Israeli forces employ them where possible in situations of contact with the Palestinian civilian population, or search or arrest of female suspects – and have paid for their efforts with their lives.⁷⁰

Also not making the “gender dimension” plot line: Palestinian women tactically faking pregnancy,⁷¹ luring Israeli boys to their deaths,⁷² using female clothing to hide weapons, or feigning weakness or harmlessness to attack Israeli Jews.⁷³

4. Sweeping conclusions without proof

Example: “All Human Rights Defenders operating in proximity to settlements and outposts are increasingly seen by settlers as legitimate targets of violent attacks, regardless of age or gender.”⁷⁴

Or again: “Every day they [settlers] throw stones at our doors, raid our houses, and beat our children who are playing on the streets.”⁷⁵

Pejorative, undocumented, baseless statements of this kind, expose the yawning credibility gap in the “inquiry’s” “findings.” Furthermore, the illusory Jewish “settler” (Jews living in their ancestral homeland) wantonly attacking women and children is a blood libel, antisemitism period.

Example: “Self-censorship is reportedly growing within Israeli media and news broadcasters.”⁷⁶

Example (the report highlights this quotation): “‘It is a mistake to say that there is freedom of expression in the press in Israel today. I think there isn’t anymore.’…Former Israeli news broadcaster.”⁷⁷

Such remarks appear in the report at the same time as hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been taking to the streets with great regularity to protest government actions, and multiple Israeli news outlets trash even the basic foundations of a Jewish state on a daily basis.

Example: “Palestinians face…a clear attempt to erase their identity, culture and history.”⁷⁸

The UN report’s erasure charge came immediately following the report’s description of “Palestinian culture, identity, historical narrative and, heritage” as entailing “the 1948 Nakba.” So, here’s a UN report that regurgitates the “Palestinian narrative,” casts the creation of the state of Israel as a catastrophe, repeats the allegation that Israel was created by a criminal act of “ethnic cleansing” – and then complains that Israelis vigorously object to the lies and to using taxpayer funds to spread them.

As for actual history, here’s what the report didn’t mention:

• a hundred years of Palestinian-Arab Jew hatred – continuing to this day – that attempts to erase the three thousand-year-old connection of the Jewish people to their homeland,

• the literal erasure of all those Jewish Israeli men, women and children maimed and murdered by Palestinian Arabs for seeking to realize their identities, enjoy their culture, embrace their history, and fulfill Jewish self-determination,

• the systematic attempts by UN bodies and specialized agencies – including the General Assembly and UNESCO — purporting to erase Jewish culture, identity, history, and heritage across the land – from the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site,⁷⁹ to Hebron, the burial place of almost all of Judaism’s patriarchs and matriarchs.⁸⁰

We know the “inquiry” members had this information – because we sent it to them. But the report did not contain a single word about Jewish history or refer to any Palestinian actions aimed at erasing Jewish identity – in what is yet another example of the UN’s clear attempt to erase Jewish identity.

5. Expanding the focus – for Israel

The “inquiry” members claimed that their “focus” for this report and associated hearings was on “closure orders” by Israel, the “terrorism designation…of Palestinian NGOs” by Israel, and the “space for civil-society in the OPT.” But the pretense of a limited script didn’t make it past the report’s second conclusion, which promptly disconnects the evidence gathered and available for public scrutiny from the “inquiry’s” “findings.”

The report declares Israel is the big bad wolf with the big bad “goal of ensuring and enshrining the permanent occupation.”

But there were no hearings on that subject, or proof provided of Israel’s so-called “permanent occupation.” There was no public discussion of Israel’s obviously non-permanent “occupation” of the Sinai, Gaza, or areas of Judea and Samaria that are under the control of the Palestinian Authority. There was no reference to the agreements between the parties such as the Oslo Accords, or the Middle East Quartet Roadmap endorsed by the Security Council, containing commitments to decide on borders through negotiations. In fact, the report makes zero mention of negotiation at all. Or the actual permanence of the Palestinian refusal to negotiate. Nor was there any discussion of first principles, like the international community’s historical allocation of the area to the Jewish people for the express purpose of reconstituting their national homeland.⁸¹

In other words, the “inquiry” members expanded their horizon to declare Israel the central evil of decades of conflict – in a manner reminiscent of Nazi propaganda blaming Jews for the world’s ills.

6. Contracting the focus – for Palestinians

At the same time, the only conclusion the “inquiry” members made specifically about rights violations by the antisemitic genocidaires of Hamas was this:

“The Commission concludes that the de-facto authorities in Gaza target those expressing dissenting political opinions, creating a repressive climate of fear characterized by self-censorship. This constitutes violations under international human rights law.”⁸²

Their only interest in the subject of rights violations by Hamas was in its violations of the rights of fellow Palestinians!

At the tail end of the report, the “inquiry” members threw in a “call on the State of Palestine to hold general elections,”⁸³ making it even more obvious that they weren’t bound by any topic. Nothing prevented the “inquiry” members from calling on the non-existent “State of Palestine” to stop paying Palestinians to kill Jews, and the “de facto authorities in Gaza” to call off their genocidal master plan – except their blinding bias.

7. Negative inferences despite contrary evidence

The report uses phrases such as: “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission considers…”

Those of us who made submissions know for a fact that they did have evidence to the contrary. Moreover, their 18 full-time staff members could easily have found such evidence – had they wanted it.⁸⁴

8. “Fact-finding” for a party of one

The report reads: “Human rights defenders interviewed by the Commission noted” – which is followed by a long-list of alleged Israeli atrocities.⁸⁵

Those never interviewed by the “inquiry” members: human rights defenders of Israelis.

9. Sources: Israel-bashing enterprises

The report is littered with reliance on sources infamous for their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish records or dispatches.⁸⁶ Characteristic of the “inquiry’s” sources is one pivotal shared slander: the victims of the most horrible crime in human history [the Holocaust], namely, crimes against humanity, are themselves guilty of crimes against humanity. This terrible lethal lie has a purpose. It carries penalties – for the homeland of the Jewish people, the very embodiment of “never again” – ranging from total isolation to financial and political ruin to arms embargoes and military defeat. This was the standpoint of the “inquiry’s” go-to authorities.

The “inquiry” members had other available sources, which we know because we provided them. They had detailed reports and analysis from decades of evidence gathering, documentation in the original Arabic, videos, and photographs, from the experts at MEMRI, Palestinian Media Watch, CAMERA, the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, and others. None of these Pillay-labeled “pro-Israel” sources was acknowledged or referenced in the report, even once.

10. Risible conclusions

Limiting themselves to highly restricted sources resulted in one of the inquiry’s most indefensible conclusions. On Israel’s designation of seven NGOs as terrorist or unlawful organizations,⁸⁷ the report says: “The Commission is not aware of any credible evidence to support these actions.”⁸⁸

Perhaps that was because they held a hearing on the subject with only representatives of the groups themselves, who uniformly testified: who me? or my colleague so-and-so would never do that. Not one person was called to dispute their testimony. Pillay absurdly claimed the onus was on challengers to contact them, and she had been standing by the phone, and nobody called. At the hearing, she said:

“We stand ready to hear submissions or to hear alternate voices. In the absence of alternate voices challenging what we have heard today, we do not have any source that is a genuine challenge to the truth of what we’ve heard from the NGOs.”⁸⁹

The depth of this deceit was pathological.

First, the fact that the “inquiry” was even holding hearings that started on November 7, 2022, was kept secret from the public until November 1, 2022.⁹⁰ The press release specifically stated it was an invitation-only event.⁹¹ The identities of the invitees were not publicly known until shortly before they opened their mouths. Those who had relevant information contradicting the “inquiry’s” hand-picked witnesses were never contacted.⁹²

Second, the so-called “inquiry’s” 18 full-time employees might have actually done some inquiring, discovered evidence from open-source material online,⁹³ or opened their mail and read those inconvenient “pro-Israel” submissions. The “inquiry” members could have asked their hand-picked “witnesses” the right questions or asked them for relevant materials they would undoubtedly have been able to produce.

Instead, the “inquiry” members evidently preferred to be left in the dark since here is just some of the credible evidence they could have, would have, should have, been “aware of:”

The Palestinian Fatah website lists some NGOs as “affiliated institutions” of the internationally designated terrorist organization⁹⁴ the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).⁹⁵ An unofficial early document from USAID describes some of them as committees or parts of the PFLP.⁹⁶ The website of the PFLP itself names the President of one of the NGOs⁹⁷ –among the “leaders and activists of the Front”⁹⁸ and the same NGO’s Vice-President⁹⁹ as a member of the PFLP’s “Sub-Central Committee.”¹⁰⁰

In addition, in 2021 and 2022, Israel prosecuted a number of individuals concerning their connections to the PFLP. The defendants made confessions, given in open court, and while represented by lawyers of their choice.¹⁰¹ Some of the defendants held pivotal positions within the PFLP and also within the NGOs, in which they gained first-hand knowledge over many years regarding PFLP-NGO relationships. They held different positions in the NGOs, such as fundraisers and accountants, and, hence, had familiarity with funds raised and funds dispensed.

The confessions include descriptions, for instance, of the “Health Work Committees” (HWC) – PFLP linkages, including the HWC’s origins, the PFLP’s use of front organizations, the nature of faux humanitarian cover operations, the hierarchical structure and locus of control in the PFLP, employment mobility between NGO funding activities and PFLP membership, money transfers to the PFLP, falsification of documents, fraud, shared secret meeting places at NGO facilities by the PFLP. The head of the “Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees” (UPWC) admitted to organizing activities on behalf of the PFLP, of which she was a member.

Taken together, at the very least, the cases belie the “couldn’t find any credible evidence of PFLP-NGO connections” storyline. But the “inquiry” members dismissed confessions out-of-hand, claiming plea bargains are all about the use of force – so said some of the criminals. Then again, PFLP-NGO connections were never likely to be found by “inquiry” members who conducted hearings about an internationally designated terrorist organization that sounded like this:

“Chris Sidoti: Is there any connection between your organization and the PFLP or any other political group in Palestine?

Tahreer Jaber (Executive Director, Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees): Never…We accept the membership of the woman in general, regardless of her political affiliation. And to be honest, most of our members are not affiliated to any political parties”¹⁰²

The report mentions the PFLP only once and described it as an organization “which Israel had designated a terrorist organization.”¹⁰³ Apparently, their 18 full-time employees could not find the same terrorist designation by the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, and Japan.

Instead, the report relied, for example, on the testimony of the accountant from one of the NGOs who described himself as “the head of trusteeship” and someone who had “complete responsibility for the truth and the validity of our expenditure in the organization whether under my term or in previous terms.”¹⁰⁴ He testified about the former accountants who had told Israeli authorities that money had indeed been transferred from the organization to the PFLP. Not to worry, the UN witness said after his impassioned boast about his credentials: “According to the financial system, we carry out an audit every seven years.”¹⁰⁵

11. Equating Israel and terrorist organizations

Hamas is labeled a Palestinian terrorist organization by leading democracies – the United States, the United Kingdom, the 27 member states of the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan, as well as Israel. There is no rule of law in either Gaza or the Palestinian-controlled areas of Judea & Samaria. The Palestinian Authority has not held legislative elections since 2006. The last time elections were held, Hamas, running under the banner of “Change and Reform,” won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament.¹⁰⁶ The Hamas Charter plainly states its goal is the genocidal obliteration of the Jewish state. The “cash-strapped” Palestinian Authority spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and a significant proportion of its annual budget, on bankrolling Palestinians who attack, maim, or kill Israeli Jews.

At the same time, Israel is ranked as a fully-free democracy across multiple indexes.¹⁰⁷

And yet, according to Pillay and company, when it comes to the basics of a human rights-respecting society, they are all the same. The report’s conclusions laughably begin with this sentence:

“The Commission finds that the right to freedom of association, expression, and opinion, and the right to peaceful assembly, are being violated by the Israeli authorities, the Palestinian Authority, and the de-facto authorities in Gaza.”¹⁰⁸

12. Rendering “Findings”

As part of role-playing legitimate, independent investigators, Pillay and company have repeatedly and publicly emphasized, “This Commission is not a court.”¹⁰⁹ But given their deep antipathy and bias towards Israel, they just could not hold back in their report from criminal “findings” of Israeli guilt. Speaking of Israel, the report says: “The Commission finds that [a,b,c] constitutes a war crime.”¹¹⁰

Contrast that with the report’s “Conclusions” when it came to the murder of Palestinian activist and Palestinian Authority critic Nizar Banat. In the report’s words: “In relation to the killing of Nizar Banat, the Commission received evidence indicating State involvement in the killing and a lack of transparency and impartiality of the court proceedings.”¹¹¹

Here’s another finding. Addressing Israel, the report says: “The Commission further finds that [x,y,z] constitutes a grave breach of IHL [international humanitarian law].”¹¹² But despite the endemic terrorism perpetrated by Israel’s enemies, the report contains zero findings of grave breaches of international humanitarian law by Palestinians.

On four occasions, the “Commission finds” violations of international human rights law by Palestinians – but only with respect to the rights of other Palestinians and never the rights of Israelis.¹¹³ Israel, on the other hand, is said to be guilty of violating the international human rights of Palestinians and Israelis.

Of course, it is true that the “inquiry” is not a court, as its composition, membership, procedures and sentence-first-verdict-afterwards operations attest.

13. Glaring bias

Bias runs through the report from top to bottom, but two especially glaring examples deserve highlighting.

The first comes from the “inquiry’s” handling of issues concerning children. The report makes Israel responsible for the negative impact the wrongdoings of Palestinian adults have on Palestinian children. Such as this warped accusation: “The Commission heard from several civil-society actors about the devastating impact that their arrest and detention had on their children.”¹¹⁴

The “inquiry” members never heard of – or never reported – the harm done to Palestinian children by Palestinian parents, adults, and authority figures who:

• use Palestinian children as human shields,

• use and abuse Palestinian minors as child soldiers,

• shoot rockets at Israeli civilians that fall short of their targets and hit Palestinian children,

• indoctrinate Palestinian children in schools, camps, and television programming in the hatred of Jews, and encourage them to channel such hate into violence directed at Jews.

The “inquiry” members also never heard of – or never reported that – Palestinian minors are directly engaged in terrorist activity themselves. The report says nothing about the all-too-common reality of Palestinian children who use knives, pipe bombs, car rammings, Molotov cocktails, and IEDs, to injure and kill Israeli Jews.¹¹⁵

There is no doubt that the “inquiry” members had the evidence of all of the above – photos, videos, dates, and names of Palestinian perpetrators and their victims – because we submitted them, and I logged every submission. Verifiable information came from experts and non-governmental organizations (such as Palestinian Media Watch and the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) that specialize in documenting such evidence. But all of it was totally ignored.

In another instance, the report says: “Being exposed to the sight and sounds of weapons, have contributed to the traumatization of Palestinian children, adding yet another layer to the harm caused by the occupation regime.”¹¹⁶

The “inquiry” clearly has a causality deficit. Exposed to whose weapons? How about Palestinian rockets, guns, and bombs used specifically to attack Israeli civilians – including children – that are stashed, launched, and dispersed from Palestinian civilian areas of all kinds? Places like schools, hospitals, homes. And what about the ubiquitous sights of gun-toting Palestinian kids, or kids sporting Hamas paraphernalia, or kids celebrating the violent lifestyle?

Here’s another layer of obscenity in this UN “human rights” report: it failed to contain one word about Israeli children. Jewish children just did not count. The “sights and sounds of weapons” do not begin to describe the trauma of the constant exposure to “incoming!” Knowing they are the target, running for their lives to shelters, cowering under school desks. Or the sights and sounds of those who don’t make it.

Bias doesn’t begin to describe the sickness of “human rights” minds who preach that the lives of Jewish children don’t matter.

A second example of fanatical bias comes from the comparative handling of the parties overall. The “inquiry” members lent an understanding and sympathetic ear when it came to Palestinian human rights shortfalls. The report prefaces criticism of Palestinians with: “The Commission recognizes the constraints facing the State of Palestine due to the realities of the occupation.”¹¹⁷

But the constraints facing the state of Israel – posed by a hostile, hate-filled, violent Palestinian Arab population continuously resisting peace by all available means for more than 75 years – never made the report. The members of this UN “inquiry” evinced no understanding or sympathy for Israeli Jews subject to attack by Palestinian Arabs whatsoever.

14. Undermining Israel’s attempts to fight back

As part of its attack strategy, the report repeatedly seeks to undermine Israel’s efforts to fight back and defend itself. The maneuver comes both in the context of military self-defense and in the political, diplomatic, and social realms.

Paradoxically, the report quotes a major human rights treaty to the effect that states must

“take appropriate measures in response to death threats against persons, and more generally to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity proceeding from any governmental or private actors.”¹¹⁸

That is all very pious. But in this “What terrorism?” report, the only persons, individuals, lives, and bodies to reap the benefits of such a canon are Palestinians (and those who satisfactorily “criticize Israeli policy and action or support Palestinian rights.”)

Fear that demonization and discrimination operations pose an “existential threat” is extremist nonsense¹¹⁹– say the BDS extremists. Responding to BDS campaigns is a “smear campaign,”¹²⁰ – say the smearers. Creating the “Ministry for Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy and the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism,” as well as Israeli parliamentary efforts to engage in “the fight against antisemitism and delegitimization”¹²¹ are nefarious means of “working towards delegitimizing civil-society locally and internationally” – says the UN “inquiry” working towards delegitimizing “pro-Israel” civil society everywhere.

15. A UN attack on non-state actors

The UN is an intergovernmental organization. Membership is only open to states. The UN Charter is a treaty among states and provides states with both rights and duties. In an effort to manufacture a state of “Palestine,” without going through the allowed channels of the Security Council, the UN General Assembly renamed and anointed the “State of Palestine” as a “non-member observer state.” Over the years, the organization has found ways to address directly terrorist organizations without giving them undeserved status or recognition. International human rights law is a means by which, through treaties, states commit to other states that they will protect the rights of individuals and groups, including in some cases, from the actions of other individuals or entities.

Pillay’s UN “inquiry” has taken this well-established schematic to a whole other level of global control, one that ought to set off alarm bells for human rights NGOs and freedom-loving individuals around the world. In the context of an Israel-focused propaganda pogrom, the “inquiry” purports to place on states duties to control “non-state actors.” The “inquiry” members do not mean the “State of Palestine” should shut down, stop funding, criminalize, and otherwise impede the long list of Palestinian terrorist enterprises. They mean states everywhere should shut down, stop funding, criminalize, and impede non-governmental organizations, groups, and private individuals that criticize, condemn, and discredit the “inquiry” members’ pet projects and their pets (whoever makes the cut as a “supporter of Palestinian rights”).

In other words, the “inquiry” has launched an unprecedented attack on law-abiding non-governmental organizations, including those with formal UN accreditation, and private individuals around the world who simply don’t toe the line, dispute the veracity of the “Palestinian narrative,” and call out Palestinian and UN-driven antisemitism.

Here’s a selection of the Inquisitor’s astonishing attacks on Jewish and Zionist civil society:

“Private individuals and organizations increasingly work with the dedicated purpose of preventing, interfering with, and silencing civil society, HRDs, and events focused on Palestinian rights locally and globally. These organizations – some of which enjoy ECOSOC accreditation – have dedicated significant resources to producing data, disseminating material, producing online content and publications, monitoring social media, and scrutinizing the activities of specific HRDs and CSOs.”¹²²

The “inquiry’s” report continues: “Non-State actors play a key role in silencing civil society in the OPT and Israel, as well as those advocating for Palestinian rights around the world…Israeli right-wing groups have targeted Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations and individuals through demonstrating and disrupting events, pressing authorities to stop events focused on Palestinian rights or the occupation, and online harassment.”¹²³

“The Commission notes the egregious nature of the reported attempts by…non-state actors to interfere with events focused on Palestinian culture, arts, history, and heritage, as well as statements made by Israeli Government members, aimed at erasing elements of Palestinian identity.”¹²⁴

What’s really going on here? The report had previously relayed that Palestinian “history” involves a Jewish state that Jews created by way of killing sprees against hapless Palestinians, and demonic Jewish “settlers” who continue their blood-thirsty quests to this day. So the “inquiry” members mean by “advocating for Palestinian rights” a right to demonize, delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state. And the alleged problem, according to this report, is non-state actors who have the audacity to challenge the “narrative” – more accurately described as lies, hate speech, and lethal incitement.

The “inquiry” members conclude by telling Israel to “Urgently act to hold non-State actors, including settlers, accountable for human rights abuses committed against civil society.”¹²⁵ And they tell all 193 UN member states to pressure Israel to “publicly denounce campaigns by State or non-State actors against CSOs in Israel, the OPT and worldwide that criticize Israeli policy and action or support Palestinian rights.”¹²⁶

There is, however, one particularly niggling problem.

A non-state actor, whether a non-governmental organization, right-wing group, or left-wing group, or an individual of any religion, race, or creed, is also a member of civil society. So, the irony is that this is a report supposedly dedicated to the protection of the members of civil society and NGOs from states, that seeks to require states to disempower members of civil society and NGOs.

A normal person would appreciate the contradiction. But Pillay’s antisemitic squad thinks it all works because the protection is to be afforded anti-Israel civil society and NGOs, while the disempowering is directed at “pro-Israel” civil society and NGOs. To the UN junkie, antisemitism is a fix.

16. Acceptance of the BDS campaign against Israel

The report embraces the BDS campaign against Israel. It supports the UN Human Rights Council’s global “blacklist” of companies doing business with Israel wherever and however the UN chooses..¹²⁷ A blacklist strategy for one UN member state – Israel – would normally be called discrimination. But the “inquiry” claims that BDS is just about “expressing views.”¹²⁸ In the full knowledge that those “views” consist of slandering Israel as a racist colonialist violent abomination borne of “ethnic cleansing”¹²⁹ on somebody else’s land, that ought to suffer the same fate as its evil twin, apartheid South Africa.

The report defines the BDS “movement” as an operation “working to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.”¹³⁰ Here is what they left out: according to BDS’ers, Israel oppresses Palestinians by existing as a Jewish state on “their” land, and the only way to comply with (so-called) “international law” is to self-destruct, among other means, by allowing millions of Palestinian “refugees” to “return” and eliminate a Jewish state demographically.

BDS is aimed at Israel’s political and economic ruin. The “inquiry” calls this “legitimate protest.”¹³¹

The report castigates U.S. “anti-boycott legislation.” But the vast majority of Americans recognize the subterfuge and understand BDS as unacceptable antisemitism and at odds with American fundamental freedoms.

17. Antisemites define antisemitism and attack the IHRA definition of antisemitism

The 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, approved in 2016 is the most broadly adopted and widely utilized definition of antisemitism in the world, by both governments and civil society. The “inquiry” members understand that the IHRA definition stands between them and an unencumbered license to spread antisemitism. So, they used their report to oppose it.

The IHRA definition references some behavior directed either at the Jewish state or those targeted because of their association with it. From the outset, the IHRA definition takes criticism of Israel off the table as antisemitic. In its words: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

According to the IHRA definition, behavior involving Israel that is antisemitic includes the following six examples:

• “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”¹³²

In short, demonization, double standards, and discrimination. Those characteristics are straightforward, but not for the UN, and in particular, not for its human rights system and its former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, for whom demonization, double standards, and discrimination directed at Israel is standard practice.

Appreciating the “inquiry’s” own vulnerability to the charge of spreading antisemitism, the report lies about the IHRA definition and claims that it prohibits “criticism” of Israel, which is patently false. The report claims:

“A key strategy used by both the Israeli Government and right-wing organizations is to discredit international Palestinian rights advocates by asserting that criticism of Israeli policies and actions is antisemitic, relying on the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.”¹³³

The IHRA definition doesn’t say that. The Israeli government doesn’t say that. In fact, nobody says that. Throwing in “right-wing” doesn’t help their cause, since every major centrist Jewish organization backs the IHRA definition.¹³⁴

The report claims there’s been a “chilling effect on voices critical of Israeli policies and actions” “as a result” of the IHRA definition.¹³⁵ The same lie.

The report claims the IHRA definition is “extremely controversial.”¹³⁶ Another lie. The IHRA definition has been adopted by more than 39 nations,¹³⁷ the European Union (EU), and the Organization of American States (OAS), and has received the near-unanimous endorsement of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as the approval of the UN’s own former rapporteur on freedom of religion.

The report takes the anti-IHRA campaign, which has been gathering steam with the pro-antisemitism crowd over the past few years, to a whole other level. The “inquiry” members claim:

“Legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and actions is increasingly reframed as antisemitism, relying on the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016.”¹³⁸

Elsewhere the “inquiry” members expand their accusation to that of a global conspiracy purportedly “silencing…activists expressing support for Palestinian rights, or producing content critical of the Israeli occupation.” These silencing “campaigns” are said to target so-called “international cultural figures” and to “paint them out to be antisemitic for expressing criticism of Israel.”¹³⁹

It is little wonder that the “inquiry” failed to refer to any Palestinian antisemitism expressed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority, or literally anybody Palestinian. They are merely Israel critics.

At bottom, the peddlers of antisemitism are objecting to being exposed as peddlers of antisemitism – as peddlers of antisemitism have done through the ages. What we are witnessing in real-time are three members of an “inquiry” chosen by the UN – none of whom is Jewish or a victim of antisemitism – announcing from their UN perch that they know better about what counts as antisemitism than Jewish victims of antisemitism. And knowing full well that antisemitism “reframed” as something other than antisemitism guarantees that it won’t be overcome.

Having dismissed the mainstream definition of antisemitism,, these newly-minted antisemitism experts pontificate on how to combat “it.” According to the “inquiry”, the definition of antisemitism accepted by the overwhelming number of victims of antisemitism prevents combating antisemitism. The report says: “In relation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism…the definition undermines serious attempts to address antisemitism.”¹⁴⁰ (Sic.)

The charge is contemptible. The world’s leading Jewish organizations, dedicated day in and day out, decade after decade, to dressing antisemitism, are not serious, according to the report. But Navi Pillay is. The former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is the world’s leading champion of the antisemitic global hatefest known as the Durban Conference and its racist “anti-racist” Durban Declaration.¹⁴¹ She’s the High Commissioner who was behind the creation and mass marketing of the infamous Goldstone Report and its blood libel that Israel targeted Palestinian civilians. Goldstone retracted the libel. Pillay embraced it. Yes, she’s serious, serious about advancing antisemitism.

The report goes even further, not only blaming the victim but accusing the victim of using their bogus pain to inflict real pain on others – Jewish swindlers and honest Arabs.

In their report, the “inquiry” members say the IHRA definition: “contributes to the politically motivated instrumentalization of the fight against antisemitism which also serves to obscure the oppression of groups affected by human rights violations.”¹⁴²

This UN report is simply perverse. The problem is somehow that the victims of antisemitism use antisemitism as a weapon, not that antisemites use weapons – hate speech, rockets, knives, guns, bombs – against Jews in the first place. The problem is the fight against antisemitism, not the antisemitism. The problem is that fighting antisemitism oppresses other groups, not that antisemitism oppresses Jews.

18. The report harnesses the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The report has an overarching goal, in line with the mandate of the “inquiry” assigned by the UN Human Rights Council to begin with. It is to demonize, criminalize, and – via the attendant consequences – emasculate Israel. The primary vehicle for this campaign is set out in the report quite openly: the International Criminal Court. The ICC is the subject of the final “recommendation” as the report reaches its odious crescendo.

The alleged criminals run the gamut of Israeli society, people from all walks of life – elected representatives, military defenders, religious authorities, members of non-governmental organizations, and the media. A window into the “inquiry’s” planned reach is provided by one astonishing example: the report specifies its intention to hunt down as war criminals “individuals within El-Al airlines.”¹⁴³ Members of non-Israeli societies have also been warned.

The truth, however, is that the real criminal minds are the three “inquiry” members themselves, Navi Pillay, Chris Sidoti, and Miloon Kothari. Three individuals were hand-picked as the willing henchmen of a UN “human rights” apparatus where discrimination and double standards against the world’s one Jewish state are entrenched, and antisemitism is standard fare. A judge, a lawyer, and a former UN operative have plotted and produced a scheme to target Jews and to cloak it as something else.

Summary

The guilty charge, therefore, needs to be aimed precisely where it belongs. Over the past year, the three “inquiry” members have done the following:

• They appropriated a license to “reframe antisemitism” – so as to avoid their obvious culpability of just that.

• They devised “hearings” in which they threw in a few Jewish “witnesses” – provided they were prepared to condemn Israel.

• They authored a report on the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict that specifically names Palestinian (and Israeli) victims of alleged Israeli crimes, but doesn’t name a single Israeli victim of a Palestinian crime.

• When they received voluminous submissions with the names of Israeli victims of Palestinian crimes and the crimes of related perpetrators, along with the dates, places and circumstances of the crimes, they invented a cut-off date to exclude previous submissions – after first dismissing their relevance as “pro-Israel.”

• They moved the vast majority of “witnesses” and global consultations behind closed doors to avoid accountability – in the name of pursuing accountability.

• They squirmed when public “witnesses” targeted Palestinian authorities and then omitted their testimony from the report.

• They gathered “evidence” by ravaging the basics of due process. They tried to duck the basics by claiming they weren’t a court – and then made “findings” of Israeli criminality anyway.

• They found Israelis violate the rights of Palestinians but never the other way round.

• They made “recommendations” to Israel about the treatment of Palestinians and made zero recommendations to Palestinians about the treatment of Israelis.

• And they concluded by brandishing the keys to the kingdom of the International Criminal Court.

This is modern antisemitism in action.

* * *

Notes