The Virtual Jewish Library offers a superb compilation
of the UN voting record on issues pertaining to Israel:
Countries Voting Most Often With the United States
Frequency that Arab Countries Vote With the United States
Frequency that Western European Nations Vote With the United States
Resolutions Related to Israel Opposed by the United States
Countries that Supported Israel on General Assembly Votes
Please link below to their website:
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted on March 28 in favor of five resolutions explicitly singling out Israel—the latest instance in a well-document history of bias against the Jewish state.
Four of the five resolutions approved by the top international human rights body castigated Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, and were approved by a 46-1 vote.
Thefifth resolution took aim at Israel’s legal administration of the Golan Heights, which the Jewish state has maintained since 1981, as well as the “suffering of the Syrian citizens…due to the systematic and continuous violation of their fundamental and human rights by Israel.” It received a 33-1 supportive vote.
The United States was the only voting member to oppose all five resolutions.
None of the 42 resolutions that criticized individual countries—including those highlighting rights violations in Iran and Syria—received the same degree of support as those leveled against Israel.
Unequal treatment within the main U.N. human rights body has long been an issue of contention for the United States, particularly with respect to its “Agenda Item 7,” which since enacted in 2007, requires thorough examinations of Israel at each convening.
American officials took exception to the UNHRC’s latest anti-Israel demonstration, citing detrimental ramifications for the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
“We are deeply troubled once again to be presented with a slate of one-sided resolutions that undermine efforts to make progress in the negotiations,” said Paula Schriefer, the head of the U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC.
“None of the world’s worst human rights violators, some of whom are the object of resolutions at this session, have their own stand-alone agenda item at this Council,” she added.
“Only Israel, a vibrant and open democracy, receives such treatment,” Schriefer said.
Perhaps most troubling for the United States was the overwhelming condemnation of Israel’s treatment of Syrians in the Golan Heights, at a time when Syrian President Bashar Assad and his dictatorial leadership bear responsibility for the deaths of at least 150,000 people.
“Especially disturbing is this council’s complacency with the repeated introduction of a resolution focusing on the Golan Heights,” said Schriefer.
“To consider such a resolution while the Syrian regime continues to slaughter its own citizens exemplifies the absurdity of this agenda item, and each of the other resolutions on Agenda Item 7,” she added.
Leadership from several major American Jewish organizations issued similar condemnations of the council’s actions.
“The passage of this anti-Israel resolution demonstrates that the UNHRC’s single-minded focus on Israel and willingness to escalate attacks against the Jewish State is boundless,” said Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham H. Foxman.
Similarly, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued a statement decrying the one-sided nature of Agenda Item 7.
“Once again, the primary human rights organ of the U.N. has sabotaged its promise of fairness, a vow central to the U.N. Charter itself, and to the resolution creating the Human Rights Council,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed the American criticism, chastising the UNHRC for condemning Israel “at a time when the slaughter in Syria is continuing, innocent people are being hung in the Middle East and human rights are being eroded.”
“This march of hypocrisy is continuing and we will continue to condemn it and expose it,” the prime minister said.
Among the UNHRC member states voting in favor of the resolutions were several countries with historically favorable voting precedents and recent public displays of support for the Jewish state.
The Czech Republic, which had been supportive towards Israel at the council of late, voted in favor of each resolution and abstained from the Golan Heights agenda item.
Many European states, including the so-called E3 (Germany, United Kingdom and France), similarly approved the resolutions despite public demonstrations of pro-Israel support in recent months.
Just this past February, German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Israel along with a majority of her newly elected cabinet to demonstrate Germany’s commitment to the Jewish state.
“We have come here with almost the whole of our new government and we want to show you in this way that this is indeed a very strong friendship,” Merkel said during a press conference with Netanyahu.
The German chancellor reiterated her commitment to working “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Israel, and was awarded the awarded the Presidential Medal of Distinction for standing by the Jewish state in its fight against anti-Semitism and racism.
Despite Merkel’s show of solidarity, however, Germany voted in favor of four of the anti-Israel resolutions on March 28, and abstained from the Golan Heights vote.
Just two weeks before the UNHRC hearing, British Prime Minister David Cameron voiced his own country’s commitment to the Jewish state.
“I come here as a strong friend of Israel,” he said during his first visit as prime minister.
Cameron emphasized his “unbreakable” belief in the Jewish state, and underscored the United Kingdom’s opposition to campaigns that single out Israel.
“Delegitimizing the state of Israel is wrong,” he said. “It’s abhorrent. And together we will defeat it.”
The United Kingdom, as well, approved four of the anti-Israel resolutions at the March 28 UNHRC convening, withholding its vote on Israel’s treatment of Syrians.
Similarly, French President Francois Hollande proclaimed his personal commitment to Israel during a visit to the Jewish state last September.
Hollande termed Israel “a great democracy,” and declared, “I will always remain a friend of Israel.”
France likewise approved four of the UNHRC resolutions singling out Israel, and abstained from voting on the Golan Heights measure.
Italy, Romania, Austria, Estonia and Ireland all voted in the same manner.
While such overwhelming condemnation of Israel at the UNHRC is no new phenomenon, the United States’ lone rejections of these resolutions provide the latest example of American support for its foremost ally in the Middle East.
Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, underscored this commitment in an April 2 testimony to the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs.
“The United States will stand with Israel, we will defend it, and we will challenge every instance of unfair treatment throughout the U.N. system,” she said.
Power and Schriefer’s comments, as well as those from the American Jewish community and Israeli leadership, reflect a collective call for Europe to change its long pattern of anti-Israel behavior at the international body.
The UNHRC is next scheduled to convene for general sessions from June 10-27.
GENEVA, March 18, 2013 – Nobel Peace Laureate David Trimble, member of the British House of Lords, took the floor this morning at the UN Human Rights Council—in a debate with its commission of inquiry into Israeli settlements—to deliver the following statement on behalf of the Geneva human rights group UN Watch, which also organized a UN press conference where Lord Trimble addressed the international media:
On receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 15 years ago, I cited Edmund Burke. My experience in Northern Ireland underlines his insistence that every idea or proposal derives its merit from circumstance, which carries more weight than abstraction and ideology.
I am a firm believer in a two-state solution, which will require difficult compromises.
This report, however, does not help. By urging the removal of all settlers living beyond the green line, the report is inconsistent with Security Council Resolution 242, endorsed by the Council decision establishing this commission.
It could lead to the utterly grotesque consequence that the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem should be returned to the desolate condition that existed between 1948 and 1967.
The Report’s conclusions address one of the issues in a high handed and one-sided manner. It is not the necessary comprehensive agreement; nor is it part of one. It amounts to a unilateral measure of the sort opposed by the international community.
I have to say that the very idea of this inquiry is wrong. Negotiations can only be by the Israelis and the Palestinians. Others at best can play a helpful role. But outside bodies purporting to make authoritative pronouncements on major issues over the heads of the parties can only undermine and subvert the peace process.
This report abandons principles established in the Clinton Camp David talks, and applied in the Road Map and the Olmert-Abbas talks.
The United Nations and its human rights bodies should all be working with others to advance the cause of peace, not to hinder it.
I regret to say that the Council displays the same selectivity that led to the abolition of the earlier Commission. I urge you to heed the criticism by successive UN secretary-generals of this Council’s habit of singling out only one specific country, to the exclusion of virtually everything else.
Thank you, Mr. President.