BICOM

Key Points

• The United Nation Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution commissioning the inquiry was described as “fundamentally unbalanced” by British Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond.
• Professor William Schabas was initially appointed to lead the commission, despite previously having publicly expressed a desire to see Israeli leaders on trial and having served as a paid consultant for the PLO.
• Past UNHRC singling out of Israel has been criticised by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
• The UN Secretary General praised Israeli cooperation with a UN Board of Inquiry into damage to UN facilities during Operation Protective Edge, which reported in April 2014.

What was wrong with the inquiry’s conception?

• UNHRC Resolution S/21-1, which established the commission of inquiry (CoI) into the Gaza conflict, was described by Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond as “fundamentally unbalanced”. It has a singular focus on alleged Israeli violations, and did not refer to Hamas, militant rocket fire on Israeli civilians or terror tunnels.
• Over the years since its establishment the UNHRC has been widely criticised for its bias against Israel, including by Ban Ki-moon and Hilary Clinton. Israel is the only country to have a standing agenda item relating to it, ensuring it is discussed in every UNHRC session.

How has the involvement of William Schabas affected the inquiry’s credibility?

• Professor William Schabas was appointed to head the CoI despite being an outspoken critic of Israel, and presided over the inquiry and report until February 2015.
• Prior to his appointment, Schabas had expressed a desire to see Israeli leaders on trial for war crimes. He resigned after it emerged that he had undertaken paid legal work for the PLO. Another committee member, former New York judge Mary McGowan-Davis, took over the chairing of the inquiry.
• The unbalanced nature of the UNHRC resolution, the role of Schabas, as well as the UNHRC’s ongoing hostility to Israel, led many to conclude that the inquiry’s results would be a foregone conclusion. The Israeli government decided not to cooperate with the inquiry, highlighting both the inherent imbalance in the resolution that commissioned it, and the bias of Schabas as chair.

Problems with the conduct of the inquiry

• As a result of Israel’s decision not to cooperate, the inquiry has not had access to sensitive IDF information providing details of Israeli operations and targeting. Due also to Egyptian policy, the inquiry has also not been able to enter the Gaza Strip.
• The situation is similar in that respect to the Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead, published in September 2009. This inquiry was similarly based on an unbalanced resolution and did not have Israeli cooperation. Many of its findings were based on unsubstantiated testimonies from Palestinians in Gaza and NGOs. The report claimed that the IDF deliberately targeted civilians in Gaza, an accusation that Judge Goldstone later retracted, after more information was made available by Israel about its own inquiries.
• In a Washington Post article, Judge Goldstone wrote: “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” He accepted that Israel “dedicated significant resources” to investigations into allegations against its forces, and that “civilians were not intentionally targeted”.
• Israel fully cooperated with the UN Secretary General’s board of Inquiry  investigating damage to UN facilities during Operation Protective Edge which reported in April 2015. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed appreciation for Israel’s cooperation and welcomed the fact that Israel had launched criminal investigations into certain incidences that were raised. Having been promised the document would not be published, the IDF shared sensitive information with the UN.

Download PDF