​The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has a real, biased treatment of issues relating to Israel. The light it shines on the Jewish state is particularly lopsided in comparison with talk and action on actual pressing international human rights tragedies such as those in Syria, Yemen, Iran and Sudan.
 
The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel—Agenda Item 7—titled: “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”
 
Israel is the only country on earth that has been singled out and it is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda. A number of other countries notorious for their human rights abuses are included as part of the general debate, if they are mentioned at all.
 
The HRC doesn’t even meet its own standards for judging human rights issues. Saudi Arabia, for example, now heads a key HRC panel that selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations. Additionally the U.N. committee that credentials NGOs and human rights groups includes serial human rights abuser Iran.
 
The HRC also has among its elected members human rights abusers like Qatar and Venezuela, but the singling out is exclusive for Israel.
 
At the end of September the HRC devoted a whole session to Item 7—meaning a meeting was called with the sole purpose of blasting Israel.

The Syrian delegate said that his country “is concerned” about the situation in “Palestine and other occupied territories.” But no country at the HRC stood up to ask Syria if the world should be seriously concerned about the millions of refugees and thousands of killings that have resulted from four years of civil war. In Syria, there isn’t a shred of respect for human rights to be found in any corner of the country. But the HRC is such a sham that it opens the floor for human rights violators, rather than doing something to stop them.
 
In this context of hypocrisy, several South American countries had the floor during the aforementioned Israel bashing session.
 
Perpetual demonizers of Israel like Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, and democracies like Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, also blasted Israel.
 
Overall the session was, as usual, shameful. There were long hours full of rhetoric mixed with vitriol and incitement against Israel, singled out by the infamous Item 7.
 
What has happened two weeks later when Palestinian terrorists have already killed seven Israeli civilians and wounded about 30, by stabbing and shooting men, women and children?
 
Has the HRC called for an urgent meeting? Of course not.
 
Which country has publicly condemned the wave of terror created by incitement coming from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? Among South American countries, only one: Uruguay.
 
The Uruguayan government not only condemned the wave of terror against Israeli civilians, but also condemned “those who praise as heroic, murder and killing”
 
Among HRC and the United Nations itself, Uruguay has been a courageous voice in the desert.
 
In the particular situation that Israel is living today, under the terrorist attacks, general silence has been the pattern
 
Democracies should be unified in fighting for freedom and respect for human rights. Unfortunately this is not the rule in most South American countries when it comes to Israel.
 
It is a slap to history and a tradition of friendship between South America and Israel, which started in 1948, and has been sadly reversing in the last decade.

A lot has been said about the unfair treatment that the State of Israel receives at the United Nations. But very few people know in depth the causes of this phenomenon and the magnitude of the problem.

While there are numerous agencies within the United Nations that display a clear anti-Israel bias, it is very important to understand the role played by the U.N. General Assembly in financing and maintaining a powerful anti-Israel propaganda apparatus.

As Ambassador Richard Schifter—with whom B’nai B’rith International has been working for quite some time now—explains, every year, the General Assembly adopts about 70 resolutions by roll-call vote. About 25 percent of these are resolutions directed against Israel. Most General Assembly resolutions are mere "recommendations" with no binding effect and, therefore, do not have major practical consequences. But there are three anti-Israel resolutions that do have operational consequences and are, therefore, extremely important.

These resolutions are the ones that renew, year after year, the funding authorization and the mandate for the following entities:

1. The Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (DPR)
2. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP)
3. The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinians and Other Arabs in the Occupied Territories (SCIIHRP)

The Palestinians are the only people in the world that have their own division within the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat (In general, divisions deal with specific political topics on a worldwide basis or have responsibility for a geographic region. For example, there is an Americas Division, a Europe Division, and even a Middle East and West Asia Division.

The Division for Palestinian Rights serves as the secretariat of CEIRPP. Even though its staff serves inside the U.N. Secretariat, which is headed by the U.N. Secretary-General, its activities are “de facto” led by the operatives who direct the work of CEIRPP.

CEIRPP consists of the ambassadors of 26 U.N. member States. Latin America is represented by Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The committee organizes four annual conferences. The last two Latin American conferences were held in Caracas (in 2013) and Quito (in 2014).

The organizers of these conferences always invite local opinion leaders, government officials, NGOs and—of course—the media. They usually also invite at least one speaker that is both Jewish and highly critical of Israel, in order to give greater "legitimacy" to these meetings. In each of these meetings, Israel is demonized and characterized as racist. The Palestinians are described as victims and absolved from any responsibility in the conflict. The ties between the Jewish people and their ancestral land are totally ignored, and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is denied.

The Special Committee (SCIIHRP) holds annual hearings in the Middle East, in which testimonies against Israel are heard, and then publishes a report denouncing Israel for these alleged human rights violations.

All this anti-Israel propaganda is done in the name of the United Nations, is funded by the United Nations and disseminated through the United Nations public information system.

Now let's examine  the role that Latin America plays in maintaining this harmful propaganda apparatus.

At the 2014 session of the General Assembly, the votes of the Latin American countries divided as follows:

1. Voting in favor of the three resolutions: Brazil, Chile, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Bolivia voted for SCIIHRP and was absent when DPR and CEIRPP were put to a vote, but its representatives said that, if present, they would have voted in favor of both, as in previous years.
2. Voting in favor of two (CEIRPP and DPR) and abstaining on one (SCIIHRP): Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay.
3. Abstaining on the three resolutions: Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru.
4. Abstaining on two (CEIRPP and DPR) and voting against one (SCIIHRP): Panama.

With regard to the first group, the following countries: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, automatically vote in favor of most anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. This is due to their governments’ geopolitical orientation and their strong "anti-Americanism.” We cannot have any hope for anything different unless there is a change of regime in these states. With respect to Cuba, the rapprochement with the United States gives us a small glimmer of hope, but it is not realistic to expect palpable changes in the near future.

Brazil and Chile also vote consistently against Israel, though their reasons are slightly different. Perhaps the most important reason for Brazil is that its foreign ministry hopes to win a permanent seat for Brazil at the U.N. Security Council (in the unlikely event that the council is enlarged to admit new members). For this, they need the support of countries that oppose the United States and Israel at the United Nations. As for Chile, it has an important population of Palestinian descent, which has become quite active politically in recent years and seems to have much influence in this area.

With regard to the Dominican Republic, its voting pattern changed when it joined PetroCaribe (the oil alliance led by Venezuela), so it can be assumed that its votes were heavily influenced by the Venezuelan government. Therefore, now that Venezuela’s aid is fading, perhaps there is an opportunity for change.

With respect to the countries of the second group, we cannot expect any change in Argentina, at least with the current government. But perhaps there is a chance in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay, all countries that maintain a cordial relationship both with the United States and Israel, regardless of their political orientation. Mexico's case is particularly interesting because its foreign ministry also aims to obtain a U.N. Security Council seat, if or when the council gets enlarged (Even when Mexico's chances of beating Brazil as the favorite Latin American candidate, are extremely remote).

As for the countries that abstained in all three of these important resolutions and, therefore, belong to the third group, perhaps there is a chance to get some of them to vote against at least one of these very harmful resolutions. 

The anti-Israel propaganda apparatus that works at the United Nations is very powerful and will not be easy task to try to dismantle it. However, it is not impossible. While there are countries that consistently vote against Israel for ideological reasons (either because they want to oppose the United States or because they hold anti-Israel views), in many cases this animosity does not exist or is less intense and, therefore, there is an opportunity for change.

Often, U.N. ambassadors do not receive precise instructions from their governments on how to vote on these resolutions and, therefore, they yield to pressure from their colleagues at the United Nations. In these cases, it is extremely important to alert their governments about the importance of these resolutions.

An effort both from Israel and the United States to reach out to some of these countries is essential to achieve positive change. But beyond that, the action of the local Jewish communities—and the alliances they can build with other sectors of society—could certainly help persuade these countries to vote in a more balanced and fair way.

Mucho se habla del trato injusto que recibe el Estado de Israel en las Naciones Unidas. Pero muy pocas personas conocen en profundidad las causas de este fenómeno y la magnitud del problema.

Si bien existen numerosos organismos dentro de la ONU que despliegan una clara tendencia anti-Israelí, es muy importante entender el rol que tiene la Asamblea General en el financiamiento y mantenimiento de un poderoso aparato de propaganda anti-Israelí.

Como nos enseña el Embajador Richard Schifter, con quien B’nai B’rith International trabaja hace tiempo, cada año, la Asamblea General adopta unas 70 resoluciones. Aproximadamente el 25% de estas son resoluciones dirigidas en contra de Israel. La mayoría de las resoluciones que emanan de la Asamblea General son meras “recomendaciones” sin efectos vinculantes y, por lo tanto, no generan mayores consecuencias practicas. Pero existen tres resoluciones anti-israelíes que si tienen consecuencias operativas y que son, por lo tanto sumamente importantes.

Se trata de las resoluciones que renuevan, año tras año, la autorización de financiamiento y el mandato de:

1. La División para los Derechos de los Palestinos (DPR por sus siglas en ingles)
2. El Comité para el Ejercicio de los Derechos Inalienables del Pueblo Palestino (CEIRPP por sus siglas en ingles)
3. El Comité Especial encargado de Investigar las Practicas Israelíes que Afectan los Derechos Humanos de los Palestinos y otros Habitantes Árabes en los Territorios Ocupados (SCIIHRP por sus siglas en ingles)
   
   

Los Palestinos son el único pueblo del mundo que tiene su propia División dentro del Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la Secretaría de la ONU. Ya que, en general, las divisiones se refieren a temas específicos de carácter global o tienen responsabilidad por una región geográfica en particular. Así, por ejemplo, hay una División de América, una División de Europa, e incluso una División de Medio Oriente y Asia Occidental. 

La División para los Derechos de los Palestinos funciona como secretaría de CEIRPP. Y a pesar de que su personal presta servicio en la Secretaría, encabezada por el Secretario General de la ONU, sus actividades son, de hecho, dirigidas por quienes operan hábilmente dentro de CEIRPP.

CEIRPP está integrado por los embajadores de 26 Estados miembros de la ONU. América Latina está representada por Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela. El Comité organiza cuatro conferencias anuales , cada una en un continente diferente. Las dos ultimas conferencias latinoamericanas se celebraron en Caracas (en 2013) y en Quito (en 2014).

A estas conferencias se invita a líderes de opinión locales, miembros del gobierno, ONGs y, por supuesto, a los medios de comunicación. Por lo general, también se invita a por lo menos un orador judío, pero sumamente critico de Israel, lo que le da un “velo” de mayor legitimidad a la conferencia. En cada una de estas reuniones Israel es demonizado y caracterizado como racista. El pueblo Palestino es victimizado y desligado de toda responsabilidad en el conflicto, a la vez que se cuestionan los nexos del pueblo judío con esa tierra y el derecho de Israel a existir como Estado judío. 

SCIIHRP realiza audiencias anuales en Medio Oriente, en las que se escuchan testimonios en contra de Israel, y luego publica un informe denunciando a Israel por supuestas violaciones a los derechos humanos.

Toda esta propaganda anti-Israelí se hace en nombre de la ONU, se financia con fondos de la ONU y se disemina a través del sistema de información pública de la ONU.  

Ahora veamos que papel juegan los países latinoamericanos en el mantenimiento de este aparato de propaganda tan perjudicial:

En la sesión de la Asamblea General del año 2014, los votos de los países latinoamericanos se dividieron de la siguiente manera: 

1. Votaron a favor de las tres resoluciones: Brasil, Chile, la Republica Dominicana, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela. (Bolivia voto a favor de SCIIHRP y estuvo ausente cuando se voto por DPR y CEIRPP, pero sus representantes manifestaron que, de estar presentes, hubiesen votado a favor, como en años anteriores)
2. Votaron a favor de dos (DPR y CEIRPP) y se abstuvieron en una (SCIIHRP): Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Méjico y Uruguay.
3. Se abstuvieron en las tres resoluciones: Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay y Perú.
4. Se abstuvo en dos (DPR y CEIRPP) y voto en contra de una (SCIIHRP): Panamá.

En cuanto al primer grupo, los siguientes países: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela, en virtud de la orientación geopolítica de sus gobiernos y de su fuerte “anti-americanismo,” votan automáticamente a favor de las resoluciones anti-Israelíes en la ONU. No podemos tener aquí ninguna esperanza de cambio, a menos que haya un cambio de régimen en alguno de estos Estados. Con respecto a Cuba, el acercamiento con Estados Unidos hace que exista una pequeña luz de esperanza pero de seguro no se pueden esperar cambios en un futuro cercano. 

Brasil y Chile también votan consistentemente en contra de Israel, aunque sus razones son un poco diferentes. Quizás la razón mas importante para Brasil sea que su Cancillería aspira a ganar un asiento permanente para Brasil en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, (en el remoto caso que este sea reformado para admitir a nuevos miembros). Para ello, necesita el apoyo de países que se oponen a los Estados Unidos y a Israel en la ONU. En cuanto a Chile, este tiene una importante población de origen Palestino que se ha vuelto muy activa políticamente en los últimos años y que parece tener mucha influencia en esta materia.

Con respecto a la Republica Dominicana, su voto cambio cuando se sumo a PetroCaribe (la alianza petrolera liderada por Venezuela), por lo que se puede suponer que su voto estuvo fuertemente influenciado por el gobierno venezolano. Por lo tanto, ahora que la ayuda venezolana se esta desvaneciendo, quizás exista una oportunidad de cambio.

Con respecto a los países del segundo grupo, no se puede esperar ningún cambio en Argentina, por lo menos con el actual gobierno. Pero quizás si haya alguna chance en Costa Rica, El Salvador, Méjico y Uruguay, todos países que mantienen una relación cordial con los Estados Unidos, independientemente de su orientación política. El caso de México es particular porque su Cancillería también aspira a obtener un asiento en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, en el caso de que este sea reformado (aun cuando la posibilidad de que Méjico desplace a Brasil como candidato Latinoamericano sea extremadamente remota).

En cuanto a los países que se abstienen en estas tres resoluciones importantes y que por lo tanto pertenecen al tercer grupo, dada la orientación de sus gobiernos y de su excelente relación con Israel, creemos que existe la chance de que Paraguay y Honduras  acompañen a Panamá y empiecen a votar en contra de por lo menos alguna de estas resoluciones tan nocivas.

El aparato de propaganda anti-Israelí que funciona en la ONU es muy poderoso y lograr desbaratarlo no es tarea fácil. Sin embargo, tampoco es una tarea imposible. Si bien hay países que votan consistentemente en contra de Israel por una cuestión ideológica (ya sea porque quieren oponerse a los Estados Unidos o porque tienen una posición anti-israelí), en muchos casos esa animosidad no existe o es mucho menor y por lo tanto hay una oportunidad de cambio.

Muchas veces los Embajadores en la ONU no reciben instrucciones precisas de sus gobiernos sobre como votar en estas resoluciones y por lo tanto ceden a las presiones de sus pares. En estos casos, es sumamente importante alertar a los respectivos gobiernos sobre la importancia de estas resoluciones.

El acercamiento de los Estados Unidos y del Estado de Israel con estos países es imprescindible. Pero además de esto, la acción de las comunidades judías locales – y las alianzas que estas puedan generar con otros sectores de la sociedad – son un factor muy importante que podría sin duda ayudar a lograr que algunos de estos países comiencen a votar de una forma mas equilibrada y justa.

Just last week, President Barack Obama pledged a commitment for the United States to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, up from 1,000 this past year. But refugee advocates and some members of Congress say taking in an additional 10,000 refugees does not go far enough toward addressing the crisis at hand.  The 10,000 refugees would come almost exclusively from the backlog of Syrians who have already applied for asylum, and not those individuals fleeing now.

Indeed such a commitment is fewer people than what some other countries have pledged to accept or have already accepted. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany intends to take in up to 800,000 people who have fled war and persecution, and Canada has committed to 11,300, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Still, most European countries have not yet committed to absorb refugees, let alone at such impressive numbers.

A dialogue has also been triggered in the global Jewish community about what our organized reaction should be, particularly in light of our own history as refugees seeking asylum from anti-Semitism.  Certainly the treatment of migrants evokes, in many, memories of Europe’s darkest hour. 

Hundreds of refugees surrounded by armed police officers and razor-wire fences and imagery of asylum seekers in the Czech Republic led off a train where identification numbers were written on their hands, fueled with rising trends of nationalism appear to present Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. 

To be sure, the migrant crisis is no genocide. Some refugees are Christians fleeing religion-based persecution, but many others are those simply caught in a terrible crossfire of civil war, starvation, chlorine gassing, and barrel bombing, who seek refuge. But it is our shared history of persecution and flight that compels us to act.

Tackling a crisis of this magnitude is going to require the world coming together to not only open borders to more asylum seekers, but also to increase humanitarian assistance to Syria and its neighbors in crisis and push for a political solution to the war. An emergency meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers will convene tomorrow to address a comprehensive and united EU response to the migration crisis. This is indeed the moment for the international community to gather and create solutions addressing both the immediate and long-term needs created by these challenges, including addressing housing, feeding and clothing the refugees, instituting a practical security screening process, while also establishing a division of responsibility for quota intake of refugees for the foreseeable future.

At this time of year, our global Jewish community is celebrating the high holidays.  Although a joyous occasion, Rosh Hashanah is a time for reflection.  In this week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we should pause to reflect on this global crisis, and commit our resolution to tackling the humanitarian challenges.

As Hillel’s teaching reminds us, the Torah commands we should love the stranger in our midst. During this important window of reflection, for now and the future, we pray for a good year to come not only for ourselves and our families but also for all those fleeing persecution in search of safety and freedom, and resolve to work toward eradicating their suffering.