It probably won’t come as a shock to know that since its formation in 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country.
But more eye-opening is that it’s condemned Israel more times than every other country combined.
The Geneva-based U.N. Watch counted all of the resolutions out and summed up the findings in one stunning table:
UNHRC resolutions condemning countries that were not Israel totaled 55 over nearly a decade. By contrast, Israel was targeted 61 times.
U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer compared Israel’s treatment with that granted to its Middle East neighbors who don’t exactly hold the most exemplary human rights records:
U.N. Watch accused the world body of engaging in “endemic selectivity and politicization” for nine years. Not only did the number of resolutions overwhelmingly target Israel, countries with poor human rights records have been awarded seats on the council.
“Sadly, with members like China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Qatar, the UNHRC today may possibly rank as a more corrupt international organization than FIFA,” U.N. Watch said in a statement, referring to the scandal-ridden international soccer federation.
U.N. Watch compiled figures on other ways in which the Jewish state is held to a different standard than the rest of the world, including being targeted by “Country-Specific Agenda Items,” the appointment of a permanent Special Rapporteur on Israel’s alleged violations and holding “emergency sessions” to vote against Israel.
A Chicago Sun-Times opinion piece also noted the different treatment.
“Saudi Arabia has a horrendous human-rights record — recently a blogger was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for ‘insulting Islam’ — but not only is Riyadh not criticized, it’s given a seat on the council,” wrote Steve Huntley.
U.N. Watch explained that its calculation included “all resolutions from 2006 to 2015 that singled out specific countries for condemnation under agenda items 4 and 7.” The figures it presented excluded “resolutions that also praise the country concerned, or those adopted as matters of ‘technical cooperation.’”