fbpx

With your support we continue to ensure media accuracy

The NYT Balances the UN Human Rights Council

One of the criticisms being leveled against the recent United Nations Human Rights Council’s report on last summer’s Gaza conflict is that the UNHRC has a proven track-record of bias against Israel. The New York…

Reading time: 3 minutes

One of the criticisms being leveled against the recent United Nations Human Rights Council’s report on last summer’s Gaza conflict is that the UNHRC has a proven track-record of bias against Israel. The New York Times points out:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the document “flawed and biased” and said the Human Rights Council “has a singular obsession with Israel.”

But then, the Times adds this editorial note to undermine the Prime Minister’s assertion:

(In fact, it also has Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Syria and other countries on its agenda.)

And that is all it tells readers about the UNHRC and Israel.

But here is what the New York Times did NOT feel was important to point out to readers (from UN WATCH):

GENEVA, June 25, 2015 – In the nine years of its existence, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined….

 

The outcome resolution for the latest Gaza report… will condemn Israel exclusively, and will mark the 62nd resolution targeting Israel since the new and improved Council was created in 2006 — while the total of all other UNHRC condemnatory resolutions for the rest of the world amounts to 55…

So what about those countries the Times pointed out to show the UN’s “balance?”

Here is the number of UNHRC condemnations against those countries:

Eritrea: 3

Sri Lanka: 3

Syria: 15

Israel: 61

The New York Times could say that it was merely referring to the countries being discussed on the UNHRC agenda. In that case, perhaps it should have pointed out that Israel is the only country in the world that has a permanent agenda item. Every session of the UNHRC discusses Israel. Every one. No other country in the world has such an “honor.” Not Eritrea, Sri Lanka, or even Syria are given this treatment.

How about the number of “emergency sessions” of the UNHRC discussing specific countries? This information may have been more meaningful to Times readers than its short editorial comment:

 

urgent_session_chart

 

Over 200,000 have been killed in Syria, yet the UNHRC only thought to hold an urgent session about that country 4 times compared to the 7 sessions on Israel. The facts prove without question that the Israeli Prime Minister is correct when he points out that the UNHRC is “obsessed” with Israel.

[sc:graybox ]Write to the New York Times Public Editor and point out that its editorial comment attempting to prove “balance” in the UNHRC’s treatment of Israel and other countries is dangerously misleading.

Red Alert
Send us your tips
By clicking the submit button, I grant permission for changes to and editing of the text, links or other information I have provided. I recognize that I have no copyright claims related to the information I have provided.
Skip to content