The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, whose activities were widely acknowledged to be extremely biased, particularly against Israel, was replaced in 2005 by a Human Rights Council.   However, as predicted by the UN and Israel, which voted against the new framework and sought fundamental changes that would prevent political abuse and exploitation of human rights, the UNHRC has turnout to be no better than the old model.

The new framework also continues to give selected NGOs that enjoy consultative privileges at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) a major influence in promoting anti-Israel agendas.  Accreditation to ECOSOC is based in large part on political affiliation, rather than commitment to human rights. For example, China blocked the application of the NGO "Human Rights in China", and the Arab bloc was able to overcome the specific objections to the application from BADIL (a Palestinian political NGO promoting "right of return" claims).  After condemning American and Israeli objections to the proposed structure of the UNHRC, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have become strident critics of its biases and failures.  However, these NGOs have refused to acknowledged their failed judgment in promoting the new framework, and through their own biased reports and campaigns, have contributed to the failure of the UNHRC.

 
 
NGO Monitor Submissions to UN Committees
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN “Human Rights”
 
 
Ronan Farrow, The U.N.’s Human-Rights Sham, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2008
 
Malvina Halberstam, Bracing for Dugard, New York Sun, June 8, 2008
 
Warren Hoge, Dismay Over New U.N. Human Rights Council, The New York Times, March 11, 2007
 
 
Jackson Diehl, A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement, The Washington Post, Jun 25, 2007
 
 
Durban
 
 
 
Goldstone
 
 
 
Further Reading
 
NGO Monitor Urges UNHRC to Comply with Fact-Finding Standards, NGO Monitor Press Releases, November 1, 2012