The UN has an abyssmal track record on Human Rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights was so populated with Human Rights abusers and was so politicized that even the General Assembly finally had to throw its collective hands in the air and abolish the thing.
With such leading lights as: Burkina Faso, China, Congo (Rep), Cuba, Ethiopia, Eretria, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, Sudan (Sudan?!?), Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe, fully 16 of its 48 members were "Authoritarian regimes" on The Economist's Democracy Index. And that doesn't even count the "Hybrid regimes" like Armenia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Maruentania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine.
Well, now that the GA has taken the issue out of the hands of ECOSOC and created the UN Human Rights Council, the situation has improved, right?
Well, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are there (or still there), so 14 out of 47 seats are held by authoritarian regimes. And there's another 7 hybrids out there. Less than half, but still a hefty number of nations that have no interest in having the lens turned upon their own human rights records, and so are content to use Israel as a scapegoat.
Almost half of the Council's resolutions have been specific to Israel. And despite situations like Darfur, Israel has been the only country to have been condemned by the Council.
The UNO and her agencies have zero credibility when it comes to the promotion of human rights and democratic development. The policy cupboard is bare, and the lunatics are running the asylum. Why should Israel consent to participate in a process whose only goal is, yet again, her own condemnation?
_________________
--James