Content Analysis of the Human Rights Council's Resolution Regarding
Gaza and Occupied Palestine
Dr. Mustafa A. A. Kashiem
Prof. of Political Science, Tripoli University
The latest events in occupied Palestine have the attention of peace-loving
communities on the official and non-official global levels. While many
countries issued statements in support of Palestine's rights to self-determination,
few others announced their pro-Israeli stands regardless of their commitments to
the law of human rights. Contradictions between what some countries declare
regarding their support to human rights and their policies towards the
Palestinian cause. In short, double standard politics mark the policies of many
states whenever the Palestine dilemma and Arab issues are concerned, e.g., the
United States of America, the UK, and Germany.
The Human Rights Council “HRC” Resolution number (A/HRC/S-
30/L.1) is consistent with the following rules and principles:1
1. The rules and principles of international law, such as the Charter of the
United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apply to
the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and inside
2. The member states of the HRC are obligated to respect the principles of
humanitarian international law.
3. Protect civilian persons during the war.
4. Respect international law as a way for permanent peace in occupied
5. The HRC emphasizes the relevance of the United Nations’ resolutions
since 1948 to the Palestine issue.
Accordingly, the HRC decided to establish an ongoing independent
inquiry international commission to investigate violations of international
humanitarian law and international human rights law in the occupied
Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem. The commission will
investigate “all alleged violations and abuses of international human
rights law leading up to and since 13 April 2021, and all underlying root
causes of recurrent tensions, instability, and protraction of conflict,
including systematic discrimination and repression based on national,
ethnic, racial or religious identity.”2
1 - See A/HRCS/S-30/L.1. Human Rights Council, Thirtieth Special Session (27 May 2021), at
2 - Israel's policy towards Palestinians is similar to the Apartheid policy had adopted by South Africa, where
there are first and second classes of citizens. The Israeli police forces protect Jewish extremists and arrest
Palestinian citizens inside the occupied territories. Israel arrests the peaceful demonstrators who supported
their brothers in Jerusalem and Gaza Strip.
The duties of the independent inquiry international commission are
extending to the following tasks:
1. Establish the facts that resulted from any violations of human
rights and war crimes.
2. Collect any available data and information regarding the violations
of human rights and war crimes under international law standards;
thus, it may use later on in legal proceedings processes.
3. Make recommendations regarding accountability measures,
individual criminal and command responsibility, justice for
victims, and measures may take by third countries to ensure respect
for international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian
territory, including east Jerusalem.
4. Calls upon all states, relevant parties and civil society, the media,
and other concerned stakeholders to cooperate fully with the
commission of inquiry and to facilitate its access to any assistance
and information or documentation they may possess or come to
5. Report on its activities to the HRC annually.
6. Demands the Secretary-General allocate the necessary resources
for the implementation of the resolution (A/HRCS/S-30/L.1).
7. Calls the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights
“OHCHR” to provide the necessary logistic and technical
assistance for the commission of inquiry to fulfill its tasks
8. Urges all countries to refrain from transferring arms to the fighting
9. Calls upon all countries, international agencies, and other donors to
support the Palestinians in the occupied territory, including East
10. Provide an oral update report regarding the progress of
implementing the Resolution number (A/HRCS/S-30/L.1).
To explore the double standard politics of some Western countries,
we will content analyze the latest resolution adopted by the Human
Rights Council on its Twenty-first special session on 23 July 2014. (See
Res. No. A/HRCS/S-30/L.1).
1. The resolution has been adopted by a simple majority of the member
states, which means there are pro-Israeli aggression and pro-Palestine
issue. However, some countries support the Palestine case on the
humanitarian ground rather than on political and self-determination
2. The resolution also reflects different schools of thought, namely realism
versus idealism. While the realists deal with the Palestine issue in terms
of gains and losses, the idealists support the option of two neighboring
independent countries according to the United Nations' decisions since
3. The resolution emphasizes respect for international law in the occupied
Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem. However, many countries
welcomed the resolution and considered it in the right direction of global
politics towards the Palestine issue. Thus, twenty-four countries
supported the resolution, and they are Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea,
Gabon, Indonesia, Libya, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan,
Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uzbekistan,
4. The traditional policy of the United States of America is committed to
protecting the national security of Israel; therefore, it rejected with other
eight allies the resolution. The member states, which opposed the
resolution are Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Germany,
Malawi, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom, and Uruguay. The previous
countries opposed before many resolutions regarding the Palestine case
in the General Assembly.
5. Nevertheless, the abstentions of the Bahamas, Brazil, Denmark, Fiji,
France, India, Italy, Japan, Nepal, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of
Korea, Togo, and Ukraine are political in nature because they may
consider a more pro-Israeli stand than a pro-humanitarian international
law situation. The abstentions on the resolution mean a misbalance
between commitments to humanitarian international law on the one hand
and real politics on the international level on the other hand. The
abstention voting pattern is a middle stand between the inalienable rights
of Palestine people to self-determination and anti-Semitism.
6. Obviously, an independent inquiry international commission is a
practical process because it means the inquiry commission will mention
Israel's aggression and violations in Gaza Strip and other occupied
territories. The independent inquiry international commission is a first
step to ignore the Israeli argument of self-defense. Thus, the United
States and its allies rejected the resolution on the ground of full support
to Israel regardless of its commitment to international humanitarian law.
Other western countries politicized their position regarding the resolution
(Res. No. A/HRCS/S-30/L.) by abstention, so they are not supporting
either side of the conflict.
7. Although the new administration of President Biden in the USA is
committed to human rights international law, its opposition to the
resolution is more oriented to protect the interest of Israel rather than
respect the principle of international law. The USA's position towards the
bombardment of civilian objectives in Gaza and the use of excessive
force against demonstrators in Jerusalem and other occupied territories
contradict its declared policy of protecting human rights at the global
8. Despite the normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel, Bahrain,
Mauritania, and Sudan remain a pro-Palestine case; therefore, they
supported the resolution number (Res. No. A/HRCS/S-30/L.).
Furthermore, Libya and Somalia voted “yes” with the majority of the
HRC membership. Voting on the resolution number (Res. No.
A/HRCS/S-30/L.) is a real test for the Arab states, which normalized
relations with Israel totally or partially. In short, despite the
normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel by some Arab states, the
Palestine issue is supporting by the Arab and Islamic countries on the
state, regional and global levels.
9. The pro-Palestine issue is extending to world public opinion. Thus,
demonstrations extend to those countries which rejected the
establishment of an independent inquiry commission. In short, there are
gaps between the government and peoples in a pro-Israeli stand.
10. On the international level, there are twenty states members request the
council to hold a special session to discuss the situation in occupies
Palestine, and they are Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso,
China, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Libya,
Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan,
Uzbekistan, and Venezuela. Furthermore, forty-three observer states also
agree on a special session for the HRC in this regard.3 One should
mention here that China and Russia support the right of Palestinian
peoples for self-determination and the UN resolutions in this regard.
There is a global trend to reject anti-Semitism and respect the principles
of humanitarian international law on the global level.
3 - The forty-three observer states which agree on a special session for the HRC are Afghanistan, Albania,
Algeria, Azerbaijan, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Guyana, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Suriname,
Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and
the State of Palestine.