As Benny Avni reported in the New York Sun (June 19, 2006), "Even before it starts deliberating... the Human Rights Council is flawed in the way it treats Israel". The reason? For one thing Israel is the only country that can't participate. For another despite Secretary-General Annan saying that "No country can claim to have a perfect human rights record," and that he hopes the new council will avoid focusing on Israel and "not on others", there is already pressure to have a seperate standing agenda item on "the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine". This will again give an added political and anti-Israel role to a UN Human Rights body.

Why does having a special item about an area of conflict create bias you ask? Simply put, while major problem may not make it onto the main agenda, this item (if agreed) would ensure that even a minor mistake by Israel would recieve motions of condemnation. Imagine you live in a small town with two police officers. Everyone had a car and no one drives perfectly. However in your case one of the police officer is assigned to do nothing but follow you and record any traffic violations you make. Mean time on the other end of town gangs are deliberatly running over old ladies in cars they've stole for kicks.

This week U.N. Watch will publish a report documenting how the proposed Swiss member of the council, Mr. Ziegler, helped in 1989 to establish a $10 million fund to set up Libyan prize for Human rights. Only problem is that recipients included a convicted French holocaust denier, Roger Garaudy and Mr. Ziegler himself with Prize for their "thought and creativity." The prize was used as "a propaganda tool; as a method for funding sympathetic NGOs; as a means to celebrate prominent anti-Americans and to highlight issues meant to embarrass the United States; as a means to celebrate prominent anti-Semites; and as a way to provide moral support for those who participate in the Palestinian intifada," U.N. Watch's director, Hillel Neuer, writes in the report.

BAsed on reports by Freedom House, only a half of the new Human Rights Council members are considered "free". Benny Avni asks "in lieu of a credible and unbiased international human rights body, to whom should victims in Darfur, Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Tibet turn?"