An article published on June 19 in the New York Times reports that the Trump administration ordered the withdrawal of the United States from the UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Gardiner Harris notes that the decision came in response to the council’s “frequent criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.” The UNHRC, established in 2006, does not include Russia, which was removed in 2016 for its actions in Syria, nor does it include Israel, which has described the council, according to the Times of Israel, as “a biased, hostile, anti-Israel organization that has betrayed its mission of protecting human rights.” What we are left with is a president stepping away from a body that has challenged two nations he has treated with notable favor.
The UNHRC, based in Geneva, was formed to replace a commission that had lost credibility for allowing states with poor human rights records to participate without consequence. Its stated role is to monitor, evaluate, and respond to human rights violations across the globe. That mandate gives it the authority to speak on any situation that demands attention, regardless of political convenience.
Every institution can be picked apart if one looks long enough. Failure is never hard to find. Withdrawal can always be justified if the standard is perfection. The question is not whether the UNHRC is flawed. The question is whether its claims carry weight. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians has not consistently met the threshold of humane conduct. Outside observers have described its posture as heavy-handed, at times abusive, and structured in ways that sustain imbalance. Responsibility for the conflict is shared, but Israel’s role in shaping its present conditions is not incidental.
Before turning to the UNHRC directly, a precursor from 2017 sharpens the frame.
June 2017 – Human Rights Watch Statement on Israel
On June 4, 2017, Human Rights Watch released a report titled “Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses.” The report states that Israel maintains control over the West Bank and Gaza through repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuse. It identifies five categories of violations: unlawful killings, forced displacement, abusive detention, restrictions on movement including the closure of Gaza, and the expansion of settlements tied to discriminatory policy structures. These are not marginal claims. They are structured accusations grounded in international legal language.
United Nations Human Rights Council Report on Israel
Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2014 to 2018, stated that Israel breached Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, classifying such actions as war crimes. The Jerusalem Post pointed to his identity as a Jordanian prince, raising the possibility of bias. It also noted the imbalance in reporting, with multiple reports directed at Israel compared to fewer addressing Syria or Iran.
Even if bias is raised as a concern, it does not dissolve the substance of the charge. Article 147 defines grave breaches in explicit terms: willful killing, torture, unlawful confinement, forced transfer, denial of fair trial, hostage-taking, and destruction of property absent military necessity. These are not abstract categories. They align closely with the violations outlined by Human Rights Watch. The overlap is not incidental.
Implications of America’s Departure from the UNHRC
America’s relationship with Israel is shaped by political alignment, strategic interest, and a strong current of Christian Zionism. Within that framework, Israel is often positioned beyond critique, grounded in theological claims that elevate it above ordinary judgment. Scripture is not only referenced. It is deployed to secure that position.
Barack Obama showed a willingness to allow criticism of Israel to surface within international forums, which strained his relationship with Netanyahu. Trump moves differently. His posture shifts away from traditional alliances and toward a model of engagement that favors assertion over restraint. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, his conduct within the G7, and his affinity for leaders such as Vladimir Putin signal a reorientation. This is not drift. It is deliberate.
Public attention to the UNHRC withdrawal has been limited, in part because it unfolded alongside domestic controversies that were harder to ignore. The treatment of migrants at the southern border, particularly the separation of children from their parents, exposed the United States to the very kind of scrutiny the council exists to apply.
Participation in a body that evaluates human rights creates a problem when your own conduct cannot withstand that same evaluation. The timing of the withdrawal does not need a declared motive to raise questions. It sits within a broader pattern. The executive order addressing family separation did not emerge from initiative. It came under pressure.
What holds throughout is a governing instinct that resists oversight. The UNHRC is not simply a council. It is a space where actions are examined and named. That alone makes it undesirable for an administration that treats external critique as interference. Trump’s posture toward leadership reflects a preference for concentrated power, visible in his language, his alliances, and his points of reference.
That same posture is visible domestically. Immigration enforcement has produced conditions in which children are placed in environments that carry lasting psychological weight. The moral language used to justify those policies stands alongside realities that cannot be easily reconciled with it.
The question remains: why withdraw from the UNHRC? The stated reason matters less than the pattern it fits into. A nation cannot occupy a seat in a body dedicated to human rights while resisting examination of its own conduct. Trump’s positions on the G7, the UNHRC, and his favorable remarks toward leaders such as Putin and Kim Jong Un converge toward a single orientation. Power is to be exercised without constraint. Oversight is to be minimized. Accountability is to be resisted. When that logic settles in, the language of empire does not feel misplaced. It feels descriptive.
References
Harris, Gardiner. “Trump Administration Withdraws U.S. from U.N. Human Rights Council.” The New York Times, June 19, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-israel-palestinians-human-rights.html
Human Rights Watch. “Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses.” June 4, 2017.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “About the Human Rights Council.”
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/about-council
ToI Staff and Agencies. “Israel Welcomes ‘Courageous’ US Pullout from UN Human Rights Council.” The Times of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-welcomes-courageous-us-pull-out-from-un-human-rights-council/
The Jerusalem Post. “UNHRC Report: Settlements Are a War Crime.”
https://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/UNHRC-report-Settlements-are-a-war-crime-544740
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). “Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” Geneva, August 12, 1949.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949
Beckwith, Ryan Teague. “Here’s What President Trump’s Immigration Order Actually Does.” TIME.
http://time.com/5317703/trump-family-separation-policy-executive-order/