And you continue to ignore the fact that the committee declared their support for Israeli policy in their very first statement
Had this committee been asked to appear in a court of law it would have been forced to refuse because of their obvious bias in support of the accused.
Bizarrely, at no time have any of these people interviewed the victims of these event which indisputably took place; Richard Kent made that quite clear
It is utter nonsense not to interview all sides in an enquiry
"Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM"
You have not answered one single pint in this posting - all you are able to do is disparage it - no answers, just mindless insults - your stock-in-trade

"UN Watch"
Depends where you go for an opinion
You carefully selected the good bits from this Wiki descripion while ignoring the relevant information.
"Ian Williams, former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association[67] and author of The UN For Beginners,[68] wrote in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007 that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians."

The American journalist and political commentator Phyllis Bennis described UN Watch as a "small Geneva-based right-wing organisation" that is "hardly known outside of UN headquarters". She stressed that "undermining and delegitimising" Richard Falk through "scurrilous accusations" has been an "obsession of UN Watch" when he became Special Rapporteur.

Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".
Jim Carroll