Three reasons:
1. The Resolution establishing the Mission prejudges the outcome of any inquiry. Prior to any investigation, it determines that Israel has "caused massive violations of human rights" and accuses Israel of targeting medical facilities and systematically destroying Palestinian cultural heritage.
It does not accuse the Hamas of any violations. The one-sided nature of the resolution was the reason it was not supported by many States, including Canada, Japan, Switzerland the European Union.
- UN HRC Resolution
2. The Mandate of the Mission is similarly one-sided. It calls for an investigation into violations of international law by "the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people."
It does not mandate any investigation of violations by Palestinian terrorist organizations. It was for this reason that many distinguished individuals who were asked to head the Mission refused. One of them was Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights, who described the mandate as: "not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas."
3. Members of the Mission: At least one of the Mission's members has a clear bias on the issues under investigation.
During the very conflict which she is now supposed to be impartially investigating, Professor Christine Chinkin was signatory to a letter to the London Sunday Times, asserting that Israel's actions "amount to aggression, not self-defense" and that "the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law".
- UN Watch Petition