1. Whatever you think about Israel, they're certainly not the most serious human rights abuser in the world. It makes no sense for Israel to be the only permanent item on the agenda.
2. When the EFF is parroting the claims of "UN experts", the credibility of said experts is relevant.
I do not have knowledge on what happens at the UN, but the latest Gaza conflict is from 2014, with thousands of children killed or wounded, many permanently disabled. To an outsider like me that reads about what's happening there, all I see is ethnic purging. To make matters worse, this perpetual war is basically sponsored by the US and Europe.
Therefore personally I'm glad that Israel is the subject of UN meetings, because they should be.
If you use their expert status to give their claim authority, it actually does matter whether their expert status is justified, even if what they say is correct.
In other words, if you say: "listen to what they say, because they are experts", questioning their expert status is entirely justified. It's different if you were to say: "listen to what they say, because it makes sense".
In this case, I think what they say is correct, but if it's true that Israel is the only item on their agenda, their credibility as experts is still suspect.
And I do agree that Israel has a terrible human rights record, but they are indeed hardly the worst offender. (Was Qatar member of this? They have enslave migrant workers, working them to death for the 2022 world championship!)
No, I disagree with the substance of their argument for a bunch of reasons, but that's not what my comment was about. I'm not writing a formal rebuttal; I'm only pointing out that their credibility, which the EFF is directly appealing to, is hollow.
2. if you would care about protecting human rights then you wouldn't care who is in this council. you would only care if their claim has merit or not.