To fight anti-Semitism, the UN must first define it

The United States “must deal with the insanity at the center of the Human Rights Council — persistent and egregious anti-Israel bias,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft declared last Monday. She criticized the council for targeting Israel more than any other country in the world. Craft is right about the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias, but an effective response to the problem begins with recognizing that this bias is rooted in plain anti-Semitism.

It is the kind of anti-Semitism that manifests itself in double standards. The council obsesses over Israel to the point of distraction and deems it a pariah, all the while turning a blind eye to genuinely oppressive regimes, such as those in Beijing, Tehran, or Damascus.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has recognized that such double standards constitute anti-Semitism as much as other manifestations such as Holocaust denial and symbols like the swastika. The IHRA is a joint initiative of dozens of governments, mainly European, committed to Holocaust education and combating anti-Semitism. Its definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by more than 25 countries, the European Parliament, and even the English Premier League.

The Human Rights Council may be the U.N. body that has most often engaged in IHRA-defined anti-Semitism. The UNHRC maintains agenda item seven, which requires the council to review Israel’s human rights record at every meeting. No other country is singled out in this way. In fact, resolutions targeting Israel far outnumber those leveled against China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea combined. The UNHRC also supports a special rapporteur whose mandate is limited to investigating alleged Israeli crimes but not Palestinian ones.

In 2016, the council called for the creation of a database of all businesses conducting activities in or related to Israel’s settlements. The list is intended to intimidate companies out of operating in the West Bank, even though they are legally allowed to do so, and even though no such list exists for any other conflict zone around the world, from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the Turkish-dominated northern Cyprus.

Meanwhile, the U.N. General Assembly maintains a special committee to investigate accusations of Israeli abuses. It also has a committee and a division dedicated to advocating for Palestinians, which in practice has mainly entailed denunciations of Israel. The U.N. maintains no analogous bodies dedicated to defaming any other country.

Likewise, the U.N. holds Israel to a double standard on refugee issues through the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, a special agency dedicated to the Palestinians, whereas all other refugees are the concern of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA insists upon a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants rather than promoting resettlement. This approach demonstrably perpetuates tensions rather than resolving them. Furthermore, UNRWA teachers have been documented praising Hitler, denying the Holocaust, calling for the murder of Jews, and promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Despite applying a double standard to Israel, the U.N. has begun to recognize anti-Semitism as an actual problem, especially in the context of Holocaust denial. At a U.N.-sponsored seminar on anti-Semitism in June 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan recognized the U.N.’s shortcomings in fighting anti-Semitism and issued a call to action. In 2005 and 2007, the General Assembly passed resolutions condemning Holocaust denial. And in 2006, the U.N. established a Holocaust remembrance outreach program.

In another positive development, the U.N. held its first informal meeting on anti-Semitism in January 2015. Then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, “A United Nations that wants to be true to its founding aims and ideals has a duty to speak out against anti-Semitism.” In 2017, current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned calls to destroy Israel as a “form of modern anti-Semitism” and vowed that the U.N. would treat Israel fairly. For once, a U.N. leader recognized that prejudice against the Jewish state, and not just Jewish individuals, is a form of anti-Semitism.

U.N. leaders have even begun to embrace the IHRA definition as a useful tool for combating anti-Semitism. In September 2018, Guterres praised the IHRA definition. A year later, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Ahmed Shaheed encouraged countries to adopt the IHRA definition to fight anti-Semitism. Then, in November 2020, U.N. focal point to monitor anti-Semitism Miguel Moratinos said that the U.N. should work on a definition of anti-Semitism “based on the IHRA definition.”

While the efforts of these individuals are admirable, they are insufficient if the U.N. does not dismantle the institutional machinery that perpetuates anti-Semitism in the form of pervasive, obsessive anti-Israel bias. The U.N. should therefore adopt the IHRA definition and its examples and ensure that none of its bodies or officials engage in anti-Semitic behavior. This should be a prerequisite for the U.S. rejoining U.N. bodies such as the UNHRC. Otherwise, the U.S. would be lending legitimacy to this insanity.

David May is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Haley Weinischke is an intern. Follow David on Twitter @DavidSamuelMay. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.