Britain was right to reject UNHRC’s hate declaration

The most newsworthy aspect of Monday’s vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to reaffirm the notorious 2001 anti-Israel “Durban Declaration” should be that 32 countries, to their shame, cast such an unambiguous and unapologetically antisemitic vote. The declaration was poisonous, attacking Israel as guilty of racism, while naming no other state at all — after a conference which was openly antisemitic. But the nature of the UNHRC means that such a vote is not remotely noteworthy. Its 47 members include such paragons of human rights as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and its meetings appear to have only one purpose — to find as many different ways as possible of pillorying Israel. It is a repellent organisation.

It is encouraging, commendable and important that the British have led the world in rejecting the UNHRC’s agenda of hate

That is why the most notable votes cast on Monday were in fact the 10 in opposition to the declaration, led by the UK. The Durban Declaration has to date been reaffirmed every two years without opposition and thus without a vote. This time, however, the British envoy, Simon Manley, demanded a vote, and then spoke passionately of how “for far too long, the UN has downplayed the scourge of antisemitism. This must end.” New Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted afterwards, “The UK is committed to tackling antisemitism and racism around the world.” It is encouraging, commendable and important that the British have led the world this week in rejecting the UNHRC’s agenda of hatred against Israel.