Disappointment at the UN

Over the years, we have commented extensively on the hypocrisy of the United Nations. We have criticized the unprincipled, robotic voting of much of its membership. We have complained about the corrosive anti-Israel bias of many U.N. agencies and committees. And we have bemoaned the failure of the institution to live up to the lofty principles of world peace, coexistence and honest dialogue upon which the United Nations was founded.

For the most part, our criticism has focused on one-sided, largely dishonest and biased anti-Israel resolutions presented to the U.N. Security Council or General Assembly, or action taken by a U.N. agency, or where resolutions or other U.N. actions were designed to provoke or wrongfully blame the United States for some world activity or event.

It is with that background in mind that we watched with great disappointment as 15 countries in the U.N. General Assembly joined the U.S., Israel and Russia last week in voting against a nonbinding resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the Ukraine war.

The European-backed resolution, presented on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was largely ceremonial. But it carried significant emotional, political and moral weight, particularly because it came at a time when President Donald Trump was trying to change the Ukraine war narrative and shift blame for its origins.

The resolution was designed to be a global vote of solidarity against Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine and its continued aggression. It passed the General Assembly overwhelmingly by a vote of 93 in favor, 18 voting no and 65 abstentions, including China.

The U.S. and Israel were joined in their “no” votes by many of the world’s most repressive regimes, including Haiti, Hungary, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, seven dictatorial African countries and Russia. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Israel apologists make much of the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was under tremendous pressure from the Trump administration to join with it in the vote. And they argue that in recognition of Trump’s unequivocal support of Israel in its war against Hamas, his efforts to secure the release of the remaining hostages and his aggressive approach to the “day after” in Gaza, Israel had no choice but to vote with the U.S. in support of Russia and against Ukraine in the U.N.

We question that argument for two reasons. First, it begs the question whether in Israel’s view Trump’s stance on Hamas, Gaza and the hostages is sincere. Does Israel believe that Trump’s support could be altered by Israel’s vote on a nonbinding U.N. resolution with which Trump doesn’t agree? If Trump’s support is that shaky, it isn’t really support.

Second, is it now Israel’s position that when countries vote at the U.N. it is acceptable for them to base their votes on political expediency and other self-interests and to ignore truth, honesty and morality? If that’s the case, should we now take a second look at the history of perceived U.N. outrages over Israel? Do we need to examine whether what we previously criticized as immoral, dishonest and even antisemitic Israel-related votes were driven by political expediency or other “self-interest” concerns, such that they should be excused?

International diplomacy and demands for honesty, truth and morality are two-way streets. Israel can only claim the moral high ground if it stays there itself. It left that perch last week.