The following op-ed was written by Sybil Kessler, B'nai B'rith International's Director of United Nations Affairs:
In his speech at the United Nations Holocaust Commemoration in 2006, Israeli history professor Yehuda Bauer said, "When I was five years old, I said to my mother: 'mother, pretty you are not, but you are mine.'" He held the same true for the United Nations: "The United Nations is ours; it is the best United Nations we have – we have no other. So, rather than run it down, rather than criticize it out of existence, let us support it, try to improve it, make it more effective in protecting humanity." This leads us to a question which continues to challenge those in the Jewish community thinking about human rights.
How should Jewish non-governmental organizations (NGOs) define and promote Jewish interests at the U.N. when proceedings on topics as disparate as women's rights or desertification are manipulated to single out Israel? When it comes to U.N. human rights mechanisms and Israel, should we engage or condemn? Must we choose one or the other?
Upon the 59th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet another question begs to be answered. Judea Pearl told the Forward earlier this year that, "Universal humanity emanates from personal empathy…Tribalism is a stepping stone to universal understanding." How, then, can we work to create common interests across divisive realities?
Between the attitude of "um shmum" ("U.N. – nothing") and the heralded diplomacy of Abba Eban, Israel's first vice president in the General Assembly, is a spectrum of approaches to end the bias against Israel at the United Nations.
A recent conference in New York focused on this issue: "Hijacking Human Rights: The Demonization of Israel by the United Nations" sponsored by Touro Law, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and the Hudson Institute.
I reject the black and white recommendation put forth at the conference that we should replace the U.N. altogether.
Dysfunctional as world affairs are, the bottom line is simple. If one sees merit in an arena where every recognized country in the world – friend and foe alike – can voice its views and share information, then the U.N. is what we have to work with. If one sees no merit, then we create a new international system where countries only interact with those with which they already agree. I question the value of such a system, since the function of diplomacy is to bridge the gap between those in conflict.
It was disappointing that some conference participants chastised Israeli Ambassador Daniel Carmon and Ambassador Robbie Sabel, former Israeli legal adviser, for presenting Israel's interests at the U.N. Political differences aside, if we cannot respect those diplomats who bravely encounter bias at the U.N., why attend such a conference to begin with?
It was equally frustrating to participate in a recent private discussion over whether it is helpful for the U.S. Congress to mark Israel's advancements at the U.N. by passing a resolution congratulating Rony Adam, the first Israeli diplomat to chair a General Assembly committee. Some were concerned it might obfuscate the real problem of bias against Israel at the U.N. by making things seem better than they actually are. If even the smallest improvement to Israel's status at the U.N. is seen as a danger to Israel's security, there's nowhere to go.
At times, the U.N. can be likened to a mirror reflecting an ugly view and serve as an echo chamber amplifying the world's worst voices. Regardless of our discomfort with what we see and hear, eliminating the stage will not change the play or its players. Instead, it may deny us our role.
Without ignoring the deep-seated flaws that are institutionalized within the U.N. system, our goal in defining and defending our particular Jewish rights in universal terms is to be present in order to change the venomous situation Israel faces. Rather than trying to stop the play by turning off the stage lights, the way to change the script is to constantly hammer away at what we don't like.
We can do this by responding to bias when we see it and not letting those in power forget their obligations to uphold the U.N.'s charter and other human rights treaties. We also need to make room for a positive vision alongside our struggle to combat bias against Israel by defining a Jewish agenda that is rights-based and proactive. These two paths of activism should be joined by a third: Explaining our positions to our friends and building alliances where possible.
As long as Israel acts without illusions about her reality, the state, and Jews in general, benefit by recognizing and promoting her strengths. That is why many of us are proud to see Israel engage in the family of nations not as a ‘one-issue' country that's only focused on conflict, but as one with much to offer the world.
Recently, we marked the 60th anniversary of the U.N. General Assembly's adoption of Resolution 181, also known as the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Israel deemed the resolution important enough to highlight in its 1948 declaration of independence, symbolizing the lasting interdependence between that one small nation and its family at the U.N.
Just as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the partition plan which marked world recognition of the Jewish right to a homeland, shouldn't we celebrate the potential for that state's future in the world? For, as ugly as the reality might be, and as hard as the job of diplomacy is, if the United Nations and its human rights system aren't ours, whose are they?
Sybil Kessler is B'nai B'rith International's Director of United Nations Affairs
