The UN’s Action Plan on Antisemitism: A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Change

Introduction: The UN’s Response to Rising Antisemitism

Last month, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its "Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism," a move that came amidst a disturbing surge in antisemitic incidents across Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. The plan, developed by the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), aims to strengthen global efforts to combat antisemitism by improving understanding and response mechanisms. However, the initiative has been met with sharp criticism, particularly for its failure to define antisemitism, a crucial step in effectively addressing the issue. Critics argue that without a clear definition, the plan risks being ineffective, and worse, it may serve as a superficial attempt to appear proactive without addressing the root causes of antisemitism.

The Missing Definition: A Critical Oversight

At the heart of the criticism is the plan’s omission of a definition of antisemitism. While the document acknowledges the importance of understanding and identifying antisemitism, it stops short of adopting the widely recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which has been endorsed by 45 member states and is accepted by major Jewish organizations worldwide. The IHRA definition is notable for its inclusion of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel rhetoric as forms of antisemitism, a connection that many argue is essential to addressing the nuances of modern antisemitism. Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, harshly criticized the U.N.’s decision, calling the plan a "phony exercise in futility" and accusing the U.N. of attempting to "pretend to do something to combat antisemitism" without taking meaningful action.

Bayefsky pointed out the hypocrisy in the U.N.’s approach, noting that while the organization champions the idea of allowing victims of hate and intolerance to define their own experiences, this principle seems to apply to everyone except Jews. "The U.N. champions the idea that victims of hate and intolerance define their own experience of discrimination, isolation, and violence – except when it comes to Jews," she said. This exclusion, she argued, undermines the credibility of the U.N.’s efforts to address antisemitism and raises questions about the organization’s commitment to combating anti-Jewish prejudice.

A Lesson from Counterterrorism Efforts

UNAOC Director Nihal Saad defended the plan by emphasizing that understanding antisemitism is more important than defining it, and he compared the situation to the U.N.’s approach to counterterrorism. Saad noted that the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism has not hindered the development of the U.N.’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which he described as a "unique global instrument to enhance national, regional, and international efforts to counter terrorism." However, this comparison has been met with skepticism by experts like Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, who described the U.N.’s counterterrorism strategy as "a mess." Fitton-Brown highlighted the U.N.’s struggles in identifying and designating groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as terrorists, citing the organization’s inconsistent and often ineffective responses to terrorist attacks.

For example, Fitton-Brown noted that while the U.N. condemned the Houthis for their 2022 attack on Abu Dhabi airport, it failed to designate the group as a terrorist organization. Similarly, the U.N. has been criticized for its weak stance on Hezbollah and its failure to condemn Hamas following the October 7th attack. Bayefsky echoed this criticism, arguing that the U.N.’s inability to define terrorism has led to a "malevolent dereliction of duty," particularly in its failure to hold groups like Hamas accountable for their actions. She pointed out that the U.N. Security Council has never condemned Hamas for the October 7th attack because member states cannot agree on what constitutes terrorism. This lack of consensus, she argued, is not a success story but a failure of the U.N. to fulfill its responsibilities.

The UN’s Failure to Self-Monitor and Act

One of the key proposals in the Action Plan is the implementation of training modules to help U.N. staff recognize and understand antisemitism. Additionally, the plan requires senior U.N. officials to denounce antisemitic manifestations as they occur. While these measures may seem promising on paper, Bayefsky raised important questions about their practical implementation. "The U.N. says it is committed to educating U.N. staff about antisemitism without knowing what counts as antisemitism," she said. "Any actual educator gives that lesson plan an ‘F.’" Bayefsky’s critique highlights the absurdity of trying to educate staff about antisemitism without first defining it, a fundamental flaw that undermines the entire initiative.

Furthermore, the plan does not include any provisions for self-monitoring or accountability within the U.N. itself. This oversight is particularly concerning given the organization’s history of Turning a blind eye to antisemitism within its ranks. Bayefsky pointed to the cases of U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and U.N. Commission of Inquiry head Navi Pillay, both of whom have been accused of egregious antisemitic behavior. Despite these allegations, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has failed to speak out against them, claiming that the independence of mandate holders like Albanese and Pillay limits his ability to act. Bayefsky dismissed this excuse, arguing that Guterres has the platform and the moral authority to denounce antisemitism, but chooses not to do so. "If the when and the who are inside the U.N., [Guterres is] not only sitting down, he goes mute," she said.

Conclusion: A Call for True Accountability

The U.N.’s Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism has been widely criticized for its shortcomings, particularly its failure to define antisemitism and its lack of mechanisms for self-monitoring and accountability. While the plan acknowledges the importance of understanding antisemitism, its refusal to adopt a widely accepted definition of the term leaves it without a clear foundation to address the issue effectively. The comparison to the U.N.’s counterterrorism efforts only serves to underscore the organization’s broader struggles with addressing complex and contentious issues.

Bayefsky’s assertion that the U.N. "can’t combat antisemitism without acknowledging its guilt and starting with ‘mea culpa’" strikes at the heart of the problem. For the Action Plan to be taken seriously, the U.N. must first confront its own complicity in allowing antisemitism to persist within its ranks and throughout the world. Until the organization is willing to take meaningful steps to define antisemitism, hold itself accountable, and speak out against anti-Jewish prejudice wherever it occurs, its efforts will remain hollow and ineffective. The fight against antisemitism demands more than hollow promises and half-hearted measures; it requires courage, honesty, and a commitment to real change.