If Anne Bayefsky won't let up, neither will I

In another blistering exposure of the colossal failure that is the UN, Ms Bayefsky proves why the UN is corrupt, and the very concept of such a globa organization, where dictatorships and theocracies on the one hand and democracies on the other speak with equal authority. Sad to say, it is the UN's treatment of Israel that more than anything else demonstrates the bankruptcy of the UN.

Last June, the United Nations held its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism. Though the organization's very raison d'etre rises from the ruins of Auschwitz and Belsen, it has never produced a single resolution dedicated to combating anti-Semitism or a report devoted to this devastating global phenomenon. For those who saw light at the end of the tunnel, this week the prospect of enlightenment at the General Assembly came to an inglorious conclusion. One mention of "anti-Semitism" made it into one paragraph of a general resolution on religious intolerance. Fifty-four U.N. states — of the 153 members that cast votes — refused to support even that.

Guess who those fifty-four countries were? Guess what their state-religions were?

Immediately before voting against concern for anti-Semitism, the same countries refused to support a call for governments "to ensure effective protection of the right to life...and to investigate...all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." Anti-Semitism and killing people because of their sexual orientation are acceptable to almost every one of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The resolution involving killing homosexuals is only one of many U.N. human-rights resolutions in which the OIC stands with the violator, not the victim. The real question is: How do they get away with it, let alone pass themselves off as seriously interested in human rights, including those of Palestinians?

In the General Assembly, you only need a simple majority to pass a resolution. But (mostly for political reasons) the EU wants the Muslim countries on board, so the resolution is watered down, until it actually has nothing to do with anti-Semitism anymore. It is in fact about, you guessed it, ISLAMOPHOBIA!

Then began EU-OIC negotiations, which weaken and debilitate so many U.N. outcomes. References to Islamophobia and Christianophobia and language accommodating all other religions were added. Islamophobia was taken out of alphabetical order and put first before anti-Semitism.

There's too much here for me to go into it all. You need to read it all. But there's one thing she says that struck me:

In a 1968 appearance at Harvard, Martin Luther King said, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." But Martin Luther King would not find a home at the United Nations or its allied nongovernmental human-rights organizations.

Try and imagine what the present-day Muslim world would do or say to M.L. King, if he made a statement like that.