The UN’s new Durban resolution is reinforcing racism - opinion

As the 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) convenes in Geneva, a new “Durban” resolution ostensibly aimed at combating racism and discrimination will be put to a vote on October 9, just days after the one-year commemoration of Hamas’ massacre against the State of Israel.

The first World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Durban in 2001 was a hate-fest as the only Jewish state was singled out, and antisemitism was erased from the conference agenda. This upcoming resolution will continue the trend from 2001 by further weakening global anti-racist advocacy efforts because Hamas’ October 7 massacre against Israel and the increased antisemitism that has followed the attacks are not mentioned in the resolution draft. If adopted, this resolution will likely further promote antisemitism while also exposing an underlying bias that could fundamentally distort the global fight against racism.

The glaring omission of antisemitism and the October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians and many other foreign nationals from the draft raises profound concerns about the intention and credibility of the Durban Resolution. Hamas’ massacre was not just an isolated incident of violence; it was an unprovoked, ideologically driven attack targeting Jews. By excluding it from a resolution to combat racism, this vote sends a message that Jewish lives are less worthy of recognition and protection than others. This itself is a form of institutionalized racism, where the suffering of one group is selectively minimized, dismissed, or ignored in the international arena.

Why the Omission?

Why would the drafters of the Durban Resolution omit the growing problem of antisemitism? The answer lies in a disturbing trend where certain political narratives are prioritized over a genuine commitment to human rights. While the resolution focuses on anti-apartheid and anti-colonial rhetoric, it neglects the plight of Jewish communities, which have been and continue to be subject to discrimination, violence, and hatred. This selective approach is part of a broader strategy to shape international opinion and policy to isolate and delegitimize Israel. The proposed resolution ignores antisemitism and contributes to it.

The UN’s historical bias against Israel is well-documented. Resolutions condemning Israel have consistently outnumbered those targeting any other country despite other regions experiencing constant, severe human rights abuses. The refusal to mention antisemitism in the Durban Resolution further reinforces the perception that the UNHRC is prejudiced and concerned with advancing certain political agendas over others. It also eliminates UNHRC’s credibility and effectiveness in global human rights advocacy. 

The Consequences of “Selective Morality”

If this resolution is passed without acknowledging antisemitism and the suffering of Jewish victims, it sets a dangerous precedent as it may encourage parliamentarians, governments, universities, academics, anti-Israel NGOs, and others to similarly ignore and contribute to the rise of antisemitism worldwide. This could manifest in inadequate actions or policies that fail to protect Jewish communities and students facing discrimination and violence, including hate speech. Worse still, it could create an environment where antisemitism is not only tolerated but also implicitly sanctioned under the guise of a skewed anti-racism framework.

Furthermore, there is a legitimate concern that the exclusion of antisemitism from the Durban Resolution could justify labeling Israel as an apartheid state. The anti-apartheid narrative is potent and morally charged; applying it selectively against Israel without understanding the complexities on the ground could fuel further division and hatred. If the resolution goes ahead as currently drafted, the “anti-apartheid” label may be used as a political tool against Jews and Israel, rather than as a genuine call to dismantle discrimination wherever it exists.

The Durban Resolution, as it stands, is not merely a missed opportunity; it is an active perpetuation of selective morality that risks deepening divisions rather than healing them. It fails to combat racism in all its forms as it reflects a disturbing trend to willfully ignore antisemitism, manipulate human rights rhetoric to spread misinformation and bias against the Jewish State, and victimize a specific people affected by racism -- Jews. If the UNHRC is truly committed to fighting racism, it must ensure that its resolutions are comprehensive, balanced, and inclusive of all forms of hatred and discrimination, including antisemitism.

To achieve this, the UNHRC should amend the Durban Resolution to explicitly acknowledge the October 7 massacre and the increase in global antisemitism. It is incumbent upon the UNHRC and all member states to work towards a resolution that genuinely upholds the principles of equality, justice, and human rights for all. This would not only reflect a more honest and just approach to human rights, but it would also send a powerful message that the global community opposes all forms of racism without exception. Anything less would undermine the very foundation upon which the UNHRC claims to stand.

Diana Krief is the President of the Geneva-based Association Coopération and Development (ACD), which promotes cooperation and innovations between people. 

Andria Spindel is the Executive Director of the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF) in Toronto.

This op-ed is published in partnership with a coalition of organizations that fight antisemitism across the world. Read the previous article by Masha Merkulova.