Speaking of anti-Semitism (or not)

Within tacit limits, President Biden attacked anti-Jewish bigotry in his remarks “During a Menorah Lighting in Celebration of Hanukkah.” Nary a word, however, about the genocidal Iranian regime, which the administration seeks avidly to appease and accommodate, or about the anti-Jewish and anti-historical “Jerusalem” resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly yesterday.

The Jerusalem Post covers the “Jerusalem” resolution here. The UN covers it here. UN Watch covers it here (with links to the texts and voting sheets of all three anti-Israel resolutions approved yesterday).

The “Jerusalem” resolution fails to recognize Jewish ties to the Temple Mount and refers to it solely by its Muslim name of al-Haram al-Sharif. For the UN, happy days are here again.

I can’t find the text of the statement of the United States on the site of the US Mission to the UN. The Jerusalem Post quotes the words of the unnamed American representative who spoke in opposition to the resolution:

The United States, which opposed the text, said that the omission of inclusive terminology for the site sacred to three faiths was of “real and serious concern.”

“It is morally, historically and politically wrong for members of this body to support language that denies” both the Jewish and Christian connections to the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif.

The resolution reiterates a previously adopted resolution in slightly revised form:

[T]he UNGA last approved the resolution in 2018 by 148-11. That text referenced al-Haram al-Sharif twice, one in the action portion of the resolution and once in the introduction.

This time, the phrase al-Haram al-Sharif was mentioned only once in the introduction. Despite this shift, support for the resolution dropped, with the number of countries that abstained growing from 14 to 31.

And this time around the resolution carried by a vote of 129-11, with 14 abstentions. The UN is gonna UN, but the resolution seems to me to merit a mention in the context of Biden’s remarks.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.