What is antisemitism? Here is one of a number of criteria:
"If a person criticizes Israel and only Israel on certain issues, but
chooses to ignore similar situations conducted by other countries he is
performing a double standard policy against Israel.
The implementation of a different moral standard for Jews and Israel
compared to the rest of the world, just like the Delegitimization claim,
discriminates against a specific group and is labeled as antisemitism."
By this criteria, the United Nations as a body seems to act antisemitic, as shown in following research findings!
"Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric
and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with
situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel
is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly
resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged
military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus,
Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in
Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s
Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these
countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to
Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the
territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16
times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with
Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions
dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly
surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security
Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the
Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five
times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined."
These findings are based on the following comparative study of conflict and subsequent population movements:
"First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a
near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no
occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent
such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed
opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps
most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international
community or international organizations described the migration of
persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even
in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international
criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level
of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art.
49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought.
Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments
of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of
illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.
deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available
state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal
discussions of the Arab-Israeli- conflict, including potential
investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court.
More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can
also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing
occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian
occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this
Article is the first to document."
(From the abstract of the study)
For the full research study (67 pages) see:
And for a synopsis of the findings, conclusions and broader implications, see: