Whoever is nominated in place of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations will encounter an institution that is decadent and badly in need of strong American leadership. Any new ambassador will encounter smug and ideologically myopic individuals and instituti ons that have had their way for years. It is no secret that a double standard against Israel has pervaded the U.N. for many decades. Much of the pattern of the ritualistic Israel-bashing we have come to know all too well took shape in the 1970s. Under the rubric of the “non-aligned movement” or “the third world,” the assault on Israel and its legitimacy took hold.   In actuality, the attempt to turn Israel into a pariah state was part of a major propaganda and disinformation campaign promoted by the Soviet Union and aimed at undermining the West. It was enabled and implemented by a coalition of communist and Muslim countries. In 1974, Yasser Arafat, arch-terrorist who ordered the murder of an American ambassador and was responsible for the deaths of countless innocent civilians, was warmly welcomed at the U.N. General Assembly. In 1975, Ugandan dictator and mass murderer Idi Amin, received a standing ovation there. And that same year, the U.N., by a vote of 72-35 with 32 abstentions, passed the infamous “Zionism equals racism” resolution.  In one of the most eloquent speeches ever delivered at the UN, U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) called the resolution “obscene” and declared that “the United States does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.” Incredibly, although the actual “Zionism is Racism” resolution was later repealed under U.S. pressure in 1991, this slander has been incorporated deep within the U.N. system and continues to dominate U.N. culture to this very day. There are a myriad of U.N. offices with no parallel whatsoever, dedicated solely and uniquely to undermining Israel. At the end of the day, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for them. The parallel universe that exists at the U.N. when it comes to Israel is boundless in its absurdity. Tragically, since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks, Israel’s enemies have only doubled down. In September, before the annual General Assembly session even had time to settle in, a resolution was passed accepting the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the “illegality” of Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestinian lands,” and calling on countries to take harsh measures against Israel. None other than Syria — still led at the time by Bashar Assad no less — sponsored the resolution against Israel. The pathetic irony of this was barely noticed, which tells us everything we need to know. This is the upside-down world that the new U.S. ambassador (whenever she or he is named) — like all predecessors — will encounter upon arrival at the U.S. Mission. In its complete dedication to the false, extremist and dangerous Palestinian narrative, the U.N. plays only a negative role as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned. As such, Oct. 7 was only a blip on the screen of its pre-conceived anti-Israel agenda. Even 17 months later it is hard to fathom the depths of depravity that Hamas unleashed on Israel. It seems that every day, more details emerge about the unimaginable horror of that day, or about the conditions that Israeli hostages are still suffering. Yet at the U.N., it is Israel that is judged, Israel that is condemned, Israel that is placed under a microscope.  Fortunately, there are a few countries that do resist the anti-Israel tide — countries like the Czech Republic, Argentina, Micronesia, Malawi, and most of all, since the very founding of Israel, the United States of America. That is no accident, since the U.S. and Israel share bedrock values that earn the contempt and resentment of the tyrannies and corrupt dictatorships around the world.  It is that special bond that Moynihan understood when he spoke with such eloquence and indignation against the despicable libel aimed at Zionism and the state of Israel. He understood that taking a moral and principled stand made the U.S. unpopular. In fact, he entitled a landmark essay he authored “The United States in Opposition.”  Our next ambassador should seek to widen the circle of support for Israel and the U.S. Many countries hide behind allegiance to their regional blocs or ideological caucuses when excusing their votes in favor of resolutions unfairly targeting Israel. It is time those countries that consider themselves friends of America start to worry about offending the United States when they vote against us.   The new ambassador should also advocate seriously for making support for the U.S. and Israel at the U.N. a litmus test for U.S. assistance to countries that are used to receiving aid with no strings attached and should insist that strong messages are delivered to capitals of these countries by U.S. ambassadors who will convey that the U.S. expects their support. This is firmly in our national interest.  Although Stefanik will not be our ambassador at the UN, she said something very significant at her Senate confirmation hearing: “Our tax dollars should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests, anti-Semitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption or terrorism.” That is precisely the right attitude and standard, and hopefully, it will be applied to the U.N. itself, its constituent institutions and the countries that support them. Daniel S. Mariaschin is CEO of B’nai B’rith International. Richard P. Schifter is chair of AJIRI-BBI ...read more read less