"Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.The Human Rights Council was supposed to be an improvement over the prior UN Human Rights Commission. It has not. The HRC has singled out Israel's actions for criticism, all the while ignoring massive human rights abuses around the world, including in Darfur.
"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."
"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued.
"In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States," he said.
"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.
"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.
The United States, and Australia joined Israel in voting against the motion, together with four small Pacific island nations. All countries in Europe, including Britain, voted to support the resolution.
The original text condemned Israel over the Beit Hanoun attack and its operations in Gaza, however the adopted resolution had the General Assembly expressing, "regret."
Wake Up America has a brief history of the rampant anti-Israel position taken by the UN. It's interesting to note that the UN repeatedly votes on anti-Israel resolutions - seemingly on a weekly basis, but many of these nations deny voting rights to their own citizens. Regimes that are thugocracies, totalitarian regimes, Islamist states who deny women equal rights, and kleptocracies dominate the discussion, rendering the UN useless to deal with real threats.
Others picking up on Bolton's comments, along with Gillerman's disgust with the proceedings: Flopping Aces, Sister Toldjah, and Atlas Shrugs.
It's also interesting to note that Democrats in the US Senate have seen fit to deny Bolton an up or down vote. They've forced the Administration to use a recess appointment for Bolton to represent the US interests at the UN. Perhaps the Democrats think that the point of the US Ambassador to the UN is to represent UN interests to the US. That's bass ackward, and it has been quite some time since the US has had a representative at the UN who actually represents US interests, and not simply parroting the UN view for public consumption.