Of the many fundamental flaws that characterize the United Nations, one is that, on the 47-member Human Rights Council (UNHRC), China, Cuba, and Qatar have the same vote as the U.S., UK, or Finland. Another is that an entire UN agency is dedicated to perpetuating the Israel-Palestinian conflict, running schools that indoctrinate pupils into hating Jews while using them as human shields for Hamas rocket batteries. Another is that the UN’s permanent, professional staff is rife with anti-Semites. Take the all-too-typical case of Craig Mokhiber. David May and Richard Goldberg write:

Craig Mokhiber heads the New York section of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which oversees the UNHRC. On Twitter, Mokhiber has falsely accused the Jewish state of “genocidal cruelty” and of committing “ongoing genocide,” “race-based slaughter,” “apartheid,” and “ethnic cleansing.” But that’s just par for the course. Mokhiber is currently in the spotlight because UN Watch—an NGO dedicated to accountability at Turtle Bay—issued a report showing that Mokhiber wants to block the UN from endorsing a widely-used definition of anti-Semitism, a key step in the process of rooting out anti-Semitism at the UN.

The Biden administration is a bit player in this drama, which is part of the problem. It promised that deeper and more consistent engagement with UN bodies would promote reform, but that hasn’t happened. The Mokhiber affair suggests it is past time for the Biden administration and Congress to threaten to withhold U.S. funding from any UN body found to be engaging in anti-Semitism.

Every year, the president requests and Congress appropriates upwards of a billion dollars to the United Nations and its various agencies and operations. That money should not be handed over as a blank check. Instead, conditions should be added to tie U.S. funding to any UN organization on whether that organization or its officials engage in anti-Semitism. American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the world’s oldest hatred.

On June 3, an Egyptian policeman crossed the border into Israel and killed three soldiers. Jonathan Schanzer and Natalie Ecanow urge President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to respond by visiting the Jewish state as a show of goodwill:

Such a dramatic gesture is not without precedent: in 1997, a Jordanian soldier opened fire on a group of Israeli schoolgirls visiting the “Isle of Peace,” a parcel of farmland previously under Israeli jurisdiction that Jordan leased back to Israel as part of the Oslo peace process. In a remarkable display of humanity, King Hussein of Jordan, who had only three years earlier signed a peace agreement with Israel, traveled to the Jewish state to mourn with the families of the seven girls who died in the massacre.

That massacre unfolded as a diplomatic cold front descended on Jerusalem and Amman. . . . Yet a week later, Hussein flipped the script. “I feel as if I have lost a child of my own,” Hussein lamented. He told the parents of one of the victims that the tragedy “affects us all as members of one family.”

While security cooperation [between Cairo and Jerusalem] remains strong, the bilateral relationship is still rather frosty outside the military domain. True normalization between the two nations is elusive. A survey in 2021 found that only 8 percent of Egyptians support “business or sports contacts” with Israel. With a visit to Israel, Sisi can move beyond the cold pragmatism that largely defines Egyptian-Israeli relations and recast himself as a world figure ready to embrace his diplomatic partners as human beings. At a personal level, the Egyptian leader can win international acclaim for such a move rather than criticism for his country’s poor human-rights record.