A resolution backing full enforcement of the 2001 Durban Declaration passed at the United Nations General Assembly, with some member states contending that the declaration provides a platform for antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. The vote, held on a Monday, saw the new political declaration and accompanying draft resolution — formally catalogued as A/81/L.4 — clear the threshold for adoption, drawing support from 95 member states while 37 chose to abstain and 5 cast opposing ballots.
Five nations — Argentina, Australia, Canada, Micronesia, and Israel — cast their ballots in opposition. Among those that withheld their votes were the United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and a number of EU member states.
Provisions within the draft text call for the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action to be put into effect in full, with mechanisms established to track progress over time. Three areas form the agenda's backbone: remedies for historical injustice, nationwide policies addressing racism, and safeguards against discriminatory profiling and bias built into modern technological systems.
Speaking before the UN body, Danny Danon — who holds the post of Israel's ambassador to the organisation — voiced opposition to any move that would extend fresh recognition to the Durban Conference, a gathering that took place a quarter-century ago. Danon described a gathering at which imagery depicting Hitler was put into circulation, Zionism was treated as equivalent to racism, and attendees who were Jewish faced physical attacks.
Speaking at the gathering, Danon drew attention to a statement by Iran's delegate that described Zionism as a "doctrine of supremacy." He then laid out a series of positions: that the Durban Conference had served as a platform for antisemitism and hostility toward Israel rather than a genuine forum against racism; that the United Nations, a quarter-century later, continued to commemorate the event while, in his view, distorting its historical record; and that any resolution framing antisemitism within the broader category of anti-racism advocacy would not carry Israel's support.
Questions about whether Durban's historical record warrants continued acknowledgment, celebration, or institutional standing have drawn varied perspectives from those who have examined it. The comment — in which the speaker called for the abolition of what they characterised as a stain on the United Nations — was delivered as the organisation marked the 25th anniversary of the 2001 Durban Conference.
A record-breaking 46 countries opted out of the 25th-anniversary memorial events, a tally that Danon and Israel's Foreign Ministry had worked to bring about through a dedicated diplomatic outreach effort. Waltz, serving as the country's ambassador to the United Nations, told the gathering that the delegation was departing as a form of protest — a step he said mirrored the action taken at the 2001 conference; that earlier gathering in Durban, South Africa, had seen both Israel and the United States withdraw partway through its proceedings.
At the 2001 gatherings, attendees who were Jewish encountered physical attacks, while printed copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — an antisemitic text rooted in conspiracy theory — were handed out in large numbers across the venue. Photographs depicting Adolf Hitler were among the material put into circulation.
Critics have long associated the conference with hostility toward Zionism and toward Israel more broadly, though the extent and nature of that association remain subjects of ongoing debate. The NGO Forum, which drew more than 7,000 attendees, took place before the conference opened, with participants adopting resolutions critical of Israel. Terms such as "genocide," "war crimes," and "apartheid" were deployed at that point, marking a shift in the language used.
Though the revised resolution stops short of naming Israel directly, the country maintains its opposition on the grounds that the document calls for a full reaffirmation of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in its complete, unaltered form. Israel's position holds that the DDPA singles out no other nation or geopolitical dispute for implicit censure in the way it does Israel.
