[flagged]
You can find details from other sources as well.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6] She quite often runs cover for antisemitism.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/new-low-antisemitism-un-opinion-172...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-geneva-race-an...
[2] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world%2Fambassador-decries-...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/un-race-confer...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/eu-threatens-to-boycot...
[5] https://www.france24.com/en/20090419-growing-western-boycott...
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/australia-...
Regardless of how you feel about this woman - and even what the actual facts are - why would you use a Pro Israel lobby group as source for a topic like this? That's just bizarre.
Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
Being pro-Israel doesn't make their claims inaccurate and I did also link to other sources as well.[0] The main reason I linked to UN Watch was that they have a reasonably readable and compact aggregate of Navi Pillay's record on issues around antisemitism and bias. Mainstream news outlets have obviously reported on Navi Pillay as well but they typically only report on individual events as they happen.
> Either you don't understand how to judge sources, or you are knowingly acting in bad faith. That makes your view completely irrelevant. Good job.
I usually try to judge sources primarily based on whether or not they have a history of providing factually accurate information. Do you think UN Watch is putting out inaccurate information here?
Why? From my understanding he was given the award for his part in negotiating what ultimately became the Camp David Accords, which have held to this day.
> Itzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez
At least they were negotiating for peace in good faith, unlike Arafat[0].