There is a concerted, calculated effort by non-Western nations and their domestic enablers to undermine the foundations of the West. They do so by wielding moral platitudes as weapons—ideals they have neither the intention nor the capacity to uphold.
The new antisemitism, like the old, is about the displacement of guilt. The world feels guilty about its own failures, and it projects that guilt onto the one people, or the one civilization, that refuses to bow to its dictates.
This dynamic was on full display when the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade the "gravest crime against humanity," demanding "reparatory justice" as a mandatory remedy for historical wrongs. Let us be clear: slavery in modern times was terrible. It was a profound moral atrocity that violated the divine spark inherent in every human soul. But the UN's interest here isn't morality; it is geopolitics.
Calling this the "gravest crime" while many of the resolution’s sponsors oversee active slave markets, political gulags, and the systematic oppression of women is a farce. Ghana’s president led this charge, draping his rhetoric in "dignity" and "healing." Yet, Ghana struggles with rampant child trafficking, forced labor, and the state-sanctioned persecution of minorities. We are expected to ignore these "archaic traditions" through the lens of cultural relativism—a luxury afforded only to tenured sociology professors and Western liberals. As Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote:
"Justice is not a matter of 'politeness'… it is the realization that a lie is a lie, no matter how much 'cultural' makeup you apply to its face."
For a government that cannot secure the basic rights of its citizens in 2026 to posture as a moral arbiter of the 18th century is not just rich—it is pathological.
Ghana is not alone in this masquerade. The "Yes" votes included a rogue’s gallery of the world’s worst actors: North Korea, Eritrea, China, Qatar, and Cuba. Most tellingly, the "State of Palestine" co-sponsored the resolution, speaking in sweeping terms about "historical evil." This is the height of irony. While they condemn the West’s past, they remain silent—or complicit—in the ongoing trafficking and enslavement of Africans in Libya, Sudan, and across the Arab world. This is not "whataboutism." It is a reality check on the selective morality animating the UN. If your "universal" concern for humanity stops where your political interests begin, you aren't seeking justice; you are seeking a shakedown.
When the United States rejects such a resolution, the reflex of the American Left is to scream "racism." This is a juvenile reaction. Rejecting a resolution is not a rejection of the victims of slavery; it is a rejection of a corrupt political framework. As Abba Eban famously quipped about the UN:
"If Algeria introduced a resolution that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13."
Western diplomats are right to be skeptical of "reparations" built on shaky legal ground and a distorted "hierarchy of atrocities" designed to place the West at the bottom.
Supporters argue the transatlantic trade was unique because it was "racialized." Fine. The racial ideology of that era was indeed grotesque. But the fundamental crime was the theft of human agency—the ownership of one man by another. If we accept that slavery is a standalone moral abomination, then why is the UN silent on the Arab-Islamic slave trade that lasted over a millennium? Where is the reparations movement for the Europeans enslaved by Barbary corsairs? Where is the accountability for the African elites who sold their own neighbors?
The answer is simple: there is no profit in blaming the non-West. The reparations movement isn't about "memory"; it is a redistributive project designed to impose an open-ended collective obligation on people who committed no offense.
This contradicts the very core of Jewish and Western jurisprudence. As it is written in Ezekiel 18:20:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
The UN seeks to replace individual agency with civilizational guilt. It demands that modern Westerners—who live in the most tolerant societies in human history—atone materially for the sins of the dead. This isn't justice; it is moralized coercion.
The ultimate paradox is that it was the West—rooted in the Biblical recognition of the individual—that developed the legal and moral tools to abolish slavery. The same civilization now under indictment is the one that gave the world the concept of universal rights. Meanwhile, many of the nations pointing the finger have yet to discover the concept of a fair trial or a free press.
This resolution is not an act of "moral seriousness." It is a coalition of the compromised, attempting to bankrupt the West both financially and spiritually. Rejecting it is not "denying history." It is an act of civilizational self-respect. We must refuse to be lectured on human rights by a committee of tyrants and their "progressive" enablers.
