Opinion

Obama’s UN lesson

Six months ago, President Obama re versed his predecessor’s boycott and accepted a seat for the United States on the vile UN Human Rights Council.

As UN Ambassador Susan Rice explained: “We do not see any inherent benefit . . . in being outside the tent and simply being critical without having significant influence.”

So what exactly has Obama’s “significant influence” managed to accomplish?

On Friday, the council formally endorsed the noxious Goldstone Report — which accuses America’s ally, Israel, of war crimes for defending itself against an ongoing barrage of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks launched from Gaza.

By a 25-6 vote — only Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine joined Washington in voting no — the panel referred the report to the Security Council.

Next stop, in the hopes of Israel’s critics: the International Criminal Court.

Now, no one expected that a US presence was going to shame the Human Rights Council overnight into abandoning its blatantly anti-Semitic fixation on Israel’s “abuses.” But the Obama administration has now made itself part and parcel of a process that not only endangers its own anti-terrorist efforts but that could result in Israel’s being hauled before the international court for the “crime” of self-defense.

As Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned, “The next time, it will be the soldiers and officers of NATO in Afghanistan and then Russian soldiers and officers in Chechnya” who face criminal prosecution.

Let’s face it: Washington’s participation on this council is unlikely to ever do much good. Rather, it’ll just give it credibility — and denigrate America in the process.

Fortunately, there’s still a chance for a US veto of the report’s recommendations at the Security Council. At this point, it’s the least Washington can do.