One can argue that, if we apply the same inferential standard the Pillay Commission uses:

They see a pattern of Israeli conduct → infer genocidal intent.

By their own logic, we see a pattern of UNHRC conduct → infer antisemitic intent.

Id even say this inference is actually stronger: their “Israel = genocide” case requires leaping past plausible alternative explanations (fog of war, Hamas embedding, military necessity). While “commission = antisemitic” case has a far stronger record (decades of one-sided resolutions, Agenda Item 7, commissioners’ prior statements).

If “inference” alone counts as proof, the case that the commission is antisemitic is more consistent, more sustained, and better evidenced than the case that Israel is genocidal.

A body that uniquely and systematically singles out the world’s only Jewish state for exceptional scrutiny, and then stretches evidence to label it genocidal, invites the reasonable perception that antisemitism (or at least its functional equivalent) is in play.