Our anger is understandable. The U.N. Human Rights Council has voted by 36 to 1, with only the U.S. opposed, to dispatch a fact-finding mission to our region to probe the effects of settlements on Palestinians. Ten other countries abstained from voting. In other words, they had reservations about the decision.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded by cutting off Israel’s ties to the Human Rights Council. Indeed, while dozens of our Syrian neighbors are killed each day and the number of dead in the uprising against Assad’s regime has reached more than 8,000, perhaps even 10,000, the council’s decision seems ridiculous. It further erodes the credibility of a body that was never particularly credible to begin with.

In my opinion, however, the decision to cut off Israel’s ties to the Human Rights Council was the wrong one. After all, opposition to settlements is not limited to this council. Ever since the Six-Day War, the U.S. has opposed the Israeli government’s settlement policy, even if it never cracks the whip on Israel over the issue.

But the Human Rights Council is not the U.S. It reflects the views of the countries it comprises. Generations ago, David Ben-Gurion disdainfully referred to the U.N. as “U.N. Shmoo-en.” Even this remark – which instilled a deep aversion toward the U.N. in Israeli public consciousness – did not help Israel escape the automatic majority in the U.N. General Assembly that voted in a hostile way.

No Israeli ambassador to the U.N. ever panicked or buckled to pressure despite the endless condemnations of Israel by a majority of U.N. members. None of them -- Abba Eban, Yosef Tekoa, Chaim Herzog, Gabriela Shalev and Dan Gillerman -- ever gave up. Each had his or her own style, but none of them, similarly to Israel’s other ambassadors around the world, ever said to the Israeli government, “I can’t take it any more,” and packed his or her bags, feeling the hateful atmosphere toward Israel.

This is precisely the role of an Israeli diplomat: to fight and struggle against a hostile majority, despite the minimal likelihood that any Israeli argument will make an impression or change most countries’ policies. It is important to remember that our former ambassador to the U.N., Chaim Herzog, did not even leave the U.N. building after the insulting, demeaning and racist decision to equate Zionism with racism. Instead, he stood at the podium and tore a piece of paper bearing the decision to bits.

Cutting ourselves off from the Human Rights Council is the easy way out. It doesn’t require action, but passivity. A country like Israel, surrounded by hostile majorities within international organizations, needs to rethink whether this was the right decision. Does anyone really think that cutting off ties will prompt the Human Rights Council to beg and plead for Israel to change its mind?

It is Israel’s responsibility to go back, struggle and speak out. A battlefield is a battlefield.