Q&A: The Hypocrisy of the UN
The Hypocrisy of the UN
Question
Regarding the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, what’s very interesting is the fact that in a case like October 7, which really is an exceptional case, where they attacked us—and it wasn’t us, it was them, and we didn’t want this, etc.—the UN, or more precisely the prosecutor in The Hague, sees fit to issue arrest warrants against those involved; but against Bashar al-Assad, for example, who murdered, massacred, and butchered millions in ways far more horrifying than anything we could even dream of doing in Gaza, there wasn’t even a call to issue an arrest warrant against him (at least not on the international level). It’s very interesting what the explanation for this is. At the end of the day, the prosecutor isn’t a little child; he’s a serious jurist, and the very fact that he’s the prosecutor in The Hague testifies to that! What is this astonishing hypocrisy?
Michi, I’d be glad to hear your opinion on this.
Answer
It’s hard to shake the feeling that there is a strong bias here, as is common in UN institutions and in other places as well. But even so, it’s important to note a few points:
- It’s true that they attacked us and committed atrocities. Still, that does not mean that our actions are clean and pure. There are rules in international law that set the framework for such actions. If, for the sake of argument, we unnecessarily killed civilians, then the fact that they attacked us is not a justification for that.
- There is a claim that the decisions made here during the war are not consistent with international law. That is, the attack they carried out against us does not justify the steps we took in response (and not necessarily the war itself).
- It is important to understand that nobody there has determined that this is in fact the situation—not even the prosecutor. All he is claiming is that Israel is not examining these allegations, but rather dismissing them out of hand, and therefore the court must examine them itself (we do not have legal immunity here). Serious allegations cannot be left without investigation. The investigation may show that we acted properly and that everything is fine, as we indeed think and claim. But an investigation does need to be conducted.
- Quite apart from that, it is obvious that I would expect non-selective enforcement—that is, that they would bring all the world’s criminals to justice and not only Bibi and Gallant. That they do not do this points to a severe bias.
- But the claim of selective enforcement is not equivalent to the claim that no offense was committed here. We are only claiming that others committed the same offense as well. This is an important distinction in this discussion.
Discussion on Answer
A large part of the problem on our side is irresponsible statements by senior ministers who openly talk about total destruction / there are no innocents / the law of Amalek, and declarations of intent to carry out mass starvation—“we won’t let in a grain of wheat / a drop of water” …
In practice, of course, we did not carry out mass destruction, and not even mass starvation, with thousands of supply trucks.
But all these inflammatory declarations play into the hands of the prosecution (not everyone there loves Israel).
Even the admired Putin makes sure to declare that the war in Ukraine is for the liberation of the Ukrainian people and not to harm civilians.
Until the current government was formed, we made sure to speak about purity of arms (which was not always strictly observed) and about protecting the civilian population (which we also did not always uphold).
Ben-Gurion declared in the morning that he was extending a hand in peace to the Arabs, and at night he loaded them onto trucks across the border.
The current government is breaking records of stupidity that prove the Jews are not as smart as everyone thought.
They’re not stupid. Half the nation is stupid, and I was part of it. The leadership goes along with us, not the other way around. They do what works for them. For five years now, people here have been voting for those who talk like a tiger, act like a gerbil, and think like a log of wood—and even then, only about themselves.
In the last elections I didn’t vote. The shouting at Bennett on Memorial Day shocked me because I’m from a bereaved family, and I didn’t want to vote for someone who sat in a government with the Muslim Brothers. This time I’m not voting for someone who sells himself to me as a right-wing man. As far as I’m concerned I’ll vote Meretz; the main thing is that it be someone who gives me the sense that he knows how to run things. Tigers who don’t know how to prey are no help to me. Better a cow that knows how to chew.
It’s less cows and tigers and more wolves in sheep’s clothing (the historic Mapai) and sheep in wolves’ clothing (the full-on right-wing government).
I understood that actually yes, Bashar Assad was summoned for a hearing and there are arrest warrants against him,
which is why he doesn’t stick his nose out of Syria.
Putin in Russia is the same story too.