The UN is an organization born precisely to prevent all the degrees of evil – economic plunder, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity – of which humans are capable. However, to this day, it has never managed to stop a single war or minimize any crime.
Interestingly enough, the institution today has representatives of a vast majority of dictatorships based on ideologies or fanatical theocracies – countries where words like freedom, democracy, and human rights were hardly ever known.
Additionally, over time, the UN has developed some differential standards on Israel, especially in relation to the so-called settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. Where was it determined that it’s illegal for Jews to live in the heart of Jerusalem, Samaria, and Judea? How is it that the UN has come so far from the point it was less than 50 years ago? That which was explicit, that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, is now made for them illegal. What kind of policy is this? What are the driving forces that have brought it to pass?
Looking back, we see a series of “turning points” in terms of the UN’s relationship with Israel.
Despite the indisputable multifaceted aspects of the Middle East, the only key questions appear to be Palestinian statehood, the settlements, and the status of these territories.
Firstly, the UN’s current policy utterly rejects Israel’s annexation of eastern Jerusalem upon winning the 1967 Six Day War. Secondly, the land regained by Israel in 1967 became occupied Palestinian territories. This has been established as institutional credibility. These territories are not Jewish anymore, they’re Palestinian. And the word “Palestinian” has been appropriated to refer to non-Jewish.
It is important to emphasize that the 1948 declaration of Israel’s statehood was thoroughly recognized by the victorious allied powers, the San Remo conference, the League of Nations, and then the UN. This precedent means legal empowerment and determines legitimacy in the exercise of authority, jurisdiction, and the power to implement and safeguard this decision.
Following Israel’s War of Independence, Jordan took over the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza, and Syria the Golan Heights. All that, of course, was contrary to international law. The principle of inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force that is now used against Israel should equally apply to Jordan and Egypt for both taking over the West Bank and Gaza by force when they attacked Israel, and not the other way around.
IN 1949, THE same year that the Geneva Convention and the International Humanitarian Law for protecting civilians in times of war were instituted, Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations. Furthermore, the international community at large attributed (with the exceptions of Russia and France) the Arab nations the responsibility for the creation, not only of the hostile environment against the Jews but of the conflict per se. This was the official position of the United Nations Security Council. However, the subsequent victory of Israel over its Pan-Arab enemies, time and time again, has produced this “international change of hearts” in which the Jewish state was no longer perceived as a victim but as the power with the force and capacity to overcome its Arab enemies.
Now, all the fully recognized acceptance of the preexisting legal rights that had been grounded in Israel changed. The existing legally binding rights and obligations that had been created in 1948 have been replaced with a differentiated singularization that points out the only Jewish state on the planet.
The state that represents the Jews globally was purposely left in an international, unlawfully impossible position.
No UN member state has ever brought a genocide case against China for its conduct in Tibet or Xinjiang, or against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. There is something special when it comes to Israel, a narrative of Jews as archetypal oppressors rather than victims.
All this conceptual mishmash would raise serious questions about the very legitimacy of any organization.
However, to eliminate an organization like that, and use the money for its operation to improve the standard of living of citizens, eliminate famine, etc. doesn’t sound like a solution.
As a member institution of the UN, did the World Food and Agriculture Organization ever manage to eliminate famine in Africa, Asia, or America? Yet an immense amount of time, energy and money is spent by the UN in attacking Israel, a country at the forefront of research and improvement in food production.
Several other organizations follow the same negative performative trend as those mentioned.
What would have been the achievements of UNESCO had it educated Palestinian children and young people? Did it prevent educating several generations in Jewish hatred, martyrdom, and murderous terrorism?
Did UNICEF manage to improve the overall situation of children in Arab and Muslim countries? Did it prevent Hamas from using children as human shields or human bombs?
What did the Security Council do to prevent acts of terror and constant bombing toward Israel coming from Lebanon, Syria, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and now Yemen?
How long did it take UN Women to react in the face of the October 7 massacre, with its rapes, murders, and dismemberments of women and children? What will they do now to help the millions of Muslim women who live enslaved around the world (except in Israel, the only country where they have equal rights as men)?
What would be the purpose of an International Court of Justice that has never prosecuted the terrorist groups, or countries that finance these groups?
Meanwhile, all these UN-affiliated organizations name their leaders and members from among the least suitable countries to chair them.
UNRWA's actions
UNRWA distributed books that taught children to hate and kill Jews, and many copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf printed in Arabic with its trademark were found all over Gaza.
UNRWA was so busy training children to kill that its members did not even realize the strange noises as Hamas built an underground city below them, with the sole purpose of launching missiles toward Israel.
And of course, UNRWA employees also did not see any large quantity of explosives, weapons, and projectiles stored in bags with the UNRWA logo.
The crux of this whole anti-Israel question is that of balancing out Palestinian rights to self-determination and the resolution of the Palestinian refugees, with Israel’s preexisting interests and right to secure and recognized borders.
The writer, who holds a PhD, is currently researching a post-doc on political antisemitism, at the University of Valencia, Spain. He is a former vice president of Sepharad Aragón NG and has lectured around Europe. He has briefed Spain’s Justice Ministry and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on antisemitism.