UN Mechanisms Against Israel Show Global Moral Hypocrisy
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- UN mechanisms are accused of hypocrisy by selectively targeting Israel.
- The UN's focus on Israeli settlements provides ammunition for boycott campaigns.
- The article contrasts UN actions against Israel with inaction against oppressive regimes.
- Historical UN resolutions against Zionism are cited as evidence of bias.
- Leaders of France, Spain, and the UK are criticized for their stances on Israel.
- The author argues the UN suffers from moral bankruptcy and political expediency.
The United Nations, established to combat war atrocities, genocide, poverty, and ignorance, is instead acting as if its purpose is to save the world from the Jewish state, according to author David Ben-Basset. He argues that the UN applies a selective moral code, turning human rights into a political tool and exhibiting blatant hypocrisy. This is exemplified by the expanded list of 214 companies associated with settlements in Judea and Samaria, including major firms like Tnuva and Netafim, which, while not a criminal conviction, provides ammunition for boycott campaigns. Ben-Basset questions the impact of such pressure on Palestinian workers' livelihoods.
The article highlights a permanent agenda item dedicated to Israel and the territories in the UN Human Rights Council and a 2024 General Assembly resolution demanding an end to the Israeli presence in the territories within a year. Ben-Basset contrasts this with the UN's inaction against oppressive regimes like Russia and China, which hold permanent seats and veto power on the Security Council, questioning the UN's moral authority despite its political power.
He recalls the 1975 UN resolution declaring Zionism as racism, which was later repealed but demonstrates a persistent temptation to deny Jews their national rights through international votes. Ben-Basset criticizes French President Emmanuel Macron for seeking a scapegoat among Muslim voters by advocating for Palestinian statehood recognition, arguing this is a hollow declaration without security solutions and fails to address the reality of terrorist organizations controlling territory. He also criticizes Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for condemning Israel's war against Hamas as genocide, suggesting Sánchez should consider Spain's own history and his family's legal troubles before collectively condemning a nation.
Furthermore, Ben-Basset points to the UK's historical actions, such as the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and the internment of Holocaust survivors in Cyprus, urging British leaders like Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham to exercise humility. He also touches upon Norway's issues with immigrant overrepresentation in crime and the Netherlands' restrictions on settlement products, questioning the severity of enforcement. The author criticizes Qatar for hosting Hamas leadership while Iran funds terrorism, and Saudi Arabia for its vulnerability to Iranian-backed attacks, suggesting that condemning Israel is not a viable strategy against regional threats. He concludes that the UN's moral bankruptcy is evident in its focus on boycotting Israeli companies rather than stopping murderers, allowing political majorities to tarnish a single nation.
Read the original at MaarivMentioned
