Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made prepared speeches at the UN to condemn it for decades. He said in 2017 that Israel was the “epicentre of global antisemitism” and that “there is no limit to the UN’s nonsense when it comes to Israel”, but tensions between him and the institution he insulted had never gone this far.
Since the Hamas massacre on October 7, Israel has ignored four UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and the UN has not only designated the Palestinian refugee organization Unrwa as a terrorist state, but has also launched a campaign to bankrupt it . When the Israeli ambassador started speaking, the Arab ambassadors left the hall.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is now an almost full member of the UN himself, said in his speech at the general assembly on Thursday that Israel no longer deserves to be a member because it disregards its decisions.
What makes Israel such a central and difficult issue for the organization is the UN’s historic role in the birth of the state of Israel, as well as a state for the Palestinians, with the partition resolution in November 1947. The UN general assembly, which blessed the establishment of Israel, adopted a resolution in 1975 saying that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination.
History catches up with both sides. When the international court of justice, the UN’s leading court, found Israel’s expanded occupation of Palestinian territory discriminatory in July, the UN’s role in the birth of the state of Israel became the linchpin of its broader decision.
The UN general assembly demanded that Israel leave the occupied territories within a year and that the secretary-general, António Guterres, prepare a report on progress towards this goal within a month. This latest high-level week at the UN has seen world leaders deliver speech after speech accusing Israel of defying international law and thereby undermining the authority of the UN. Many were rude, such as the Turkish president comparing Netanyahu to Hitler.
Israel has long referred to the UN human rights council as the terrorist rights council, but the conflict between the UN and Israel has now become more internal. Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said in his farewell speech in August: “In this crooked place, I hope one day you will see prejudice and moral perversion here, and I pray that in this crooked place, you will see prejudice and moral perversion here, too.” real.”
Erdan’s theatrical and passionate defense of his country has won him few friends at the UN, but he is passionately supported at home. Pew research published earlier this month found that the percentage of people in Israel who have a positive view of the UN fell to 21% last year, from an already relatively low 31%. The average across 35 countries was 58%.
Erdan’s successor, Danny Danon, attacked the UN this week over its agency towards Palestinian refugees. “Peace is difficult to achieve when the UN is incapable of confronting the bad truth that one of its agencies in Gaza, Unrwa, has been overrun by Hamas terrorists,” he wrote in an article for Fox News. “Therefore, for the sake of peace between Israelis and Gazans, Unrwa must be dispersed.”
Jordanian foreign minister Ayman Safadi, after a meeting in support of Unrwa on the sidelines of the UN, said it was unacceptable for a UN agency to be defined as a terrorist and be subject to a political assassination campaign. “The attack was undermining the entire UN system,” he said.
Unrwa chief Philippe Lazzarini said that behind the Israeli attack was an attempt to deprive Palestinians of their refugee status and even their right to self-determination. But in the short term, it is not the hostility of the UN mainstream that will trouble Netanyahu, himself a former Israeli ambassador to the UN. He has been in the lion’s den many times before and ultimately came out unscathed.
Relating to: Hopes for a ceasefire in Lebanon fade as Netanyahu makes contradictory statements
What will motivate Netanyahu will be the obvious tension between him and the US administration over his stance before the US ultimately rejected the 21-day ceasefire plan in Lebanon. The deal was supposed to be the day diplomacy reciprocated, but Thursday appeared to be the day the deal fell apart. The US clearly feels that it is reneging on an agreement, and this is not the first time since October 7.
A senior European diplomat who has long opposed the US strategy was incredulous that the US had not sought clearer guarantees from Netanyahu before publicly announcing the 21-day ceasefire plan.
Reflecting US anger, US national security spokesman John Kirby said pointedly: “This statement we worked on last night was not prepared in a vacuum. “This was done after careful consultation not only with the countries that signed the agreement, but also with Israel itself.”
French President Emmanuel Macron, who was at the center of the talks in New York, said the offer was “prepared, negotiated”. [Israeli] The prime minister and his teams, both the Americans and ourselves.”
But this would not be the first time the West thought Netanyahu had made a strategic mistake but later proved unable or unwilling to force him to reconsider.