Daily Telegraph – 18 December 2024
The United Nations has once again demonstrated why it should never be considered a serious institution of influence in geopolitics – much less a bastion of morality.
The resolutions passed in the General Assembly on December 11 are so blatantly absurd that it’s like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone, leaving viewers scratching their heads and asking, what just happened there?
Take the first resolution passed – resolution A/ES–10/L.32 – Support for the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which passed with 159 countries in favour, 9 against and 11 abstentions.
The resolution is a delusional diatribe, consisting of self-congratulatory praise for how wonderful UNRWA is, how essential UNRWA is, how UNRWA works so hard, how bad Israel is, and, of course, pleading for money.
But what it doesn’t say is what’s more important.
It fails to even mention the systematic infiltration of UNRWA in Gaza by the Hamas terror group, ignoring the copious amount of evidence that Israel and others have provided, including proof that Hamas terror commanders who worked for UNRWA took part in the October 7 attacks, and both murdered and kidnapped Israeli civilians, and at least 10% of UNRWA staff were members of terror groups.
Also not mentioned was UNRWA facilities being used as Hamas command centres, including a sophisticated data centre built directly under the headquarters of UNRWA in Gaza.
The resolution also ignores UNRWA’s inadequacy as a humanitarian aid organisation, delivering only 13% of all aid into Gaza over the period from August to October, and only 7% in November. So much for its claim to be the “backbone of all humanitarian response in Gaza.”
The second resolution, (A/ES–10/L.33) – Demand for ceasefire in Gaza, that passed – with 158 countries in favour, 9 against and 13 abstentions – is even more insidious.
This resolution demands “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza with the keyword being “unconditional.” Such a ceasefire would seal the fate of the 100 or so Israeli hostages who remain in Hamas’ terror dungeons, abandoning them forever, because while it calls for their release, it allows for absolutely no mechanism for pressuring Hamas after it inevitably refuses to release them. An “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” would also leave Hamas back in power in Gaza, free to carry out more atrocities like October 7 – something it has vowed to do.
The resolution’s vision of a two-state solution was myopic and unrealistic, “two democratic States, Palestine and Israel, live side by side,” while stressing the “importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.”
Importantly, it doesn’t rule out Hamas playing a role in the future of a Palestinian state. In fact, it doesn’t even mention Hamas once, even though it has been in control of Gaza for 19 years.
It’s almost laughable with its description of a future Palestinian state as “democratic” because the last time ordinary Palestinians had any kind of national elections was in 2006 – 18 years ago! And Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, was elected as President in the 2005 elections. His four–year term expired in January 2009 – but there he still is, 15 years later.
The Palestinian Authority is a corrupt, kleptocratic entity, more akin to a mafia than a political authority. It pays pensions to terrorists who murder Jews and creates textbooks that indoctrinate current and future generations on a diet of hate and perpetual conflict with Israel.
Any resolution that calls for an authority such as this to be in control of a state – without first demanding major reforms – is simply irresponsible.
This is a resolution of surrender to terrorism and tyranny, effectively rewarding Hamas by giving it everything it has been asking for since October 7, while sacrificing all Western ideals of justice, fairness and freedom. It is shameful that countries such as Britain, Canada, France and New Zealand could support such a resolution when one thinks about their own history in standing up to tyranny in the past.
Australia too has joined in this abdication of its moral authority by siding with tyranny over freedom, and dictatorships over democracies. It has tried to justify its position by saying that it is following the majority of the world community in supporting these resolutions, but this is a puerile argument when the majority of these countries are not even genuine democracies.
Australia would do well to remember that great countries, with moral clarity, lead. They don’t simply follow like sheep.
In April 2002, as Israel was involved in another campaign against Palestinian terrorism and the world was once again demanding a one-sided ceasefire from Israel, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, citing the lopsided UN voting, asked the question, “Can the whole world be wrong?”
As history has often shown, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
