Israeli cleric Rabbi Ronen Shaulov calls for the starvation of all civilians in Gaza

[TulipLavender]

https://youtube.com/shorts/RFFcB8mEabs?si=Fo30dm4_Qy2sLjhP

He says every child in Gaza should starve to death.

UN watch describe what they do on their website homepage "UN Watch stands at the forefront in combating racism, antisemitism, and anti-Israel prejudice at the UN, taking the offensive against dictatorships and double standards. UN Watch receives no funding from any government and relies entirely on charitable donations"

They've consistently highlighted the disproportionate focus on Israel at the UNHRC, where more resolutions have historically been passed against Israel than any other country.

Their detailed reports and speeches have drawn attention to member states with poor human rights records (e.g. Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba) being elected to human rights bodies.

While the UN often fails to act, UN Watch documents and disseminates information about human rights violations in countries like:

Iran (execution of protesters)

Russia (persecution of dissidents and war crimes in Ukraine)

China (Uyghur repression)

Venezuela (crackdowns on opposition)

It has helped give activists from those countries a platform at the UN, bringing otherwise silenced voices to an international audience.

Have you got a problem with that?

Of course you believe they act fairly and responsibly.

UN resolutions against Israel - 154
UN resolutions against Rest Of World - 71

Maybe the UN has been spending too much time on the rest of the world, actually. That's 71 more times they could have been concentrating on what Israel is doing wrong.

I'm pro-Palestinian but it is objectively true that there have been a lot of these compared to other situations. And I think there are a number of structural factors at play here that matter in this respect.

First off: there is no such thing as "the UN (as an organisation)" in terms of resolutions. There is the UNGA (which works on a one country one vote basis) and the UNSC (same basic idea but it permanently includes the P5 members with a veto each). Both of these can pass resolutions, though only UNSC ones are considered binding.

If you look at only UNSC resolutions, you'll find most of them actually tend to end up going Israel's way in the sense that they are either vetoed (usually by the USA) or watered down to a considerable extent Example: S/RES/2720(2023) re. a Gaza ceasefire from December 2023 was first delayed to negotiate acceptable language with the US, then passed but in a form that was criticised by various parties as essentially toothless. You can also see this phenomenon on Russia/Ukraine - just with a different P5 veto power.

The UNSC's weak record here is generally thought to also be one of the drivers behind countless UNGA resolutions on the subject (which tend to be far less Israel friendly). In a nutshell: the vast majority of countries just doesn't see eye to eye with the US and Israel here and there is a tendency to "compensate" for UNSC failures in the UNGA.

Furthermore, love or loathe the fact: a lot of the Global South views Palestine through a post-colonial lens. For many of these countries, Palestine isn't just Palestine but, in a secondary sense, also a stand-in for the remnants of colonialism in a sense that they regard as central to their own national identity and liberation struggle. And the further entrenched, longer lasting and brutal the occupation becomes the more this actually matters to them. Whether you think this is "fair" is largely irrelevant to the workings of the UNGA; the simple fact is that most of the world a) doesn't share Western views of the situation and b) has an overwhelming majority of the votes.

Finally, you can ask why not any other issue. For the most part? Because, as stated, Palestine is a question of identity but also because a lot of these conflicts are between Global South actors and hence don't tend to produce the same largely united front.

This isn't to argue about whether this is biased or not (I would personally say the UNGA leans heavily pro-Palestinian and the UNSC is strongly pro-Israel in effect), more to illustrate some of the core mechanisms.

No. The reason for this is because Israel enjoys immunity to UN resolutions that other countries do not. Other countries face sanctions Israel does not because of the impunity enjoyed by them. The number of resolutions are attempts to create workarounds to this impunity to try and at least get some traction.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. For acknowledging that it is objectively true that there have been a lot of these compared to other situations and also for helping to explain some of the structural factors at play.

They show a certain obsession with Israel (in my opinion) that does not seem neutral which is what they are supposed to be.

That's excellent.

I was only saying what the Israeli newspaper said I didn't need another essay.

What absolute bullshit.

Israel does not enjoy immunity to UN resolutions.

UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding for any country. They're political statements, not enforceable law.

UN Security Council resolutions can be binding but they require consensus among permanent members.

Immunity is a complete lie.

Could there also be a factor that US uses it veto for Israel for the UN resolutions but doesn't for the rest of the world so more resolutions have to be proposed in future?

If UN resolutions were passed and enacted upon there wouldnt be a need for more.

Also Israel protrays itself as part of the West, a liberal democracy but then when criticised, it's opponents will say why not apply the same scrutiny to Sudan or North Korea. It's like trying to have the price tag of a luxury brand but the quality of Temu.

The UN as an institution itself is supposed to be neutral but it’s essentially a big meeting place for all the countries in the world. So in practice and certainly for these resolutions it’s only going to be as neutral as the sum of it’s parts.

These resolutions are used as a form of diplomatic pressure on Israel.

It’s too simplistic to say it is anti Isreal - it consists of both countries that are fully supportive of Israel and countries that are against this western backed illegal occupation of land. So it is a very divided issue. And they all get one vote in the general assembly. So considering the overwhelming backing that the Palestinian cause has globally it results in many of these resolutions.

I think it is fine to criticise the UN. Every institution can do better. But having a place were the whole world comes together to make decisions is a good thing. Undermining it completely will result in a more dangerous, divided world.

I didn’t say the UN is anti Israel- of course some countries that make up the UN are, while others are allies.

But it does seem disproportionately interested in Israel (according to the data since 2015) considering there have been other countries at war, enduring humanitarian crises etc.

Im not completely against it as an organisation. But I think it’s impartially can be challenged & I don’t see much evidence if it purports to be neutral.

Excellent answer, it’s such a good point about Palestine being viewed through a post colonial lens.

It aims to be neutral but when it is made up of all the countries in the world how could it be completely neutral. I think that is an impossibility really.

It can provide impartial peacekeeping forces and provide humanitarian aid neutrally.

But how in the general assembly specifically with these resolutions, where everyone has a voice, would you make it neutral? The institution itself aren’t disproportionately interested in Israel, the countries involved are overwhelmingly pro a Palestinian state. What would be a solution to this?

I don’t really see that there is one. It’s a sound bite to say that it is anti Israel. It doesn’t mean anything and it doesn’t actually offer constructive criticism.

Again I didn’t accuse the UN of being anti Israel.

And I don’t have the answer as to how it could ever be truly neutral.

Perhaps the answer is to accept it isn’t but be very aware of its lack of neutrality.

Sorry - I’m not actually referring to you there at all. I understand that.

It just particularly annoys me when the UN is being completely smeared by some.

Personally, I'm not even certain whether the UN (or all of its organs) should be neutral or what that would even look like - not because I particularly think it ought to be partisan but because the UN is a behemoth of an institution with a wide array of responsibilities (and surprisingly few enforcement powers) that range from humanitarian to openly political.

If you look at something like the UNGA and UNSC, you could, in a sense, say that these function like a world parliament and cabinet (except: without a head of government and no security services of its own) respectively. Of course those will be openly political bodies.

The UNSC, in particular, is more or less institutionally biased in that its permanent members are very much frozen in time in terms of "who was on the winning side of a war that happened 80 years ago", whereas the UNGA has shifted towards the Global South (around 85% of the world's population) in the process of decolonisation and as states gained independence. The P5 veto, in particular, has some serious consequences. For example, China being a P5 will mean Taiwan will never be a full UN member unless China changes course. You will never see a UNSC resolution on Russia/Ukraine because Russia, too, is a P5. And, as discussed before: you will never see UN sanctions against Israel as long as nobody ever even tries to table it because the US would veto it anyway. You also still have both Britain and France with a P5 seat despite both, individually, being middling powers at best on the world stage at present).

Then you have your various bodies and agencies, ranging from UNESCO to stuff such as the ECOSOC (which also oversees the World Bank and IMF; very much accused of being anything but neutral in terms of forcing market reforms on states in exchange for development loans) and humanitarian agencies such as OCHA. And historical curiosities such as the existence of both UNRWA (founded first, the idea was for it to be temporary at the time; refugee oriented but specifically for Palestinians; now tasked with, among other things, permanently running schools in Lebanon) and UNHCR (founded later, set up as being permanent but does a lot of very overlapping things but anywhere else). Now, humanitarian efforts are obviously meant to be "neutral" in practice in the sense that in the sense of, no, neither Russia on Ukraine nor the US nor anyone else should get to decide that some refugees just don't get help because geopolitics.

Then, finally, you also have the judiciary. Specifically: the ICJ, a.k.a. "the world court". Tasked with adjudicating everything from fishing rights to the genocide convention. And, yes, that obviously needs to be neutral in the sense of "if Liechtenstein cannot successfully win its case against the USA, why have a court at all". But also: in practice, it has no teeth.

It's a far from perfect, organically grown and at times very messy system.

That was a long-winded way of saying "I'm not sure whether UN neutrality is even the right question to ask".

(Nerd mode over ... yes, I personally support UN reform!)

Sorry but this simply isn't true.

The General Assembly isn’t “divided", it’s dominated by the 56-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and dozens more who vote with them out of politics, oil, or fear. That bloc pushes automatic anti-Israel votes, no matter the facts.

A good example I remember was Papau New Guines. After abstaining on an anti-Israel resolution that denied Jewish connection to Jerusalem (?? Seriously ??), PNG faced backlash from Arab and Muslim-majority states, including threats to funding and diplomatic pressure. So PNG later shifted its votes to align with the anti-Israel majority in future resolutions.

Western democracies - who you say support Israel - often abstain or vote against these resolutions, yet they pass anyway because it’s a numbers game, not a moral one.

There are numerous clear examples showing that the Muslim bloc at the UN does not vote based on moral or human rights standards, but rather on political alliances and religious solidarity, often protecting brutal regimes while obsessively condemning Israel.

A UN vote to even debate China’s human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang failed. They voted to shield China, despite documented mass internment, forced sterilisation, mosque destruction, and forced renunciation of Islam.

The Assad regime murdered hundreds of thousands, and many defended them. When the UN voted to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women, several Muslim countries either abstained or opposed it. Despite the Taliban banning girls’ education, beating women in the streets, and executing opponents, the OIC did not call for sanctions or expulsion.

At the UN, very few votes or condemnations ever come forward for anything like this. Meanwhile Israel, a liberal democracy with full rights for Muslims, Druze, Christians, and Jews alike is condemned more than all of the above combined - often just for defending itself from rocket fire or existing at all.

They vote as a bloc, based on religious identity, political alliances, and strategic interest - not on consistent human rights principles. That’s the real reason the UN is broken. People need to really understand this.

Some of the resolutions against Israel are batshit crazy too.

They came up with one that completely erased Jewish and Christian ties to the holiest site in Judaism (the Temple Mount), despite over 3,000 years of documented history. Passed with 24 votes in favour - including Arab and Muslim countries plus some from Latin America and Africa.

At the Durban conference, billed as anti-racism summits, these turned into anti-Israel hate-fests, where Israel was singled out as the only state accused of racism. NGOs were handing out flyers with swastikas over the Star of David, and Jewish participants were physically threatened. Iran and Libya were keynote speakers!

In five separate resolutions, Israel was the only country condemned for violating women's rights!! No mention of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Somalia, where women face: bans on education, forced veiling, stoning, honour killings, and legal inequality... yet just Israel is voted as guilty by the same states doing the abusing.

Syria, while gassing its own civilians, introduced and sponsored resolutions against Israel at the UNHRC. The Council welcomed these resolutions, while refusing to suspend Syria from its own human rights mechanisms. You couldn't make it up.

It's basically just a weapon against Israel and I honestly think it'll end up imploding over it. A blind eye was turned for so long but I think this conflict really brought out in the open how bad it is.

Sorry for the double post (too late to edit) but possibly important addition:

Neutrality isn't even always a goal of everything the UN does - and in some cases, it's an outright contradiction. The UN’s Special Rapporteurs, for instance, are explicitly tasked with naming and shaming when rights are violated. Whether it's the right to food, housing, or freedom from torture, their job is to advocate for vulnerable populations, not to act as neutral arbiters between e.g. Nestlé and starving civilians. Neutrality in such contexts would be a moral and institutional failure as per how the system is designed.

The UN is one hell of a complicated shop.

Syria, while gassing its own civilians, introduced and sponsored resolutions against Israel at the UNHRC. The Council welcomed these resolutions, while refusing to suspend Syria from its own human rights mechanisms. You couldn't make it up.

Have you got any evidence for this one?

Procedurally, this sounds very wrong. The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is not a council but an agency and, crucially, not even responsible for Palestinian refugees, specifically (that would be UNRWA for complicated historical reasons that we can high-level reduce to "something was needed ad hoc before UNHCR was ever set up and then ... time passed and assumptions were proven wrong).

From a very technical standpoint "resolution at the UNHCR" just is not a thing. Have you got a resolution code?

Not being goady just: some wires got crossed here.

Edit: Sorry, my bad ... you said "UNHRC" I read "UNHCR" (my point stands ... complicated shop). Still, though: also no resolutions or ... sort of ... but more like "open mic". Syria (or any state) can pitch anything there.

March 2012, a year into the Syrian Civil War, Syria sponsored a resolution titled:

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan"

undocs.org/en/A/HRC/RES/19/17

At the end youll see the Syrian Arab Republic listed among the main sponsors.

Syria continued to co-sponsor similar resolutions in 2013, 2014, 2015, and beyond, often condemning Israel for its presence in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967 after Syrian shelling of Israeli civilians.

These resolutions were adopted by the UNHRC with majority support, as part of the infamous Agenda Item 7, which singles out Israel. No similar agenda item exists for any other country - not even for Syria, despite its documented war crimes.

As of 2013, while Assad was actively gassing civilians, Syria was elected to a UNHRC consultative body - the UNESCO Committee on Conventions and Recommendations, which examines human rights complaints.

This happened months after the Ghuta chemical attack (August 2013), in which hundreds of civilians were killed by sarin gas.

https://unwatch.org/un-elects-assad-regime-to-top-un-human-rights-post/

Crazy.

Thanks for the reference. And ... I can see why you would think it's "crazy". But really, it does work as designed in that sense:

Western publics often misread the UN because they project their own values onto it, expecting it to act like a moral court or democratic club, when it's actually more of a diplomatic battleground reflecting a plurality of political worldviews.

It would also be mistaken to assume that democratic structures within a state (like Israel) within UN structures would be seen as justifying actions that, to much of the world, are perceived through the lens of occupation, violence, and colonialism. This gap in worldview makes much of the UN’s behavior look “crazy” to Westerners, when in fact it is entirely consistent with ... just a diversity of worldviews.

Both Israel and Assad's Syria are actually good examples of how this works in practice, in that both can table issues and make demands and are/were (in Assad's case) also largely shielded from binding consequences by the US and Russia respectively.

Ultimately, the UN was set up to correct for the mistakes of the League of Nations (which failed miserably in preventing global war). It's original purpose was and technically (despite massive scope creep) remains that of providing a venue for dispute resolution between, first and foremost, great powers.

It has a multitude of failures, including failing to adapt to an evolving geopolitical structure. But also: "failing" to push a certain worldview is actually one of the things it does reasonably successfully. In theory, Israel absolutely can table and motion against Sweden at the UNHRC - and that is very much by design.

(Again, saying this as someone who supports UN reform.)

I’ve learnt such a lot about the UN on this thread.

In all sincerity, thanks everyone for such informative posts.

Agree some very interesting and informative posts.

I'm flummoxed that you're making this argument. You're trying to obscure

"It would also be mistaken to assume that democratic structures within a state (like Israel) within UN structures would be seen as justifying actions that, to much of the world, are perceived through the lens of occupation, violence, and colonialism".

Translation: “Even if a country is a democracy, it doesn’t matter if a majority of the world calls it colonialist and decides the people whove been there 3000 years have no connection to it.”

That’s not a worldview; it’s a propaganda win. This argument rests on perception, not evidence. Jews presence is Israel long before Muslims is historical fact. Israel’s presence the West Bank is the result of a war started by Arab states who refused any Jewish state whatsoever - including the UN partition plan. Labeling it "colonialism" erases history, legal nuance, and the fact that Jews are indigenous to the land. A democracy acting in self-defence doesn’t lose its legitimacy just because dictatorships with appalling human rights records decide to call it names.

Someone who's literally killing hundred of thousands of people including using chemical weapons on their civilians is perceived through what lens exactly? The "lens" available that makes any horrific actions just fine as long as youre a Muslim?

"This gap in worldview makes much of the UN’s behavior look 'crazy' to Westerners, when in fact it is entirely consistent with ... just a diversity of worldviews."

Translation: “What looks like obsession or hypocrisy is really just cultural differences.”

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, not a cultural nuance. When Israel is condemned more than Syria, North Korea, or Iran combined, and serial abusers of human rights sit on the Human Rights Council and vote en masse against Israel, this isn’t "diversity of worldviews." It’s bloc-voting by nations with zero moral authority. Dressing it up as "perspective" is a weak attempt to legitimise mob rule.

"Both Israel and Assad's Syria are actually good examples of how this works in practice..."

Equating Israel with Assad's Syria, which has bombed, gassed, and massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians deliberately, unprovoked and for no legal cause, is obscene. Israel - with its Arab Supreme Court justices, LGBTQ+ rights, and free press - is not remotely comparable to a dictatorship that drops barrel bombs on children. This is moral relativism at its most bankrupt.

"Ultimately, the UN was set up... to resolve disputes between great powers."

That’s a dodge. Yes, the Security Council is largely about great power diplomacy. But we’re not talking about the UNSC - we’re talking about the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, where a voting bloc of 56 Muslim-majority states, many of them autocracies with deeply antisemitic idelogies repeatedly push anti-Israel resolutions regardless of merit, fact, or legal context.

"Failing to push a certain worldview is actually one of the things it does reasonably successfully."

The UN does push a worldview - repeatedly and obsessively - against Israel. There’s no comparable flood of resolutions against China for Uyghur camps, or against Iran for the execution of minors. And Israel gets singled out with permanent agenda items - nobody else does.

"Israel can table and motion against Sweden at the UNHRC — and that is very much by design."

Yes, Israel could technically table something - but in practice it wouldn’t pass. Why? Because people will vote it down. Saying “well, they could try” is like saying a lone protestor in a dictatorship technically has freedom of speech. It’s nonsense on paper - and irrelevant in reality. The point here is that a huge bloc of Jew hating states, many of whom seek the annihilation of Israel entirely, gang up on this tiny Jewish country and use the UN as a weapon against it.