Informed sources think that the policies, resolutions, and decisions of the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and various subsidiary organizations of the world have painfully become politically infected. The complainants are becoming more and more vocal, though some prefer to use subdued criticism.
Many leaders, including those considerate in their views, want an end to bloodshed and destruction in the Gaza Strip as well as the areas to which the fighting has spread. Their motivation is stopping wanton killings and the suffering that bombardment, shelling, and rocketing have brought in the trail of war that erupted on October 7.
The United Nations has not remained immune to the tragedy unfolding in the Middle East. Only a couple of days ago, UN Humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths, in his address to the UN General Assembly, called for a “humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza to allow aid to reach the 2.2 million people trapped in the bloody conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Amusingly, he pleaded, “We are not asking for the moon. We are asking for the basic measures required to meet the essential needs of the civilian population and stem the course of this crisis.”
No responsible authority will challenge or doubt such noble sentiments, mainly when we know that innocent and hapless civilians, including the elderly, women, children, and infants, become the targets of inhuman brutality.
Fairness A Casualty
But the UN high-ranking officer is expected to be equivalent. Demanding a “humanitarian ceasefire” must be embedded in reason, not rhetoric.
What was the reaction of Martin Griffiths to the unprovoked and premeditated massive attack by land, air, and sea on innocent 1,400 civilian Israelis, and taking nearly 220 men and women as hostages in a brutal and barbaric manner on the day of a religious feast at which they had come together to celebrate the day?
At such a barbaric act, which was pre-planned and in whose planning many fanatical and anti-Israel states and state-sponsored actors were involved, a responsible, fair, and duty-conscientious Secretary-General should have asked the Security Council members to airlift rescue forces within two hours to flush out the terrorists, dismissed the Hamas administration/authority, and directly taken control of the volatile situation. This was not a situation where sermons would be doled out and lip service rendered.
Griffiths says he was not asking for the proverbial moon. Evaluating the appeal in its contextual milieu, we find that it hurts the Israeli psyche badly. He wants Israel to shun revenge and reconcile with Hamas, grabbing a UN-sent opportunity to make good its losses of men and material. Humanism is his gift to those to whom, in the words of a late Iranian Patriarch, “the sword is a gift Allah has bestowed upon the Muslims.” He is pleading for the aggressor and brushing aside the aggrieved.
The UN did not take the reaction and forewarning of the Israeli Prime Minister seriously. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s first and most significant reaction was almost writing on the wall. He said Hamas had begun the war, and only Israel would bring it to an end. Was he joking and cajoling that the so-called watchdog of global humanity wouldn’t pay tuppence for it?
The simple logic is that Netanyahu’s nation has been subjected to savagery; women, youth, and children have been subjected to disgrace and degradation, and every act of vandalism unleashed against his nation was meant to humiliate Israel in the eyes of its adversaries.
UN Could Have Been Equitable
Should not have the UN Secretary-General and the Chairman of the UN Human Rights Council issued joint strictures warning the miscreants to stop planning the deadly game in Gaza, lay down their arms, and announce surrender because the entire humanity had expressed its shock and distress at the event?
Should not the UN General Secretary reprimand Iran and other adversarial countries who set up gala celebrations that night of death and destruction unfolded on innocent Israelis by their proxies?
The appeals are not for ceasefire in a real sense nor for compensating the victims of the conspirators. It is neither the replication of the Armageddon nor for dismantling the tunnels that are hiding lethal weapons and explosives, nor for filing a case for those who have raised proxies and are making them spend their precious lives for what; of course, it is for achieving their political goals.
They know that the Muslim youth, wherever she is, is a highly combustible gunpowder to destroy and get destroyed. The UN’s appeal should have gone to the youth of Gaza to sit back and reason about what and for whom they gave up their lives as somebody’s suicide bombers.
Perhaps they like to re-enact the glorification story of the 13th-century hashishis (Assassins) of Alamut but forget the fate they met at the hands of the Almighty’s scourge.
No less partial and politically tinted is the statement of Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez, whose spokesman said, “The Secretary-General is deeply disturbed by the horrible situation and dramatic loss of life in several hospitals in Gaza.
In the name of humanity, the Secretary-General calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.” It is strange that in Resolution 2712 (2023), the Security Council called for “urgent and extended” humanitarian pauses in Gaza….” In his record book, perhaps Israelis do not fall in the category of the victimized groups.
Compare the wording of this resolution with the one that the General Assembly passed in “condemnation of Russian attack on Ukraine.” Where did the term “condemn” evaporate in thin air while adopting Resolution 2712 (2023) on the Middle East war?
In a late-breaking meeting, the Security Council adopted resolution 2712 (2023) by a vote of 12 in favor to none against, with three abstentions (Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States), by which it called for urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors through the Gaza Strip to facilitate the provision of essential goods and medicines.
The salient truth of the entire Middle East saga, as well as the politicization of the UN, lay exposed when the representative of the United States thundered, “I am horrified that a few Council members still cannot bring themselves to condemn the brutal terrorist attack that Hamas carried out against Israel on October 7. What are they afraid of?” she asked. “Let’s be crystal clear: Hamas set this conflict in motion.”
The United States could not vote ‘yes’ on a text that did not condemn Hamas or reaffirm the rights of all Member States to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks and will continue to urge the Council to condemn Hamas’ actions, the spokesman added.
- KN Pandita (Padma Shri) is the former director of the Center of Central Asian Studies at Kashmir University. Views Personal.
- Mail EurAsian Times at etdesk(at)eurasiantimes.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
