When he served as ambassador to the UN, the late Chaim Herzog charged that the organization's attitude to Israel "belonged in Alice's Wonderland. If Alice wandered into UN headquarters, she would only have to wear a Star of David in order to hear the imperious 'off with her head' at every turn." What took place in the General Assembly Monday, only adds yet another illustration to Herzog's argument, unfortunately every bit as cogent today, as when he first made it some three decades ago. Nothing is seemingly more immutable than the UN's incredible anti-Israel double standards.
The General Assembly demonstrated its bias when it voted by a whopping 90-8 majority to refer the security fence to the International Court of Justice. Israel, desperately resorting to the most non-violent defensive measure against relentless terror, is thereby put on trial, while mass-murderers cast themselves in the role of the outraged plaintiffs.
But if any silver lining can be detected in this latest episode of the General Assembly's annals, it is that, unequivocal as the anti-Israel majority was, it was less massive than to which we have become accustomed.
No less that 74 nations chose to abstain, and many others were no-shows for the session. In all, less than half of the 191 assembly members voted against Israel. This didn't result in an Israeli victory, but as Ambassador Dan Gillerman noted, it was at least "a moral victory." In practical terms Israel can't view the vote as heralding an imminent change in its fortunes at the UN. Yet even the Arab world's automatic majority runs up against some limits when it distorts the fabric of the international system in its drive to vilify Israel.
Qualitative analysis of who voted for the Arab resolution and who did not is further enlightening. Israel was supported by the US, Australia, Ethiopia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. The long list of abstainers include the entire EU contingent, along with all other European countries and all other members of the Free World. No democracy supported the Arab initiative.
The resulting picture is instructive. The dividing line seems to be that which separates democracies from dictatorships. Those who voted for turning the fence issue to the ICJ for deliberation were on the whole autocracies, which succumbed to the tyranny of tyrannies.
The ultimate salvation of the Free World and its ability to foil the threat of terror inevitably depend on its courage. Opting for the sidelines, instead of openly siding with a fellow democracy, is more of a cop-out than a show of resolve and determination to stand up to dictatorial apologists for terror. The abstainers effectively admitted that it was wrong to so politicize the UN and the ICJ, but they dared not forthrightly oppose it.
However, given Israel's past unhappy experience at the UN, we must not scoff at the moral victory, small and unsatisfactory though it is in real terms.
It can be regarded as a poor man's consolation, especially when we consider the surreal viciousness of the debate which preceded the vote and which in essence constituted a compilation of anti-Israel invective. The Syrian ambassador went so far as to accuse Israel of "massacring Palestinians for sport." This followed Gillerman's introduction of photos of nine-year-old Tomer Almog, murdered in October at the Maxim restaurant outrage in Haifa, and of his brother Oran, left functionally blind.
Gillerman reminded the assembled representatives of member nations that they had recently overwhelmingly adopted a resolution for the "protection of Palestinian children," but that Israel was unable to secure a vote on protecting "Israeli children. We were told that Israeli children, deliberately targeted by terrorists, would not receive the Assembly's protection. Now we are told we cannot protect them ourselves."
In this sense, the UN's decision to declare the fence illegal was on par with it's notorious and ultimately repealed "Zionism equals racism" resolution. For if Israel, despite the the Geneva Convention's explicit permission granted to build fortifications, is not allowed to even passively defend its children, than it is being denied the right of self-defense. A nation that may not defend itself has no right to exist. Israel will never acquiesce to such a verdict, which has sullied the body in which it passed and those who did not oppose it more than it does this nation.
