The UN wants more war.
Using outrageous demands, such as that Israel disband its army or bankrupt itself on behalf of Gaza — to undermine a ceasefire — makes UN officials advocates for endless bloodshed.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Shlomo Levin, a retired rabbi with a Master’s degree in human rights law.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Political leaders around the globe, including the United Nations’ Secretary-General, have endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan. More than 20 world leaders gathered for the official signing ceremony in Egypt. Anti-Israel activists in Europe and the U.S. seem to be the only ones opposed.
Sadly, one UN-affiliated group, at the pinnacle of the international law and human rights movement, has decided to join them. These are 30-odd Special Rapporteurs “experts” appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate specific areas of human rights. They released a statement saying that the agreement fails to safeguard the human rights of Palestinians and creates the conditions for further oppression. Then they detail 15 ways in which they claim the plan actually violates international law.
Of course Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories who once endorsed a cartoon comparing Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler, took the lead. But a diverse group of others signed on, ranging from the independent expert on rights in Somalia to the Special Rapporteurs on persons with disability and climate change. Whatever their academic fields, when it comes to being anti-Israel, UN Rapporteurs all seem able to muster the expertise.
The main objection they raise is that the agreement does not create a Palestinian state right away, which in their view according to international law must happen immediately no matter what. Having foreigners as part of a temporary Gaza government “is regrettably reminiscent of colonial practices and must be rejected.” They claim the international stabilization force “would replace Israeli occupation with a US-led occupation.” And what about the high likelihood that if Hamas was left in charge of Gaza it would repeat the October 7th massacre? What about Hamas continuing its oppression of the Palestinian people, as it already has with a series of executions? This, they simply ignore.
But they also add purported international law violations that enter the realm of the ridiculous. They object to Gaza being demilitarized, claiming that could leave it vulnerable to future Israeli aggression. This makes sense only to those who believe the story that the October 7th attack and Hamas taking over 200 hostages was not the cause of this war, but merely just a pretext Israel seized upon to carry out an already premeditated attack. The rapporteurs see no reason to worry about how if Gaza was to rearm with rockets and tunnels Hamas might launch a repeat of October 7th.
But then the rapporteurs come up with the real doozy: According to them, since Israel “has committed international crimes against the Palestinians and threatened peace and security in the region through aggression against other countries,” while Gaza must have the right to arm itself, Israel should be demilitarized. Even setting aside whether these accusations against Israel have any merit, it’s stunning how the rapporteurs express no concern whatsoever for how a demilitarized Israel would be liable to destruction at the hands of Iran or Hezbollah, and of course also be vulnerable to future Hamas massacres. Evidently, according to their interpretation of international law and human rights, Israel is not even entitled to defend itself from its sworn enemies.
They are also upset that Trump’s plan does not order Israel to pay Gaza reparations for the recent war. They ignore that paragraph 10 calls for Gaza investment and redevelopment. One suspects they are disappointed because their true aim in reparations is not to find resources to rebuild Gaza, but rather to pose ruinous and impossible demands against Israel. And what about reparations for the October 7th attacks and thousands of illegal missile strikes targeting civilians going back over a decade? Regarding this, not surprisingly, they say nothing.
Then they criticize the plan because “there is no commitment to transitional justice, historical truth-telling or genuine reconciliation.” Evidently, one of their key requirements for a peace agreement is that it force Israel to confirm their propaganda about genocide and starvation. They will inevitably find anyone who looks at the pictures of thousands of healthy-looking Gaza residents celebrating the end of the war and concludes starvation must have been a myth in violation of “historical truth-telling.”
They will cast any Israelis who point out that true victims of genocide wouldn’t drag out negotiations to end the war or declare victory at its conclusion as “unwilling to engage in genuine reconciliation.” This narrative of Israeli war crimes is so precious to the rapporteurs that they prefer the war continue, rather than end it and have to confront the reality that much of their propaganda was false.
They also complain that deradicalisation is imposed on Gaza only, while anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab sentiments, radicalisation, and public incitement to genocide have been hallmarks of dominant rhetoric in Israel over the past two years.
It is true that some Israeli leaders have made regrettable statements, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the October 7th attack. This is still being trotted out in international legal forums in attempts to prove Israel’s genocidal intent throughout the entire war.
But to say that incitement to genocide has been the dominant rhetoric in Israeli society is false and libelous. As to be expected, the rapporteurs provide no evidence or justification for this claim. They completely ignore the endless times Israeli political and military leaders have made clear that the war is solely against Hamas, not the Palestinian people.
However, deradicalization of the Gaza population is desperately needed. According to a report released by UN Watch in September 2025, the UN agency for Palestinians allowed its Gaza schools to be operated by Hamas, which used them to recruit child soldiers, glorify suicide bombers, and preach the annihilation of Israel. A report by U.S. Congress’ House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2024 found that the schools of the UN agency for Palestinians use textbooks that teach Palestinians to grow up to massacre Jews like they did on October 7th.
If there is ever to be peace these poisonous seeds must be uprooted. But instead, the rapporteurs want to bring back the UN agency for Palestinians. Their final objection to Trump’s plan is that it does not provide a leading role for the United Nations, specifically for the UN agency for Palestinians, which they say is “vital to assisting and protecting Palestinians.”
The rapporteurs solemnly note that, “Imposing an immediate peace at any price, regardless of or brazenly against law and justice, is a recipe for further injustice, future violence and instability.” This statement aims to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Claiming that the current ceasefire is illegal and unjust is the best way to lay the groundwork for future violence and make it more likely.
And sure enough, the rapporteurs’ statement is being quoted extensively in the anti-Israel press to claim that in spite of the ceasefire Palestinians are still aggrieved victims entitled to resist. For example, Israel-Palestine News used the rapporteur’s statement as a basis for an article blasting the peace plan. Middle East Eye did the same, along with the Oman Observer and the Pakistani website Jamaat-E-Islami Foreign Affairs.
Opposing the peace agreement because it does not endorse the anti-Israel narrative promoted by Palestine supporters and human rights campaigners in the West is actually a cruel abuse of Gaza residents. They are prolonging the hardships of Gazans in what is only a vain attempt to legitimize the slogans on their own signs and the chants they use at their rallies.
But they are certainly right that Trump’s plan does not solve all the underlying issues in the conflict. It’s understandable that Palestinians or their advocates may be concerned about some of the ceasefire terms and wonder whether all the promises the plan contains for Palestinians will be fulfilled. Many Israelis have concerns and misgivings as well, wondering whether Hamas will truly disarm and whether the plan’s promise of security will actually materialize.
The agreement received nearly unanimous international acceptance because it represents the reality of what is militarily, politically, and economically attainable at this time. It ended the fighting, facilitated a release of hostages and detainees, and provides an outline for the future. Using outrageous demands such as that Israel disband its army or bankrupt itself on behalf of Gaza to undermine a ceasefire makes one an advocate for endless bloodshed.
In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 6b), Rabbi Yehudah ben Korcha says, “Where there is justice, there is no peace. And where there is peace, there is no justice. What justice contains peace within it? Compromise.” Anyone who clings to maximal, impossible demands and refuses to make reasonable compromises becomes an enemy of peace. That’s true not only when the demands are based on selfishness or ego, but even if the claim, however implausible, is that the demands are based on justice.
Human rights spokespeople need to be sending Palestinians and their supporters the message: Now that the long-sought-after ceasefire has actually arrived, it is time to tone down the rhetoric and turn towards building a better future. They have to show that the goal is improving the lives of Gaza residents, not continuing to use the issue of “Palestine” as a weapon against Israel.
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you for this excellent article. The UN remains committed to the global hate movement of antizionism and almost all its actions reliably conform to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and with it, half the world's Jews.
Thank you, Shlomo, that was a carefully researched, factually accurate and truthful account in every respect.
It’s also depressing, because the endgame obviously sought by the terrorists and their supporters is renewed conflict, more violence and death which (in their minds) can be relabelled as Israel breaking a cease fire.
It is unacceptable for the world to stand by and - for example - not accept and publicise reality. When considering such reality, the UN & the Rapporteurs are clearly living on a different planet!
‘It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it flies like a duck, it waddles like a duck - but actually it’s a cat!’