UN Speeches as Posturing During a Genocide

The UN report, “Gaza Genocide” (A/80/492) states that “the prolonged unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory” by the state of Israel “has now escalated into a full-fledged genocide” with “the direct participation, aid and assistance” of other countries. Hence, the “collective crime” is “internationally enabled.”[1] Just before I wrote this, two Iranian dissidents sitting next to me in a coffee shop declared to me that the destruction by Israel in Gaza is not a genocide. I looked up the UN report, and replied, “It’s not just a matter of opinion anymore.” The two Iranians, doubtlessly in the US because they opposed their own regime in Iran, quickly left the coffee shop. Rather than being open to something more than their opinion, they left. Doubtless they had not expected the scholar sitting next to them to cite a well-documented source. To be sure, even political officials of governments critical of Israel’s genocide in Gaza (and the wanton violence of “settlers” in the West Bank were too inclined to posture for attention than even to be consistent in symbolic political actions (while refusing to occupy Gaza militarily, standing up to the holocaustic Israeli regime).

The UN report states that third countries (i.e., excluding Israel and Palestine) “may, and in some case (sic) must, use force against [a country] in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.”[2] That the UN’s General Assembly allowed Israel’s prime minister (Netanyahu) to speak in September, 2026 in spite of Israel’s significant, even blatant violations of the Charter is discrediting enough to the international organization; that the governor of the EU state of France spoke explicitly against the genocide and yet his UN delegation did not join some 70 others in walking out just before Netanyahu’s speech. That EU states had used their respective vetoes to proscribe federal action against Israel meant that the state governments were left to act, or not act, symbolically and/or in terms of trade and even military action against Israel in Gaza.

In his speech, the E.U. state of France’s governor, President Macron, said, “Recognition [of the Palestinian state] is just a piece of paper, look at the reality” in Gaza. “Are we simply to stand by and watch this spectacle that should shame us all?”[3] He should have been pointing his finger at himself, for he allowed his state’s delegation to literally sit by and watch Netanyahu’s speech. Had he really believed that Israel had been committing a genocide in Gaza, he should have opposed Netanyahu’s presence, and speech, at the UN, for committing a genocide clearly violates the UN Charter. Macron himself asked rhetorically in his speech, “But what credibility do we have if we continue to remain inactive in the face of Gaza?”[4] Duplicity even in symbolic political actions may be worse than doing nothing.

The stakes of just posturing were high not only because of Israel’s multi-year genocide, committed with impunity due to the US playing the vital roll of an enabling not-so-silent partner, but also because Russia was still invading Ukraine, a sovereign country. Accordingly, “Macron warned against a global ‘return to the law of the jungle,’ saying countries faced a choice between a world governed by power and coercion and a ‘civilized international society.’”[5] In other words, the alleged international law proffered by the UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) after two world wars was being openly defied—and the US military actions in Venezuela to kidnap its president and in Iran to unleash bombs unilaterally (without Iran having attacked the US) can be added to the list of defying international law, if indeed law had really existed internationally after World War II (without any real enforcement mechanism) even amid the advent of international organizations.

To be credible—to be believed to be real—international law would have been enforced by third-country militaries entering Ukraine as soon as Russian troops crossed the border and entering Gaza to protect the civilians there as soon as Israel started bombing the enclave. Relative to such action, speeches at the UN against Israel’s genocide without the respective delegations even walking out before Netanyahu’s speech can be relegated as mere posturing and even as hypocritical. 

Macron was hardly alone in his duplicity. Even though the governor of the E.U. state of Italy had announced about six months earlier, “In light of the current situation, the government has decided to suspend the automatic renewal of the defence agreement with Israel,” Italy’s UN delegation did not walk out on Netanyahu either.[6] Meloni could easily have instructed her delegation to make such a symbolic move, especially as Netanyahu used his speech to threaten other countries by reminding them of Israel’s past use of phone pagers to blow up people. Such a reminder adds insult to injury, and even rubs the international body itself in the dirt for being so impotent in the face of a genocide in which Israel decimated entire cities in Gaza with utter impunity. Even though Israel arguably had lost its very legitimacy as a country in the world, the UN not only had failed to kick Israel out and urge militaries of countries (not “member states”) to occupy Gaza, but instead played host to symbolic inconsistency. The sheer severity of Israel’s crimes against humanity in Gaza (and the West Bank, in enabling “settler” violence and theft) dwarfs posturing half-measures even just in symbolic in nature. 

It could be asked at the time whether our feckless, weak species of windpipes deserves international law. Even just the convenient ideologically-based denial in 2026 that the decimation of Gaza constitutes a genocide even though the UN and ICC had determined as much supports the contention that  homo sapiens as a political animal is inherently compromised, and thus that the “family” of nations is in desperate need of international law, which requires automatic rather than only politically expedient enforcement.

---

1.“Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime” (A/80/492), The United Nations, 20 October 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. John Irish, “In UN Farewell, Macron Denounces Trump’s Gaza Diplomacy as Spectacle of Shame,” Reuters, September 22, 2026.
4.Ibid.
5.Ibid.
6. Angelo Amante and Alvise Armelini, “Italy’s Meloni Suspends Defence Cooperation Deal with Israel,” Reuters, April 14, 2026.

The UN in the US: Trump Bans Abbas

Should the UN’s General Assembly and Security Council be located in New York City? Both New York and the Union in which New York is a member-state have assumed the obligation of being proper hosts to people from around the world who come to the UN for its business. Even though that international organization has displayed an impotence in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli military incursion that has decimated Gaza and its residents, having an international forum in which talking can take place is not for naught. As an open speaking club of sorts, the United Nations permits adversaries and allies alike to make their views known to each other and the rest of the world. Even though the very existence of the vetoes in the Security Council styme action, that members of the UN so easily get away with violating resolutions renders the entire resolution-process de facto nugatory in real significance. So essentially, the UN building in New York City enables diplomats and heads of governments alike to speak out and with each other. It is vital, therefore, that the US take an expansive approach to issuing visa-waivers so institutional members of the UN can be as well represented as they desire to be. In this regard, the host—the United States Government—should refrain from applying its partisanship in international disputes by restricting the waivers to cover the bare essentials of personnel coming to the UN in New York from abroad.

After having suspended a program that had allowed injured Gaza children to come to the U.S. for medical treatment, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “revoked the visas of a number of Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization officials ahead of the [September, 2025] meeting of the UN General Assembly” even though the two groups had previously been represented.[1] An official at the U.S. State Department said that Palestinian President Abbas and roughly 80 other Palestinians would be denied entry into the US to attend the UN General Assembly’s upcoming session. “Abbas’ office . . . was astonished by the visa decision” and insisted that the decision “violated the U.N. ‘headquarters agreement’.”[2] Palestine had enjoyed non-member observer-state status since 2012, so restricting the non-visa waiver for Abbas especially was indeed a violation of the “UN headquarters agreement.”

That Israel declared Gaza City to be a “combat zone” on the very same day attests to the salience that the Israeli militaristic incursion into Gaza would likely have in the upcoming session, and thus to the need for the Palestinian position—that of the victims (for a genocide is not a war)—to be well-represented both for the sake of fairness itself and so any possible deals can be struck amid full discussions and negotiations “behind the scenes.” The Trump administration held a lopsided position in considering the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, in which over a thousand people died and hundreds of Israelis were taken hostage, to be too horrendous, but the Israeli attacks and perpetrated genocide and even holocaust in Gaza in which tens of thousands had already died and over a million more intentionally subjected to starvation as somehow warranted and thus deserved. In the regard, the monetary footprints of the American Israeli (and Israeli government) lobbyist political action committee in Washington can be inferred as it is probably that Netanyahu was behind the new restrictions on the Palestinian delegation.

It would be only natural for most countries of the General Assembly to object to such blatant unfairness; after all, Netanyahu rather than Abbas was wanted by the International Criminal Court. Additionally, 147 of the 193 countries (not “member states,” as the UN is an international organization, whereas the E.U. and U.S. are not) in the General Assembly already recognized Palestine as a country; a few E.U. states were even set to recognize Palestine as a country in the upcoming session, where Abbas was to take part in a high-level meeting, but Netanyahu did not approve, and even in spite of the genocide or even holocaust that his government was unleashing on Gaza’s 2 million residents, the Trump Administration remained sycophantic via the AIPAC Israeli lobby in Washington.

If indeed the real source of the visa-waiver infringement was the war criminal who at the time was still wanted by the ICC and whose militaristic actions had already violated the UN Charter many times over, the utter abject unfairness in Netanyahu being able to attend (and even speak at!) the General Assembly even as Abbas would be barred due to the “host” country, more than sufficient cause would exist for the General Assembly to hold a debate and vote during the upcoming session on whether another host-country should be found to replace New York.

Switzerland, having earned a reputation of neutrality, could better be counted on than New York, whose membership in the US now compromised that state’s ability to serve as a host. Unlike New York, Switzerland was staying out of the EU so to protect and ensure neutrality in international affairs. Such built-up or accumulated reputation can be understood as a long-term intangible asset that takes considerable effort to build but can be ruined by a single expedient decision that is in line with the immediacy of power and money. Were the General Assembly to let the US Government get away with doing Israel’s bidding even as Israel was declaring Gaza City to be a combat-zone (wherein only one side is allowed to fight), the credibility of the UN itself would be on the line. Unable even to enforce its own resolutions, the UN would be even more compromised, if that was possible. Even just in its capacity as a forum for talking, the UN would fall short if only aggressors and their enablers are able to speak. Such a decrepit institutional condition of the waning post-1945 world order could be dangerous, as power abhors a vacuum, especially in a Hobbesian state of nature wherein might makes right and maintains control of the doors. It should not be forgotten that no international police department existed as of 2025, hence the US Government could get away with putting international partisanship above neutral hospitality even when such partisanship was enabling a genocide and holocaust.

---

1. Gavin Blackburn, “US Revokes Visas of Palestinian Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly, State Department Says,” Euronews.com, August 29, 2025.
2. Kanishka Singh and Ali Sawafta, “US Bars Palestinian Leader Abbas from UN as Allies Back Statehood,” Reuters.com, August 30, 2025.