Comment by pvg
1 year ago
but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility.
That's a little glib though, since it's fundamentally not how the UN works.
1 year ago
but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility.
That's a little glib though, since it's fundamentally not how the UN works.
It felt glib. Can you think of a better way to write it?
Probably not, plus as a former UN brat (DISCLOSURE!), this stuff tends to get my goat a little.
Since the org is huge, multipurpose and multifaceted (and often less than the sum of its parts), I'd say it's best to stay as specific as possible both when using some UN thing to buttress an argument or to critique the thing - so, what is the thing, by what org, person, representative, etc.
In this case, the specific thing is
an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened
Which doesn't seem to be linked? From there the whole thing swerves into a discussion of 'The UN' which turns to vague generalities that are mostly (I think often unintentionally) recycled talking points. 'Israel seeks to discredit the UN' is a recycled talking point itself, of course. But I think 'HRC has bad members' is too - the UN is full of bad members. The Security Council has an aggressor state on it with veto power and everything! UN has a lot of orgs and items dedicated to the conflict? Sure, but Israel and the UN were almost born together and the conflict is one of the closest things the UN has to a foundational, OG issue - state formation, genocide, wars of aggression, right to defense, refugees, it's all there. Special Rapporteurs are kind of unserious (and why is there no Special Raconteur)? A real thing but doesn't seem clearly related to whatever interview the poster read.
Anyway, sorry for the grumptone, I just think substantive UN critique is such a fecund orchard of low hanging fruit there's not much point in settling for the frozen trope concentrate stuff.
These are all points well taken, and my general approach of dipping into fever threads only when there's something concrete I think can be added to the thread does in this case seem to be contributing to veering. It's just memorable to me because I got my ass handed to me in a conversation with a friend about how credible the anti-Israel bias argument was. But I don't pretend this is dispositive of anything; my only claim is that there's a colorable argument here, it's not just some random made-up thing.
Thanks for checking me on this!
Hey Paul, I just want to clarify that you are an idol of mine and I hugely respect your thinking. I've read your essays for decades. I think there may be an imbalance between your knowledge and confidence when it comes to these matters, but I still highly respect you and I know you're more philosemite than antisemite. Thanks for inspiring me for decades.
3 replies →
Hey, I'm sorry I didn't link the specific interview! I believe it was PBS, and I'm highly confident the individual from the UN in the interview was Martin Griffiths.