Home

In speaking with a former U.N. ambassador and diplomat for 40 years, the subject of Israel came up. Being that he is no longer representing his country officially, he was freely able to express his opinion without the consent of higher authorities back home telling him that his opinion must represent that of the nation.

He felt strongly that the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council should be abolished, citing that its utility as a protection against wayward democracy had diminished from when it was initially set up and that it was unfair that only a small portion of U.N. member states have so much power. He recommended that the veto be replaced by majority opinion by all the U.N. member states.

And while his reasons for wanting to abolish the veto were valid, I respectfully disagreed with him. I replied, "What about Israel?" Right now, the U.S. is the only nation that has always had Israel's back. This has been the case since Israel was granted official state status in the U.N. Without the veto, every proposed resolution against Israel would pass unanimously. The Arab states are many and part of the reason nations ally with them is fear OPEC might again abuse their monopoly power on petroleum to the detriment of countries dependent on them.

The interdependence by which those nations that comprise OPEC rely on the money they receive from countries they export to isn't what it seems. OPEC could, if it wanted to, raise the price of petroleum and there is really nothing the countries could do about it. Most, if not all, of the OPEC nations would like nothing more than to see Israel disappear.

He dodged my response, and countered that the support Israel receives from the U.S. actually hurts the U.S. and Israel because it "sends a message of intransigence," that Israel can do whatever it wants and get away with it. He gave the example of the controversial settlements being built up in Israel and how it "embarrasses the U.S." He pointed out that most nations, including the U.S. under the Obama administration, oppose the settlements. But what is Obama to do? He can't withdraw U.S. support for Israel at the U.N. And what is Israel to do? Should its politics reflect the interests of the U.S. for fear of losing its strongest ally?

We came to a stalemate here. But he did propose an alternative for Israel to shore up political goodwill. It was for Israel to bolster its humanitarian efforts, like the hospital the nation built in Haiti within hours of the disaster. Israel could use its superior technological resources to assist in building a 21st century water-pumping system in rural, remote communities where water is scarce, he recommended.

In those same places, medical care is lacking and Israel could export free of charge its doctors and medicine. He admitted that Israel already does help, but he said the nation could do more. Here he noted that money is just a means, and it should not be used as an excuse for why a nation can't help. A little effort goes a long way. In times of disaster like Haiti, there is a lot of publicity. But there are disasters taking place all over the world. As a nation representing a people, the Jews, Israel has an incredible opportunity to spread mitzvah, he said.

I don't disagree with him, but I am afraid to admit that nonetheless Israel will continue to get pounded in the U.N. I wish to be proven wrong by history. For now, the veto plays an important role.

Daniel Vahab covers the United Nations for The Jewish State.