Latest Breaking News

Beastly Boy

(11,147 posts)

51. The validity or legality of the instrument of immunity afforded to the UN is not in dispute here.

Mon Sep 23, 2024, 08:28 AM

Sep 23

It is no different than diplomatic immunity. A number of terrorist-sponsoring states have been using it to shield known war criminals from justice.

This is what is so disturbing - the UN joining their ranks. While there are many legitimate reasons for immunity protection, this one is not.

It is the ethics of extending immunity to known war criminals, not its legality, that speaks so poorly of the UN. They had full discretion, being fully aware of the UNRWA (former) employees' heinous crimes, to withdraw immunity protection from the subjects of the lawsuit in question, and they did not.

UNRWA is being sued for the damages their employees caused, not for employing them. Leaving awareness of their employees' affiliation with Hamas aside (that would have been up to the jury to decide), UNRWA is accountable for their actions to the extent of the law. The problem is, this extent will not be determined, thanks to the UN shielding the suspects.

Regardless of possible legal outcomes, which we may never see, this is horrible optics, and it only underscores the UN's already well pronounced bias against Israeli victims of terrorism.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

UN seeks immunity for UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre - Channel 12 report [View all] Beastly Boy Sep 22 OP

Shameless and despicable. MyMission Sep 22 #1

There will be rallies in support of the criminals in Teheran and Columbia University. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #2

Yup nycbos Sep 22 #4

My favorite part... jvill Sep 22 #8

Useful idiots JoseBalow Sep 22 #13

Given the opportunity, The United Nations will always do the wrong thing. madaboutharry Sep 22 #3

Like when the UN supported the creation of Israel? jvill Sep 22 #9

That was a one off. madaboutharry Sep 22 #12

They just got started back then. They didn't learn yet how to do things wrong. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #14

77 years ago MichMan Sep 22 #16

Something about this report from the JP is confusing. moniss Sep 22 #5

The UN is the defendant in this case. The hostage families are the plaintiffs. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #11

It was reported that the individuals moniss Sep 22 #39

UNRWA is being sued for the damages the terrorists did wheb they vwere employed Beastly Boy Sep 22 #44

Nobody disputes that the document was filed moniss Sep 22 #48

The validity or legality of the instrument of immunity afforded to the UN is not in dispute here. Beastly Boy Sep 23 #51

You do realize that the people in question could sue the UN for moniss Sep 23 #53

The immunity clause in the UN founding charter is absolute, and so is the UN discretion in using it. Beastly Boy Sep 23 #54

You can sue for anything. It doesn't mean you will win moniss Sep 23 #57

Once again, any lawsuit against the UN has a predetermined outcome. Beastly Boy Sep 23 #59

I have addressed the issue and I have moniss Sep 23 #60

This is outrageous! mcar Sep 22 #6

Disgusting. The UN was created to prevent wars, not protect and enable terrorists. SunSeeker Sep 22 #7

That does not sound right RainCaster Sep 22 #10

What a switch sarisataka Sep 22 #15

UNRWA was hijacked by Palestinians long ago. It is a wing of Hamas. elias7 Sep 22 #17

Uh, no. Eko Sep 22 #18

If the organization is providing cover for terrorists.... Mysterian Sep 22 #19

How are they providing cover for terrorists? Eko Sep 22 #20

Allowing terrorists to operate undercover as "UNRWA workers" Mysterian Sep 22 #21

Uh, they fired them. Eko Sep 22 #22

You're extremely naive if you believe those are the only ones Mysterian Sep 22 #23

So if they fired them how are they providing cover for them? Eko Sep 22 #24

The ones they didn't fire still working in the org Mysterian Sep 22 #25

This is what you think Eko Sep 22 #26

And you think UNRWA has completely cleansed itself of Hamas operatives Mysterian Sep 23 #49

See post 55 Eko Sep 23 #56

You have yet to show that it is providing cover for terrorists. Eko Sep 22 #29

Known fact: There were Hamas operatives operating under cover as UNRWA workers Mysterian Sep 23 #50

That is what Israel claimed orally to UNRWA that there were Hamas operatives working at UNRWA. Eko Sep 23 #55

Ahhhhh, they just fired them for no reason Mysterian Sep 23 #58

I never claimed that Eko Sep 23 #61

UNRWA has been completely infiltrated by top Hamas operatives Mysterian Sep 30 #62

From your article. Eko Sep 30 #63

Uh, yes Beastly Boy Sep 22 #28

Look up the definition of an Organization. Eko Sep 22 #30

Another wild goose chase? No thanks. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #31

Do you not understand that if an organization has immunity Eko Sep 22 #32

The UN, and the US Department of Justice disagree with you. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #33

No they dont. Eko Sep 22 #34

Yes they do. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #35

To show you another example of immunity. Eko Sep 22 #37

And why would you think UNRWA employees are not their representatives Beastly Boy Sep 22 #42

We have gone over this. Eko Sep 22 #43

Tell that to the UN. Beastly Boy Sep 22 #46

To the fired people? Eko Sep 22 #47

And my post was in response to this from you. Eko Sep 22 #38

What do the UN and DOJ disagree with you on? Beastly Boy Sep 22 #41

Where did I say that the UN and the DOJ disagree with me? Eko Sep 22 #45

Interesting thing about the Jerusalem Post. Eko Sep 22 #27

Not surprising. EllieBC Sep 22 #36

The UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre were fired. Eko Sep 22 #40

Nope. Happy Hoosier Sep 23 #52

One less immunity needed sarisataka Sep 30 #64