UN seeks immunity for UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre - Channel 12 report

[moniss]

53. You do realize that the people in question could sue the UN for

withdrawing their immunity before they have been other than accused. The UN itself is in a precarious legal and operational situation as I tried to make clear. Immunity with NGO's and the like is a very common thing. Likewise charities as I've also tried to stress. The reason being you can't have a situation where someone sends $100 to an aid organization and then finds themselves in court because some person goes off and rams another in a car for instance and the accusation is that the money of all of the givers has made them responsible. Likewise an organization can vet people they hire to the ends of the earth but it doesn't preclude some turning bad. An organization also can't get people and professionals to come and work for the reasons I stated if they risk being hauled in for accusations all the time. Let there be a proper legal determination of the guilty parties before we go off at the UN as though they planned it and took part in it. They revoke the immunity at this juncture before a legal process takes place and the organization becomes the target for everyone including the accused. I'm trying to get you to understand that the way for the process to play out is for the organization to raise the immunity issue so the court can rule on it. That way when it is stricken it is done so by a legal process/decision and not subjecting the organization to accusations of invoking/waiving the immunity arbitrarily. That way the accused individuals cannot make a claim against the organization. The lawyers have to bring it up to the court. Courts in general are not going to make rulings and arguments on things not brought up. If you don't file it doesn't get ruled on. So let it get ruled on.