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

[moniss]

57. You can sue for anything. It doesn't mean you will win

and just because it is in the Charter in a particular way doesn't mean that the organization couldn't be sued for a claim of improperly applying or not applying it. This is similar to when a known heinous criminal defendant has a lawyer who puts a claim or defense before the court even though we may have video of the crime in it's entirety and context. The lawyer does it so the court can rule on it and they know ahead of time that the court will go against them but they do it so there is no claim made later on that they didn't propose that defense and get accused of not arguing possible defenses. Same sort of thing. You may find it repugnant but as I said the UN is proceeding legally how they have to. They cannot come out at this point before there has been a legal determination about the individuals and start labeling them and taking action on that basis.

What we think out here outside of court doesn't mean squat. The lawyers are proceeding in the case and the process needs to play out of allowing the court to rule. If the UN waived it at this point they absolutely could be sued on the basis of taking the action when it is not proven in court that these individuals did this. Not yet. That is the point. Allow the process to go forward and let the court make it's ruling on the immunity issue. At that point the parties have to follow it unless they appeal and then still the process will eventually give a binding, final legal decision that will then further guide the process. At least this is different than Netanyahu claiming he should be shielded because he wasn't given an opportunity to conduct an inquiry into himself. But either way the ICC and the Federal Court will rule on these motions and then things will proceed from there. It may seem bizarre, and to a degree it is, but that is the system. The UN can't just jump and not put themselves at risk if they revoke immunity before a finding of guilt. In order to get to that trial and finding of guilt in Federal Court they need to have the court rule that immunity doesn't apply so a case can move forward to discovery and trial. No matter how certain we are about guilt that is our system. At this point they are presumed innocent before the law. If people don't like the legal process then either change it or don't bring cases. But until that time this is the system. The UN is putting the immunity question before the court for them to make a ruling. It is not the UN just saying "We are giving them immunity and that's the last word and we're not complying with any legal proceeding." The question of legal consequences related to immunity absolutely exists. There are consequences for the UN, consequences for the individuals and consequences for legal cases involving other litigants in the future.