The UN scorned
Let’s suppose that the United Nations paid close attention to the accusations levelled not only by its own delegates but also by governments, representatives of humanitarian groups, journalists and many other eyewitnesses, against a state whose troops demolished an enemy city, killing hundreds of civilians regardless of their age. As an organization which recognizes all nations, it neither rushes to endorse nor disregard the charges. Hence, in order to avoid condemning a state before it has investigated what has taken place, it sends a fact-finding mission to the wasteland – let’s suppose that this is known as the Jenin refugee camp – in order to ascertain the truth of the accusations. The investigating team reaches the offending country, where it is prevented from carrying out its duty on the spurious pretext that «conditions are not ripe.» But no. Such assumptions are totally groundless; they are ridiculous fabrications – we all know that Iraq is bombed on the same spurious pretext – that is, for refusing to accept inspectors on its territory. Such a state cannot possibly exist. There can be no state that resists, in such a crude fashion, the demands of official UN delegates while, at the same time, claiming that the charges against it are mere mudslinging by its enemies. If this were true, the state would have every reason to allow a thorough inspection that would disclose the truth – a truth which, as it believes, would vindicate it. But if there is such a state that is able to scorn UN resolutions without suffering the slightest penalties, and which can prevent justice for the victims, even after their death, then there can only be one reason to explain its stance: It fears that an unbiased investigation will reveal that even the worst of the accusations made against it are nothing compared to the real picture which will come to light when conditions are ripe.
