The scale of the UN’s crimes is dwarfed only by the lack of accountability.
At least the Biden-Harris administration has a consistent position. Consistently on the side of Islamic terrorists.
In an official document filed in a US court, the United Nations, with support from the US Department of Justice, has argued that UNRWA employees who were involved in the October 7 massacre are immune from legal action, Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 News reported on Saturday evening.
According to the document, UNRWA employees involved in the massacre are shielded from prosecution due to their immunity.
“Since the UN has not waived immunity in this instance, its subsidiary, UNRWA, continues to enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution, and the lawsuit should be dismissed,” the UN’s response stated.
UNRWA is a UN agency dedicated to servicing the Arab Muslim invaders in Israel who call themselves ‘palestinians’. In Gaza, UNRWA provides much of the social service infrastructure at the behest of Hamas. UNRWA employs Hamas and other terrorists and its leaders have been fairly open about it. Among UNRWA’s employees were some of the perpetrators of Oct 7.
Oct 7 isn’t even the first time UN employees committed atrocities or abuses with the active knowledge and tolerance of the UN hierarchy. Haiti, for example, comes to mind.
An Associated Press investigation of U.N. missions during the past 12 years found nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other personnel around the world — signaling the crisis is much larger than previously known. More than 300 of the allegations involved children, the AP found, but only a fraction of the alleged perpetrators served jail time.
The scale of the UN’s crimes is dwarfed only by the lack of accountability. If governments don’t enjoy immunity for crimes committed by its personnel, why should the UN?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No. And not just that: Israel should completely outlaw UNRWA. If the UN needs to operate in Judea and Samaria, let it assign the UNHRC, and that too, under normal conventions of what constitute refugees. In other words, descendants of Arabs who moved out of Israel in 1948 no longer get to claim refugee status: they have to be given citizenship in whichever countries they live – Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al. No more promises of being able to return to even “Palestine”, much less Israel
somehistory says
Well said, Infidel.
Goofy says
Diplomatic immunity is granted to diplomats to protect them in the execution of their diplomatic tasks.
Diplomatic immunity is never granted to facilitate commitment of crimes.
When that happens the country for whom the diplomatic works will waive the criminal diplomat’s diplomatic immunity.
Often the authorities in the host country will expell the criminal diplomat rather than pursue criminal charges against him, but they are not obliged to do that.
rick says
Excellent comment Goofy, but we all know that diplomatic Immunity is used to avoid prosecution for a crime or crimes committed in a foreign country such when even a family member of a diplomat let alone the diplomat himself, commits rape, the claim of immunity may be recognized as a basis not to arrest and jail him. He may be taken to a police station but never held in a jail cell and not allowed to leave. And if there is a public outcry against this indecency, it will at least allow him to leave the jurisdiction of the country where the rape was committed and return to his nation which never will try him for that rape.
somehistory says
Why does the un get to decide if the goons and ghouls under their employ have “immunity” from arrest and prosecution for their part in the horrific committing of crimes, or not?
Al Capone, “Listen Ness, my guys have immunity from arrest and prosecution by you until I say otherwise.”
Ness, “Sure, but can you give me one or two of them.? You have so many.”
The criminal organization’s head should also be on the chopping block and he shouldn’t get to make decisions about which crimes are prosecuted and which criminals go to trial.
rick says
Again. Chutzpah of the lowest. Nazis at Nuremberg did argue that as they were properly following “legal” orders to do what they are now being tried for as war criminals and they should not be found guilty.
But the UN and UNRWA are, in essence, admitting that they participated in criminal acts but just want immunity anyway as they have UNRWA employment IDs. It’s like saying “You cannot do anything to me because I am Special”. A much cheaper Defense than the Nazi one which is: “I was following orders from proper authorities and so I cannot be personally be accountable for those crimes. ” UNRWA scum were not “following orders” but participated out of the feeling of “joy for raping and killing Jews”. Think of a killer saying “Yes I shot and killed him and enjoyed it immensely but I have an employment card right here in my wallet by a wonderful organization which allows me to do that”. Chutzpah at its most absolute!
If they are granted immunity it would be the most reprehensible decision imaginable and any nation that is a member of the UN and who has any sense of decency should resign immediately. And if UNRWA agrees with the “immunity” defense, then it should be disbanded as a UN Agency and any one associated with it should not be allowed to work for any agency of the UN.
Tony Rice says
Guterres should explain why his employees should be exempt from prosecution for engaging in murder and terrorism, plus at the same time why they did take part.
abu taleb says
Just accuse the UN as an accomplice of crime, then put the UN members on court and jail them, then disband the UN completely. Why a sovereign country must obey an organization which has no legal power in that country?
Duane says
Persecution? They need prosecuting! All members for their support of the demonic (according to the quran) muslim religion that demands the breaking of all but one of thec10 commandments.
somehistory says
“Outrage as US DOJ defends UN staffers who collaborated in Hamas’ terror”
““No one is above the law,” Kamala Harris says when speaking of her rival, former President Donald Trump.
But the Harris-Biden administration is arguing in federal court that lots of people are above the law — in particular, the many UN employees who helped Hamas build its terror facilities and launch its genocidal pogrom on Oct. 7.In June, some victims of the Oct. 7 massacre filed suit in New York, where the United Nations is based, against the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, alleging that UNRWA and its officials have aided and abetted Hamas.
Evidence of UNRWA’s wholesale collaboration with the designated terror group is abundant, and goes back years.
“Oh, I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, and I don’t see that as a crime,” then-UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen stated in 2004.
Twenty years later, many UNRWA staffers participated directly in the Oct. 7 terror attack, while others imprisoned and tortured the hostages afterward.
The United Nations, which claims to be dedicated to advancing human rights, has pledged that it will waive any claims to immunity for acts of terror.
Nonetheless, it responded to the victims’ lawsuit by invoking immunity for itself and its employees.
And this week, news broke that the United States Department of Justice has joined that effort, filing a submission to the US District Court arguing that both UNRWA and its workers should have “absolute immunity” from suit.
As the first anniversary of Oct. 7 approaches, the DOJ is lawyering for some of the attack’s perpetrators.
The DOJ letter asserts that the UN officials have immunity under the 1945 International Organizations Immunities Act.
Indeed, the United States has historically supported a broad interpretation of UN immunity — but despite significant prior misdeeds, UN agencies have never before been structurally intertwined with a US-designated terror group, or had numerous employees carry out mass atrocities.
And the administration’s defense of the UN-Hamas terrorists is not only ugly — it is legally unnecessary.
For one, it is not clear that IOIA immunity applies to the UN’s myriad affiliated agencies, an argument that was recently rejected by the DC Circuit Court.
…….
This is a policy decision DOJ has chosen to make.
Under the UN Charter, its officials are entitled to such “privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions.”
The United Nations thus claims that immunity from civil suits for invading a country and massacring its citizens is “necessary” for the exercise of its functions — and President Biden and Kamala Harris apparently agree.
If immunity for mass murder is necessary for the UN’s functioning, maybe it is time to rethink the UN entirely. ”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/outrage-as-us-doj-defends-un-staffers-who-collaborated-in-hamas-terror/ar-AA1rcWDu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=4265b9880855431d998881e3b3cebfbd&ei=11