Photo Credit: CSPAN
Israel's Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations David Roet, at a UNSC meeting held July 22, 2014 regarding the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict.

“Ultimately, long-term stability requires a comprehensive peace agreement leading to a viable and independent Palestinian state,” he intoned, once again proving that for most of the world the only goal of the so-called peace process is the creation of a Palestinian state.

However, there was something welcome and unexpected that happened at Tuesday’s Security Council meeting.


This was the robust and unequivocal refusal of the Israeli representative to the United Nations to accept as truth the insistence that Israel and alleged Israeli wrongdoing is the root cause of the problem in the Middle East.


David Roet, the deputy ambassador from Israel to the United Nations provided a refreshing refusal to buckle under to the remonstrations of Ban and other world leaders.

Roet rejected the idea that the “root cause of the conflict” is the “occupation.” Instead, he insisted that the real root cause of the violence and instability in the Middle East is the “poisonous ideology of extremism.”

The Israeli ambassador pointed out that the Hamas Charter is unequivocal: its mission is to destroy the State of Israel.

Roet delivered a brilliant riposte to the secretary-general’s position that “settlements” are the root cause of the conflict: “There are many threats in our region, but the presence of Jewish homes in the Jewish homeland has never been one of them.”

What is a problem, Roet pointed out, was the Palestinian Arabs’ refusal to work towards resolving the conflict through what Roet stated is the only path to peace: direct negotiations. And the responsibility to ensure that the proper path to peace is followed falls not only on the Arabs, but on the international community which must continue shepherding the Arabs on the right path, and not indulge and encourage the flawed shortcuts of unilateral actions.

With respect to the conflict between Israel and Gaza, the root cause of the problem is that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the State of Israel. Full Stop. Unless and until the international community can persuade Hamas to, essentially, become something other than Hamas, there is no hope for peace.

Secondly, the unilateral steps – the “shortcuts” – only make the distance to peace longer. As Roet so importantly stated, by prematurely recognizing a State of Palestine, European governments are “undermining efforts to bring about a real and lasting change in our region.”

Roet also did not shy away from rebuking his host. He castigated the world institution for selecting William Schabas to chair the Gaza commission of inquiry. Schabas boldly expressed his firm belief that Israel was guilty even before he was chosen for the chair position.

The third root cause of the violence and instability in the region, Roet explained, is “state sponsors of terrorism.” And here is where Roet underscored the danger of an Iran with nuclear weapons. The Israeli ambassador took the opportunity to criticize the nuclear deal with Iran that is currently on the table, saying that it “allows Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, knowledge, and ambitions to remain intact.”

“This is a dangerous mistake,” he said, as he went on to enumerate the many ways in which Iran plays a central destabilizing role in the region, one which might soon become far worse – catastrophically so.

Roet ended by praising the global community’s unequivocal opposition to ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram. But, he said, “that same determination must be shown with Hamas and Hezbollah which share similar dangerous and radical views.”

That there are vast difference in understandings about what is right and what is wrong in the Middle East, about what are the causes of the problem and what is needed to bring stability and security to the region is not a surprise. But the divergence in views suggests that the world body will continue to play a negative, rather than a rehabilitative, one for the Middle East for the foreseeable future.


Previous articleThe Sons of Noach
Next articleUS Restricts Air Travel from Africa to Contain Ebola
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a contributor to the A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email:


  1. SheBe’chol dor v’dor omdim aleynu le’chaliseinu veHa Kadosh Baruch Hu matzilenu miyadam.
    שבכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילנו מידם.
    For in every generation they will rise up to destroy you .
    But the holy one blessed be he ,
    will save us from their hands.

  2. British reneging on it's obligation to Israel THE FORSAKEN PROMISE
    League of Nations – A Dying Protest
    As it became apparent that Britain was about to repudiate its obligations under the Mandate, indignation and anger were voiced, particularly in the United States. In its dying moments, the League of Nations accused Britain of a flagrant breach of its Mandate, calling attention to her "virtual suspension" of Jewish immigration. In the face of these reactions, and at a time of an international crisis in Europe, the British cabinet met on October 19 and announced that no drastic action would be taken against the Jews. The plans for a reorganized Arab Palestine were shelved, and it was announced that military action would be taken at once to put down the Arab rebels.
    In November 1938, the British Government convened the London Conference on the future of Palestine. It was attended by the representatives of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Trans-Jordan – as well as a Palestinian Arab delegation (which was split between followers of the Mufti and people who were frightened of him), the Zionist Executive, and the British hosts. The Conference broke up in deadlock on March 17, 1939, two days after Hitler's occupation of Prague. It paved the way for a unilateral statement from the British Government, which would be much more favorable to the Arabs than any official statement since the beginning of the Mandate. This was the famous White Paper of May 1939, of which the main provisions were: no partition; no Jewish state; an independent Arab state within 10 years; Jewish immigration, after five years, would not be allowed "unless the Arabs of Palestine were prepared to acquiesce in it".
    The legality of the White Paper, in terms of the Mandate, was not only contested by the Jews. The Permanent Mandates Commission, reporting to the Council of the League, found unanimously "that the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

  3. British restrictions and blockade on Jewish immigration to Palestine 1938-1948 caused the death of over 2 million Jews trying to escape German extermination camps.

    The British in 1922 gave away in violation of the Mandate 77% of the land in Palestine allocated for the Jewish people to the Arabs as the State named Jordan of which 80% of the population is Arab-Palestinians. This is the Palestinian State and no other.
    British actions in Palestine during the Mandate 1918-1948 are the cause of the continued violence and terrorism in the Middle East. The British wanted to control the oil in the Middle East and they were willing and did cross anyone to accomplish their goals. In today's time in history, nothing has changed.
    In less than 20 years England and the rest of Europe will be controlled by Muslims with Sharia laws in place.

    Prohibiting Jews for residing anywhere where the map of Mandate for Palestine territory of 1920 is a violation of International Law and the San Remo Treaty which was adopted by the League of Nations in 1920.

    Any housing, factories, goods and services produced by Jews in the area that was designated as the Mandate for Palestine is granted by the International agreements and treaties of the 1918-1920, which are in affect for perpetuity.

    Israel's 2nd war of liberation of 1967 debunking the notion that Israel is an occupier

  4. In fact sovereignty of the Jews over Palestine West of the Jordan is supported five ways:
    1. By the grant of the WWI Allies of exclusive political rights to Palestine in trust to World Jewry on April 25, 1920, intended to vest when the Jews in Palestine had attained a population majority. Prior to that time, England abandoned its trusteeship as the mandatory power, and de jure sovereignty devolved to the Jews who attained a majority not long afterwards in 1950 from the immigration of all the Jews in the Middle East who were dispossessed of their homes where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries.
    2. In the opinion of world acclaimed International Lawyers Julius Stone and Steven Schwebel based on Jordan's conquest of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in an an aggressive war and their liberation by Israel in a defensive war.
    3. Under US and UK treaty law based on the Anglo American Convention of 1924.
    4. In the historic way sovereignty was gained, by asserting Israeli Independence in 1948 and defending its territory with its blood and treasure, establishing control and stability over its claimed territory.
    5. Under Canon law by a gift from God, as shown in the Old Testament.

  5. I still believe that Israel and the leaders of Israel are way too passive. Why they don't go off about all the double standards and why they dont scream or slap people when they talk about the so called palestinians? Geez, those useless ARABS have zero right to live inside or near Israel! Get them out, deport them, remove them, push them outside Israel….they cannot live in peace, they wont! Once again, all Jews around the planet must remember that the real enemy of the jewsih people is the self hating LIBERAL/Leftie Jew!!! Dont trust them. They will always betray you!

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...