The resignation of William Schabas, chair of the United Nations’ Independent Commission of Inquiry into the 2014 Gaza conflict, after the commission’s report has already been written is a clever move to deflect criticism from the anti-Israel Human Rights Council.
Given growing anti-Israel sentiment around the world, Schabas’ resignation will not change anything, and another report blaming Israel for war crimes in Gaza will be used to further defame the Jewish state.
The approaching diplomatic assault shows how the UN is part and parcel of the campaign of incitement against Israel that can only lead to more violence and bloodshed.
Obvious as the biased UN treatment of Israel is, it is still in need of proof, and that is exactly what a report by the Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention (JCGP) is providing. This institute, founded by Dr. Elihu Richter, professor emeritus at the Hebrew University’s medical school, has dedicated itself to the study of the causes leading to genocide and the possible ways of preventing it from happening.
The JCGP uses the expertise of Elihu in the medical field of epidemiology to support its conclusion that the last military operation in Gaza and its consequences was a direct result of Hamas’ incitement against Israel. The JCGP submitted a report to the UN commission comparing incitement to a dangerous virus that, if not contained and destroyed, will spread and infect an entire population.
Words, explains Dr. Richter, are man’s deadliest weapon, and people are as susceptible to words of incitements as they are to infectious diseases.
The report argues that the dreadful death toll in Gaza – 2,127 Gazans and 72 Israelis – is the direct result of increasing incitement against Israel manifested in the form rockets and terror tunnels designed to ultimately bring about Israel’s demise. Using an epidemiological timeline, the JCGP report points to a direct correlation between rocket attacks (incitement) and the number of deaths, which stopped mounting the moment Hamas accepted the last in a series of six ceasefire proposals.
The question of why Hamas refused the first five ceasefire proposals leads to the conclusion that bears responsibility for the death and destruction of its own people and property.
Indeed, as the report asks, “if the damage was so horrendous, why did Hamas violate the first ceasefire and four others before accepting the sixth offer? And why is Hamas continuing to incite adults and schoolchildren to hate and war in the public square, official media, schools and places of worship? And finally, why do international agencies continue to subsidize this incitement in UNRWA schools?”
This interesting analogy between incitement and infectious disease suggests that Israel’s reaction to Hamas is in proportion to the level of incitement against it. It further suggests that Israel had no choice but dealing decisively with this menace before it reached its genocidal potential.
And yet, compelling as this report may be, most likely it will be pushed aside in favor of an agenda that seeks to malign Israel no matter what, thus aiding the declared genocidal purpose of Hamas.