UN Removes Genocide Advisor: She Refused To Label Israels actions as Genocide

[Social Media]

UN Faces Backlash Over Dismissal of Genocide Advisor Alice Nderitu  

 

The United Nations, once a symbol of moral accountability, has faced growing criticism over its handling of sensitive global issues. Its recent decision to terminate Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, has sparked significant debate. A Kenyan mediator and expert in peacebuilding, Ms. Nderitu’s removal stems from her refusal to label Israel’s military actions in Gaza as genocide.

 

Ms. Nderitu has held her position since 2020, bringing a thoughtful approach to what she has called humanity's gravest crime. Her work emphasized precision in applying the term "genocide," a word first coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic extermination of entire ethnic groups, such as the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Bosnian massacres. Her office’s 2022 guidance stressed the importance of adhering to this strict definition, cautioning against its misuse due to the political and legal sensitivities it carries.

 

In assessing Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas, Ms. Nderitu argued that it did not meet the definition of genocide. She acknowledged the tragic civilian toll but pointed to Israel's stated intent: dismantling a terrorist organization rather than eradicating an ethnic group. Israel, she noted, has taken significant steps to minimize civilian casualties, even as Hamas reportedly uses Palestinian civilians as shields, exploiting their deaths for propaganda.

 

However, these views clashed with the narrative pushed by a faction within the UN. On November 14, the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices issued a report alleging potential genocide in Gaza and apartheid in the West Bank. This report aligns with the stance of Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has consistently criticized Israel. Critics argue that these accusations are influenced by political bias, as evidenced by the committee's composition, which includes member states Malaysia and Senegal, countries with a history of hostility toward Israel.

 

Ms. Nderitu’s dismissal has been framed as a contractual expiration, with a UN spokesperson asserting that genocide determinations fall under judicial bodies, not advisors. Yet, observers note that UN contracts are frequently renewed, and the Secretary-General holds the authority to extend her tenure. Her removal is widely seen as a political decision, signaling the influence of anti-Israel factions within the organization.

 

Beyond the controversy surrounding Ms. Nderitu, the situation highlights broader concerns about the politicization of genocide accusations. As the term becomes a tool for propaganda, its moral weight diminishes, threatening its power to describe true atrocities. Ms. Nderitu’s unwavering commitment to truth, even at the cost of her position, is a testament to her integrity. Her case raises a critical question: can principled leadership survive in an increasingly polarized UN?

 

Based on a report by WSJ 2024-11-27

 

 

 

[loong]

The corrupt UN has passed its sell-by date!

[Ben Zioner]

6 minutes ago, loong said:

The corrupt UN has passed its sell-by date!

So, you must be some expert on UN affairs?

[jippytum]

The woke members of the toothless UN contiue to bully disenting members with an alternative viewpoint

[JimHuaHin]

The UN has passed its use-by date.  It is not united, nor ever has been.

[JonnyF]

The UN has lost the plot. Defending your nation against brutal terror attacks is not genocide. 

[Aussie999]

2 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

So, you must be some expert on UN affairs?

I'm no expert, 0ver my 70 years, I see the UN fail more than succeed, it will never achieve much while 5 nations, and it only takes 1, hold the power of veto, 4 of which, have never played well with each othe... US, Britain, Russia, and China

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The UN has lost the plot. Defending your nation against brutal terror attacks is not genocide. 

It depends on the means of ‘defending’.

 

 

[john donson]

you can see some Docu online, where these UN really are overpaid lazy bastards laughing their way to the bank

 

consulting crap doing nothing

[Thingamabob]

2 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

So, you must be some expert on UN affairs?

You don't need to be an expert to know that the UN is a dangerous and useless organization. The anti-Jewish position it has adopted is particularly concerning given events leading up to and during WW2.

[Tropicalevo]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

You don't need to be an expert to know that the UN is a dangerous and useless organization. The anti-Jewish position it has adopted is particularly concerning given events leading up to and during WW2.

 

Totally agree.

And, with 56 Muslim member nations and only one Jewish one, that is never going to change.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

You don't need to be an expert to know that the UN is a dangerous and useless organization. The anti-Jewish position it has adopted is particularly concerning given events leading up to and during WW2.

 

The demonisation of any institution or individual who dares to criticise the state of Israel as anti Jewish or anti semitic has become as tiresome as it is predictable. 

[Bkk Brian]

Antisemitism at the UN is rife. I always remember Nikki Haley the ex US, UN Ambassador:

 

"The worst-kept secret at the UN is that antisemitism is operating just beneath the surface."

 

Back to the OP. The UN would rather fire their Genocide Advisor than listen to reality.

[Thingamabob]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The demonisation of any institution or individual who dares to criticise the state of Israel as anti Jewish or anti semitic has become as tiresome as it is predictable. 

Tiresome and predictable to some, such as yourself, but relevant  and appropriate.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Thingamabob said:

Tiresome and predictable to some, such as yourself, but relevant  and appropriate.

 

So Israel is beyond any criticism; any negative comment can only be borne of anti-semitism? Is that what you are saying?

[Tropicalevo]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The demonisation of any institution or individual who dares to criticise the state of Israel as anti Jewish or anti semitic has become as tiresome as it is predictable. 

This thread is not about 'any institution or individual', it is about the UN which is anti Jewish.

 

17 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

Totally agree.

And, with 56 Muslim member nations and only one Jewish one, that is never going to change.

 

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Tropicalevo said:

This thread is not about 'any institution or individual', it is about the UN which is anti Jewish.

 

 

 

Can you provide verifiable evidence of this bold statement?

[Tropicalevo]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

Can you provide verifiable evidence of this bold statement?

Try reading the rest of my post.

[RuamRudy]

Just now, Tropicalevo said:

Try reading the rest of my post.

 

I read it, but that is not proof that the UN is 'anti Jewish'. So I will ask my question slightly differently: can you provide verifiable evidence that the UN is 'anti Jewish' rather than expect us to accept as fact a statement derived from your own inherent prejudice?

[atpeace]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It depends on the means of ‘defending’.

 

 

And what would you do if your neighbor that thought you built a fence that was actually on his property raped your daughter?  Turn the other cheek I assume and feel empathy for your neighbors plight.  

[Yagoda]

18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So Israel is beyond any criticism; any negative comment can only be borne of anti-semitism? Is that what you are saying?

 In most cases, here, yes.

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I read it, but that is not proof that the UN is 'anti Jewish'. So I will ask my question slightly differently: can you provide verifiable evidence that the UN is 'anti Jewish' rather than expect us to accept as fact a statement derived from your own inherent prejudice?

Well count up the UN resolutions yourself. I suppose UNRWA helping Gazan baby rapists would be indicative too.

 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 In most cases, here, yes.

 

Can you elaborate? Without facts to back up your claim, that is simply slander. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, atpeace said:

And what would you do if your neighbor that thought you built a fence that was actually on his property raped your daughter?  Turn the other cheek I assume and feel empathy for your neighbors plight.  

I don’t engage in such nonsense hypothesizing, it does not detract from the fact that arguing ‘defense’ is not genocide is entirely dependent upon the means of defense.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I read it, but that is not proof that the UN is 'anti Jewish'. So I will ask my question slightly differently: can you provide verifiable evidence that the UN is 'anti Jewish' rather than expect us to accept as fact a statement derived from your own inherent prejudice?

What proof are you looking for?

 

Haley hit out at "the so-called UN Human Rights Council," which the U.S. withdrew from "because it tolerates and even celebrates antisemitism and blatant human rights abusers. We also pulled out of UNESCO, which denies Jewish heritage, even as it claims to protect diverse cultures. And then there’s UNRWA, which we stopped funding with American taxpayer money. UNRWA teaches Palestinian children to despise the Jews."

 

 

[James105]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Ms. Nderitu’s removal stems from her refusal to label Israel’s military actions in Gaza as genocide.

 

She also (probably) refuses to label 2+2=5, refuses to state that men can actually become women, and is well aware that if Israel actually wanted to commit genocide they could have done so in the first hour after the attack and wiped Gaza off the map, rather than the painfully slow approach of targeted strikes and giving warnings before the strike even happens.   

[atpeace]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t engage in such nonsense hypothesizing, it does not detract from the fact that arguing ‘defense’ is not genocide is entirely dependent upon the means of defense.

 

 

Thought that would be your answer.  The woke crowd enjoys stating their superior moral being but ignores any hypothetical or serious debate of why people act the way they do.  Again. how would you react if your daughter was raped by your neighbor?

[Patong2021]

34 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So Israel is beyond any criticism; any negative comment can only be borne of anti-semitism? Is that what you are saying?

 

No. The issue is that there is an overt bias against Israel.  Please do not tell me that the muslim bloc which includes Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan Syria and others are in a position to lecture anyone on human rights. Yes, this group of nation is blatantly anti semitic.

[Yagoda]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Can you elaborate? Without facts to back up your claim, that is simply slander. 

There is a search button. Search the terms Zionist, Jew, Israel, Palestine and you can connect with your ilk.

[RuamRudy]

Just now, Patong2021 said:

 

No. The issue is that there is an overt bias against Israel.  Please do not tell me that the muslim bloc which includes Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan Syria and others are in a position to lecture anyone on human rights. Yes, this group of nation is blatantly anti semitic.

 

There are undoubtedly member states of the UN which are anti Israeli; some of that enmity may be borne of anti Semitism, but history suggests that Islam and Judaism rubbed along together rather well until the mid 20th century, so does today's anti Israel sentiment come from innate anti semitism or from outrage at the behaviour of the state of Israel over the past decades?