Jean Pierre Braun


Embed from Getty Images

On May 1st, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations delivered an important speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. For more than 20 minutes, Gilad Erdan made unvarnished accusations and demonstrated the responsibility of the UN and several of its agencies in the current war, as well as the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic prejudices of these same organizations which not only aggravate but also prevent a humane resolution of this conflict. In a prophetic voice, he predicted the coming downfall of these organizations in these words: “Soon students will study the fall of the UN. They will learn of this organization’s moral bankruptcy and blindness. They will be taught that your indifference and hypocrisy is what brought the UN crashing down.” “Mark my words” he said, “the UN days are numbered.”

Gilad Erdan’s speech can be seen here:

After Gilad Erdan’s remarkable discourse, you’d think there was nothing more to say. Still, beyond my complete agreement with all his arguments, there are additional elements that need to be considered, both to explain the bankruptcy of these organizations and to think about a strategy for the future.

My starting hypothesis: many major international organizations need to be dismantled, cancelled, eliminated. Not only are they no longer useful, they are blatantly undermining world peace and justice. Our entire planet is going through a period of unprecedented crisis, with threats of extreme war on several continents, humanitarian catastrophes (real suffering, unlike the made-up famines in Gaza) in many countries directly affecting several million people, destabilizing migrations worldwide, and an unprecedented loss of moral values. And in the middle of this turmoil, the international organizations we are about to discuss remain totally ineffective. Worse still, because of their biases and blatant lack of neutrality, they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

A little background is in order.

The League of Nations (SDN), created in 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War, was specifically set up with ambitious goals: conflict prevention, global disarmament, and the collective security of nations. Regardless, the SDN could not deliver. The disastrous consequences of the mandates entrusted to the former colonial powers by the League of Nations to oversee decolonization are still being felt today in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Its shortcomings precipitated the outbreak of WW2. Without even waiting for the dissolution of the League of Nations (1949), 50 nations created the United Nations Organization (UN) in 1945. The UN included 193 nations by 2023. In addition to its General Assembly, a myriad of agencies, councils, groups, and sub-groups have been set up over the years mostly with sectarian objectives, often in conflict with the stated UN’s primary values.

The UN proper made a fool of itself in Bosnia, it failed completely in Rwanda, and it showed its uselessness once again when the United States invaded Iraq without UN approval. Many UN’s agencies and sub-groups continuously exhibit equally disastrous behavior and results. For example: UNWRA, actively supportive of the worst terrorists since the Shoah; WHO, incapable of managing COVID crises, or even designating those responsible; the Human Rights Council, the worst openly anti-Semitic organization within the UN; UNWomen, a group dedicated (allegedly) to ensuring that “all women and girls live a life free from all forms of violence” and which has not once come to the defense of Jewish women horribly abused by Hamas, the ICJ (established by the League of Nations in 1922) so eager to hear baseless claims accusing Israel of genocide, etc. etc.

How did we get here?

The founding principles of any democratic organization were laid down as early as the 18th (and early 19th) centuries by Alexis de Tocqueville and Emmanuel Kant. Briefly, for Tocqueville, a democratic organization must be underpinned by the imperatives of equality and liberty (1). For his part, Kant insists on the imperative of mutual trust (2). Kant, for example, postulates that a treaty signed between a democracy and a dictatorship cannot be credible, as any commitment of a dictatorship (or any other non-democratic society) does not merit trust.

Let us return to the UN. The creation in 1964 of the Group of 77 (G77) was a very important event in the life of the UN. For the first time, a seemingly homogeneous group was formed to defend its particular interests against those of the ensemble of nations. This group of 77 grew rapidly, and today includes 134 member countries (including one “pseudo-country”: Palestine). In the G77’s by-laws, there is a rule requiring countries in the group to vote (in UN votes) in favor of any resolution proposed by the majority of the G77. 134 votes out of a total of 193 countries at the UN, that is an automatic majority! All the more so since an independent sub-group of the G77 was formed in 1969, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which today comprises 57 states, all Muslim of course. As a result, the Islamic agenda is taking on an unprecedented prominence in UN debates and decisions. An example of what this large interest group can achieve: in 2019, Palestine (which has never been a state, let alone a UN member state), is elected Chairman of the G77 organization, the most influential interest group within the UN. These same interest groups act day after day to advance their pro-Muslim agenda, with no regard for the well-being of most Western countries. And of course, their assault on Israel is constant, violent, destabilizing, and built on a foundation of lies and propaganda. Numerous resolutions are passed against Israel with the support of this automatic majority, while the horrors committed by muslim countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, etc.) are not discussed at all at the UN. The OIC core group within the G77 activates this automatic majority to advance its parochial agenda, without any other consideration.

We are a long way from the imperatives of equality, freedom and mutual trust advocated by Tocqueville and Kant. There is neither fairness nor integrity, the democratic foundation of the UN is totally corrupted, and the organization is losing all credibility. As Gilad Erdan so rightly says, the UN is no longer an instrument of peace, it has become an impediment to peace.

But why do the so-called civilized countries (most of Europe, America, and a small number of Asian countries) let this happen, why don’t they repair the obviously corrupt functioning of the UN and try to preserve its future? Three arguments stand out to explain this: (1) the Arab world controls a very large proportion of the planet’s fossil energy resources, (2) militant Islam, or rather Islamism, is invading the West faster and deeper every day, and (3) the appalling gullibility of the Western world means that it is prepared to accept the most obvious deception, the most egregious lies coming from the Muslim lobby. (Partial list of examples: the PLO renounces violence, the Palestinians recognize the existence of Israel, “from the river to the sea” does not imply the disappearance of Israel, and the most outrageous: “Islam is a religion of love, peace and tolerance”.)

Under these conditions, Gilad Erdan’s prediction (The UN will soon self-destruct) sounds more like wishful thinking than a credible short-term alternative. A simple observation of current events teaches us that these so-called civilized nations may not hesitate to sacrifice Israel, to abandon their culture and identity, and even to become the vassals of the Islamist world, if this allows them (or at least gives them the illusion) of being able to preserve their material privileges. One day, perhaps soon, some of these countries will open their eyes and decide to leave these organizations. Donald Trump’s USA (if elected) may hopefully be the first. Others will follow, and these harmful organizations will finally disappear.

Designing a fair and just organization to replace the UN will take time, and will probably never enjoy the broad consensus of the world’s nations. But one thing is certain: until all the nations of the world embrace the values of Freedom, Equality and Mutual Respect, and until systemic anti-Semitism disappears, no system based on simple or even qualified majority voting can work. We will have to imagine a smaller organization, made up of countries respecting these values, and with a mode of operation that will prohibit the narrow-minded influence of special interest groups. Is this possible? We must believe it is; we also need men and women of good will to start thinking about it intelligently, sincerely, and diligently. They will have to succeed: the future of the entire planet is at stake.

A final word: With this uncompromising speech, delivered with force before a hostile international audience, Gilad Erdan has demonstrated that he has the makings of a great statesman. In my humble opinion, he is one of those rare Israeli politicians who should be considered for very high political office soon.


(1) Alexis de Tocqueville: “Democracy in America” 1835, 1840

(2) Emmanuel Kant: “Perpetual Peace – A Philosophical Sketch” 1795

About the Author
Jean Pierre Braun is a retired Silicon Valley CEO now living in Jerusalem. Born in Paris, Jean Pierre immigrated to the USA after completing its Electrical Engineering degree in France. Besides being a serial entrepreneur, Jean Pierre was also the founder of a unique, very successful Silicon Valley Synagogue, and upon his return to France became Vice President of a local CRIF branch, and the President of the Rachi community in Grenoble. A father of 3 and grandfather of 10 ב'ה, Jean Pierre and his wife Annie made Aliyah in 2016.
Related Topics
Related Posts