Fighting the monsters at the gateway to a hellish place
United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, appearing before the UN Human Rights Council on July 3, 2025, had not only accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza, but also of profiting hugely from their destruction.
Her report to the council was warmly welcomed by the League of Arab States, Venezuela, Palestine, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Qatar.
But, when Hillel Neuer from the UN Watch organisation demanded to know why, in her entire report, there was not a single mention of the October 7, 2023 massacre, Hamas, Hezbollah or that leading sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ms Albanese had nothing to say.
Surrounded by allies and friends, she was under no compulsion to answer Neuer's questions. Hence her brief, but highly communicative, little smile.
Israel's fury at the rest of the world's failure to call its enemies to account is easily understood.
Less easily forgiven is the Israeli state's apparent loss of interest in trying to appraise the rest of humanity of its enemies' ultimate purpose.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his allies, clearly prefer to concentrate all their nation's resources upon securing the complete destruction of Hamas and its allies. Very early in the Israel-Hamas War, a decision was made that civilian casualties would no longer be permitted to impede Israel's extirpation of Palestinian terrorism.
Previous forays into Gaza had been restrained by Israel's sensitivity to global opinion. It understood that the civilian population of Gaza had become Hamas' human ammunition against "the Zionist enemy".
The more casualties inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces, the less international support there would be for the Israeli state. Hamas knew this. Indeed, Hamas was counting on it.
The Israelis might slap its face, but they were not prepared to endure the consequences of cutting off its head.
The horrific atrocities and the unprecedented death toll — 1200 people — of the October 7 pogrom put an end to Israeli restraint.
On paper, Israel's winning move was to do nothing. It should have refrained from firing a single bullet into Gaza, and from dropping a single bomb.
Borrowing from Hamas' own strategy, Israel should, instead, have taken on the role of victim, and used the massacre as a grisly illustration of the true nature of Palestinianism.
On paper.
But October 7, 2023, did not unfold on paper. Rather than allowing the world to discern the true nature of Hamas, Israel opted, instead, to avenge its dead and abducted citizens by destroying the terrorist organisation completely — regardless of the civilian cost.
The warning of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche: "have a care when fighting monsters, lest ye become a monster yourself", went unheeded by Netanyahu and his bloodthirsty Zionist allies.
Month by month, the breadth of their vision narrowed, until they could no longer perceive how decisively world opinion was being turned against Israel by a Hamas enemy whose supply of human ammunition showed every sign of being inexhaustible.
As Gaza was steadily transformed into a trackless waste of rubble, and the body count climbed inexorably towards 60,000, it became increasingly plausible for the likes of Francesca Albanese to prosecute their charges of genocide. Certainly, the Muslim world raised no objections to such claims.
Israel was now in the terrifying predicament of Shakespeare's Macbeth: "I am in blood Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Seized by that grim realisation, Israel plunged on. Soon it was pummelling Lebanon — and then Iran.
Darkness now gathers around Israel as, methodically, Gaza is being flattened out. In the desolation that used to be Rafah, Israel's military is preparing to build a "humanitarian city" of tents for 600,000, rising to 2million, Palestinians.
Around these tents, the Israelis propose to string coil after coil of razor wire. Doubtless, there will be searchlights and watchtowers.
Certainly, once the Palestinians are driven into this terrible encampment, they will not be suffered to leave.
Imagine the terror of the Gazans, as they shuffle under the tutelage of Israeli firepower towards the gates of this hellish place.
■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel 'quite clearly' breaking international law
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Israel has "quite clearly" breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza as he escalates his criticism of the Jewish state. Mr Albanese spoke of his emotional response to images of gaunt and dying children in the Palestinian territory, while acknowledging increased airdrops of aid by Israel was "a start". "It just breaks your heart," he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. "A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and deaths in Gaza is completely unacceptable. It's completely indefensible. "Quite clearly it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March. It's a breach of decent humanity and of morality, and everyone can see that." But the prime minister would not commit Australia to following the lead of France in recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. Any resolution would need to guarantee Hamas, the defacto ruling authority in Gaza which is listed as a terrorist organisation by Australia, had no part in Palestine's future, he said. "We need security for the state of Israel, but you need to have the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state realised as well," Mr Albanese said. "That will mean security arrangements, it will need agreements as well about the rebuilding of Gaza and the West Bank. It will need the issue of settlements to resolve as well." Recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution in the Middle East is included in Labor's national platform. "Are we about to imminently do that? No, we are not," Mr Albanese said. "But we will engage constructively. The United States as well will have a critical role in this, they have to play a role." Mr Albanese once again called for an immediate ceasefire and for Gaza to release Israeli hostages. But opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the government had failed to lay the blame for the war at the feet of Hamas in a statement condemning Israel's denial of aid on Friday. "What this statement does not do is squarely say to the global community, we would like to see the end of the war in Gaza. And the next sentence should have been, 'and we call on the terrorists Hamas, who commenced this war, and who are ensuring the suffering of the civilians in Gaza, to end this war tomorrow'," Senator Cash told Sky News.
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Israel allows aid airdrops to Gaza as famine looms
Israel has said it would allow food to be airdropped to Gaza and designate humanitarian corridors for UN aid convoys, as thousands of Palestinians face the threat of widespread famine. Before Israel announced that the flights would resume, the United Arab Emirates had said it would restart aid drops and
Newsroom
17 hours ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
