"Opposites Attract"
Gregory Levey, The New Republic, September 20, 2006

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited New York and addressed the United Nations General Assembly. He was given a full diplomatic welcome by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and most U.N. delegates, even though he has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and-in his country's relentless pursuit of nuclear weaponry - seems determined to bring it about. Israel's supporters will likely see his friendly welcome at the United Nations as just the latest example of how the organization puts Israelis' security at risk through its blatant bias against the Jewish state. In August, for example, the Anti-Defamation League put out a press release headlined, "ADL Denounces UN Human Rights Council Anti-Israel Resolution as False and One-Sided." Last year, U.N. Watch, a nongovernmental organization, issued a similarly angry one titled, "U.N. Official Calls Israelis 'Concentration Camp Guards,' Advocates Boycott of Israel."

But, even if this criticism of the United Nations is justified, friends of Israel shouldn't despair. While Israel's supporters frequently complain about the international body's treatment of it, the slanted and inept handling of the Middle East actually serves Israel's interests. By dealing with the region so ineffectually - and, in doing so, alienating Israel's allies-the United Nations gives the Jewish state a wider berth (and more diplomatic acceptance from its allies) than it could ever get on its own.

When I was serving as Israel's speechwriter at the United Nations, I once found myself standing outside the Secretariat building with Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman and then-U.S. Ambassador John Danforth. We had just come out of a Security Council meeting, and Danforth was clearly irritated. The Council had debated a resolution that condemned Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip without condemning the Palestinian rocket fire that had prompted it. Danforth rejected the resolution, calling it "lopsided."

Outside, the first thing he did was look at Gillerman and me, shake his head dismissively, and grunt, "I'm sick of their bullshit." It was obvious what he meant: The less reasonable the United States considered the opinions and votes of other U.N. members, the more understanding it would give the Israelis. To Danforth, U.N. irrationality might even have been a barometer of Israeli rightness. And this sentiment is a leitmotif in U.S.-U.N.-Israel relations. One of Israel's former top strategists at the United Nations, who is now serving as a senior adviser to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, put it to me this way: "Sometimes, all we have to do is let the U.N. make itself look bad." More often than not, he said, the worse the United Nations seems, the more understanding the United States gives Israel.

That's exactly what happened in 2004, when Israel set about assassinating the top figures in the Hamas leadership. After Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was gunned down by an Israeli helicopter, the Security Council debated a resolution that condemned the act while remaining essentially silent on Hamas's terrorism. The United States, recognizing it as grossly unbalanced, vetoed it. Many saw this as an American blessing for the Israelis to ignore international condemnation; and ignore it they did. Barely a month later, Israel assassinated Abdel Rantisi, Hamas's next-in-command, and many - including Nasser Al Kidwa, the Palestinian U.N. observer at the time - cited the earlier U.S. veto as Israel's license to kill.

The U.S. government isn't the only one giving Israel extra license to compensate for the U.N.'s treatment. Sometimes, the European Union is in the same boat. Once, when some EU representatives were missing from a U.N. meeting, I asked one of Israel's senior U.N. diplomats where they were. Shrugging, he said, "Probably off spreading their legs for the Arabs." Then, leaning in closer to me, he added that, eventually, "Even the Europeans get impatient with the Arabs' stubbornness" and become more sympathetic to Israel's position. Later, a Western European diplomat confirmed this for me. Rather than oppose Israel like the majority of U.N. member-states had, his country abstained from a vote on a resolution replete with the over-the-top anti-Israel language characteristic of ones authored by the Arab League. He made it clear to me that they probably would have supported it in substance if not for the incendiary rhetoric. "Sometimes, we understand Israel's position," he told me.

In fact, EU behavior at the United Nations often - though not always - confirms this. In 2004, for example, the International Court of Justice issued a damning advisory opinion on Israel's separation barrier. Although the European Union voted for a resolution demanding that Israel comply with the opinion, its statements were worded specifically to distinguish its position from that of other member-states: Although it didn't support the specific route of the barrier, the European Union said, it supported Israel's right to defend itself - in contrast to the many member-states who seemed to oppose Israel's right to build it at all. This was understood by some as a tacit European understanding of Israel's need to build the barrier.

The war with Hezbollah was another example of this pattern. When, in 2004, the United Nations passed resolution 1559 - enjoining Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah - there was much skepticism in the Israeli government that anything would actually come out of it. One influential Israeli policymaker told me at the time that the resolution might eventually lead Hezbollah to call the U.N.'s bluff, causing someone - Israel or another force - to step in and enforce the resolution. Those were exactly the terms of the recent Hezbollah war, and, as a result, even the European countries were surprisingly supportive of Israel at the beginning. (Yes, their opinion soured as the war progressed, but nobody's suggesting they ever give as much implicit license to Israel as the United States does.)

To be sure, the Israeli delegation doesn't like to be treated with naked hostility or to endure constant diplomatic attack. Nor does this situation reassure the people back in Israel. Still, it's never as bad as it seems. The endless resolutions condemning Israeli military actions certainly provide usable fodder for critics of Israel, but, with the exception of Security Council resolutions typically vetoed by the U.S. anyway, they are not legally binding. Similarly, constant complaints about Israel's human rights record from U.N. bodies run by the world's worst human rights abusers is more irritating than it is relevant - Western countries can see right through this farce. (Like the United States, they often oppose the appointment of these states to human rights bodies, though in a behind-the-scenes manner rather than in the strident and vocal way the United States does.)

If the United Nations berated Israel in a less cartoonish way, it would be hard for the United States and the Europeans to countenance Israel essentially ignoring the organization when it comes to the safety of its own citizens. In an Israeli calculus, then, the U.N.'s bias gives Israel elbow room-from those that actually matter in the Israeli mindset (the United States and, to a much lesser extent, the European Union) - to handle its own security as it sees fit.

Over the coming months, this pattern will probably replay itself in one of the most critical and dangerous issues in Israel's history: the Iranian nuclear program. If the United Nations refuses to take real action against Iran, Israel may have to take the Iranian threat into its own hands. If so, U.N. member-states will certainly launch their routine conniptions. Thankfully, Israel's patrons in the West will, by then, be "sick of their bullshit."