Growing up in Los Angeles in the 1970s, I have a distinct memory of my father, a surgeon originally from Canada, railing against the United Nations.
"They’re a bunch of antisemites," he would fulminate. I was too young to understand what he meant or even really care at my young age about the United Nations.
But earlier this month, some 50 years later, as I arrived at the U.N. in New York City to emcee the Israeli Mission to the United Nations’ marking of the one-year anniversary of the October 7th Hamas terror attacks on Israel, right then and there my father’s words took form in a stunning way.
As my colleague and I entered the security lanes armed with U.N.-issued VIP passes and accompanied by a U.N. intern, I was stopped as I sent my purse through the X-ray machine.
My purse had just emerged from the machine when the female guard who was monitoring the screen asked me if she could look inside it. I said, "of course." As she dug through it, she glanced up at me and saw my necklace. I was wearing a dog tag that’s now commonly worn since October 7th to highlight the hundreds of Israelis, Americans, French, Bedouins, Thai and Bangladeshi civilians taken hostage by the terrorists. The tag is engraved with the words "Bring Them Home Now" in both English and Hebrew.
The guard reached out and grabbed the tag, scrutinized it and in an accusatory tone said, "What is this? This is religious."
Put aside for a moment the fact that religious symbols, whether they be Christian crosses, Stars of David or head scarfs, are common at the U.N. A statement about freeing hostages is not ‘religious.’
She then glared at my colleague, pointed to her dog tag necklace and poked at the charm my colleague had added that’s in the shape of the State of Israel-- the same state the U.N. played a pivotal role in establishing back in 1947 with Resolution 181.
ANTI-ISRAEL RHETORIC INTENSIFIES IN CRITICAL BATTLEGROUND CITY: 'UTTERLY CHILLING'
As I began to explain that I was attending the October 7th one-year anniversary event as the ceremony host, the guard refused to look me directly in the eye and instead pulled out from my purse the script I had prepared for the event and began reading it.
I was filled with a mix of fury and confusion.
Tensions began rising as I asked to see a supervisor. The supervisor was called and quickly arrived. He, along with two other security guards, examined my dog tag as if it were something that had fallen from outer space. I clearly stated, "I’m here for the Israeli's October 7th event. The necklace is a sign of support for the hostages." That’s when another supervisor rushed up and said, "It’s fine. You can pass through."
But I was so livid I wasn’t ready to pass through. I looked at him and said, "600 people are coming to this event, including hostage families and parents of the victims. A good number of them will be wearing these. Are you going to hold up every single one of them?"
He assured me that "going forward from this moment on" no one wearing the dog tag would be bothered by security.
So, this is where we are today.
The United Nations--an international body with a history of one-sided, hostile bias against Israel-- allows a security guard to feel she has the freedom to harass a Jewish invited guest for wearing a 1 ½ inch long metal dog tag honoring civilians who were ripped from their homes, taken hostage and shoved into terrorist tunnels where they have remained FOR A YEAR.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
It became clear to me that the U.N.'s institutional hostility toward Israel has permeated down to security guard employees clearing visitors to what is supposed to be a body encouraging understanding among diverse peoples of the world.
This is the same governing body whose mission statement is to take "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace and acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."
When the memorial event began in a U.N. auditorium chock-full of ambassadors, grieving parents of victims, clergy, and devout Muslim Ali al-Ziadna, an Arab-Israeli who saw four relatives taken hostage on October 7th, Ambassador Danon bluntly crystalized the United Nations’ ugly history of anti-Israel bias.
"We stand here today in the United Nations, an institution that has failed us time and time again," Danon said. "When the massacre of October 7th unfolded. The U.N. refused to act. It could not find the most basic morality to condemn the brutal murder of innocent civilians. Instead of standing with the innocent, this institution remained silent. Then, when it finally found its voice, it did not speak for justice. It chose to vilify the country fighting to protect its people from the monsters who massacred them. The U.N. has failed in its most basic mandate to protect the innocent and condemn evil."
In what world is slaughtering 1,200 civilians, raping and mutilating women and burning alive innocent babies not an act of aggression or a breach of the peace?
The answer: in the UN’s view of the world.
