Manipulating the dynamics of domination at the UN

In his recent speech to the UN Security Council, Israel’s Permanent Representative, Ron Prosor, attempted to manipulate perception of the turmoil assailing the Middle East by expounding upon Israel’s definition of freedom. Invoking discourse acceptable to imperialism, the speech commenced with a vivid distinction between nations upon the grounds of conviction, conscience and courage – elements which are incessantly reverberated in official discourse pertaining to the alleged defence of liberty, democracy and human rights.

“As the political landscape of the Middle East evolves, the international community must demonstrate resolve.” Prosor’s comment fails to identify what constitutes the international community, embarking upon an apparent inclusion while applying the selective criteria of elitist eligibility – namely the countries which have, for decades, ensured the rapacious colonisation of the Middle East as worthy of addressing the current situation in the region. The ensuing discussion regarding rights and freedom must be perceived as an exercise through which human rights are disassociated from any form of moral or legal accountability due to the imposition of a superior force emanating from the imperial framework.

The speech highlights the ramifications of the new Iranian leadership and the country’s nuclear programme, the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East, sanctions, the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, the UN in relation to Israel and the alleged commitment to a two state solution. The attempt to criticise the situation in the Middle East by Israel or its allies evokes a heightened sense of the abstract, embellished by terminology such as ‘conscience’, used in relation to the use of chemical weapons. “It’s hard for most of us to conceive that anyone, much less a government, would use chemical weapons against its own innocent civilians.” Prosor’s statement verifies a trend in imperialist action, which has repeatedly used chemical weapons against ‘other civilians’ – notable examples include Fallujah, Vietnam and Gaza. Prosor and the ambiguous conscience he evokes equate irrationality with those deemed unworthy of possessing chemical weapons, as opposed to the actual use of weapons against any echelon of humanity.

Despite allusions to ‘conviction’ – another vaguely applied term which substitutes a comprehensive accountability for the rhetoric of concern, Prosor once again creates divisions to imply that not all countries are capable of achieving this elevated state. Once again, the discernment depends on whether the country in question acquiesces to imperial domination, which would earn it the reputation of being politically aware yet unable to assert its conviction due to exclusion from the imperial framework.

The illegal occupation of Palestine is discussed under the ambivalence of courage, distorting the peace negotiations into an equivocal desire when Israelis “can live free from divisions, hatred and violence”. The aim to distance the state of Israel from its violations of international law is exposed in the discussion of ‘myths’ allegedly pertaining to Palestinian distortion of history. From Resolution 181 referring to the partition of Palestine, Prosor dismisses decades of history in order to lament Palestinian opposition to the two-state solution and a tenacious adherence to the right of return.

Italian philosopher Antonio Negri (2008) argues that “power is violence which legitimates itself through its own exercise … Today the state of exception is called preventive war, never-ending war”. Prosor’s speech has visibly articulated the dynamics of domination in which Israel participates together with its imperial allies and the UN, manipulating reality into a series of subjectivity aimed at exploiting the subjugation of intellectual and moral capacity.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.