Recently, a former ambassador to Israel posted a lengthy message on social media, quickly republished by a pro-Israel website in what appeared to be a coordinated effort. Compelled to respond, I found his message riddled with inaccuracies and lacking basic regional insight, despite his five years in Israel.
The ambassador leans on a predictable Israeli narrative designed to deflect from the core issue—the occupation of Palestinian land. For years, Israel has leveraged its relationship with consecutive U.S. administrations to shift attention from its occupation, focusing on figures like Saddam Hussein, and now Iran, while framing the Palestinian struggle as a mere humanitarian issue instead of the deeply political one it is. For this reason, I will focus specifically on the Palestinian issues in the ambassador’s commentary.
In his remarks, the ambassador claims October 7 of last year marked the start of recent conflicts. This oversimplification might sway some readers into believing that regional turmoil began only last year. Yet, he goes further, attributing the root cause to a judgment by “Israel’s enemies that their time had come,” revealing a fundamental lack of understanding of the complex historical context.
The ambassador’s oversight of the real root cause—decades of military occupation, systemic discrimination, and disregard for international law and U.N. resolutions—exposes a serious blind spot in his analysis. Any accurate perspective must address longstanding injustices preceding his chosen timeline.
1. Settlements in Occupied Territories: Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory. These expanding settlements, and the violence they bring against Palestinians, have drawn international condemnation.
2. Collective Punishment: The blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as collective punishment, violating international humanitarian law. This blockade severely restricts access to essential services for over two million Palestinians, fueling a humanitarian crisis.
3. Disproportionate Use of Military Force: Israeli military operations in Gaza have often been criticized for disproportionate impact on civilians. Significant casualties, especially among women and children, are reported during these escalations.
4. Destruction of Civilian Infrastructure: Attacks on civilian buildings and infrastructure, including homes, schools, and hospitals, violate international law. Such actions lead to material destruction and tragic loss of life.
5. Restrictions on Movement: Israeli measures, including checkpoints and the separation barrier, severely limit Palestinians’ freedom of movement, cutting access to work, healthcare, and education. International bodies have deemed these restrictions illegal.
6. Human Rights Abuses of Political Prisoners: Reports of arbitrary arrests, torture, and lack of due process for Palestinian prisoners are widespread. Significant numbers of Palestinians, including minors, face detention without trial, raising serious human rights concerns.
7. Ignoring U.N. Resolutions: Israel’s repeated disregard of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for withdrawal from occupied territories and dismantling settlements has fueled tensions and a lack of accountability for actions deemed illegal under international law.
The former ambassador embraced a one-sided Israeli narrative, reducing a complex issue to a single root cause and making a far-fetched connection between Middle Eastern conflicts and recent protests in European and North American cities, where ordinary people, wrapped in Palestinian flags, expressed solidarity. He implies that these demonstrators—diverse groups, including students and community members—are influenced by Middle Eastern actors. This view dismisses the genuine emotions of people who, through global media, have witnessed brutal injustices, suffering, and destruction inflicted by Israel—not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and across Palestine. These individuals protested from a sense of humanity, disillusioned by governments claiming to uphold human rights while staying silent in the face of these atrocities.
The ambassador then justifies Israel’s actions, framing its genocidal war on Gaza as necessary to restore “deterrence.” He suggests Israel “had no other option” but to take extreme measures, downplaying the devastating toll: the deaths of over 16,000 children and 11,000 women, the destruction of schools, hospitals, places of worship, and the targeting of medical personnel and journalists. For a senior diplomat to portray these actions as essential to restoring Israel’s deterrent power is alarming, as he appears to endorse not only the war but even a permanent occupation of Gaza, regardless of horrific costs to human life and diplomatic credibility.
While the ambassador repeatedly invokes “self-defense” to justify the war on Gaza and Lebanon, he ignores the fact that Israel occupies Palestinian land and parts of Lebanon—the real starting point for any discussion on defense. Israel’s unprecedented military onslaught on Gaza, backed by U.S. diplomatic and military support, appears far removed from internationally recognized standards of lawful self-defense: immediacy, simultaneity, and proportionality. Israel’s actions do not reflect these principles, suggesting something far from genuine self-defense.
Further, the ambassador never acknowledges Palestinians’ right to self-defense, a right that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter grants to any nation under attack until the U.N. Security Council can restore peace. Ironically, rather than proposing diplomatic solutions, the ambassador leans toward further violence. Would he care to explain what alternatives the Israeli government has offered?
This Israeli administration, under Netanyahu, has escalated regional tensions and openly dismissed the prospect of peace, with Netanyahu himself opposing the Oslo Accords in 1993. Unsurprisingly, the Israeli Knesset voted against establishing a Palestinian state. Let’s be clear: a Palestinian state exists, recognized by nearly 150 countries, including the nation the ambassador represents, yet it remains under occupation. Netanyahu has advanced the misleading notion that a Palestinian state cannot exist outside of negotiations. But negotiations should address contentious issues—Jerusalem, water, borders—not deny the existence of a state. Curiously, the ambassador refers to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, though the country he represents does not recognize it as such. For any diplomat, international law should guide foreign policy.
U.N. resolutions clarify that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void. Resolution 476 reiterates this, while Resolution 478 condemns Israel’s claim to Jerusalem in the “Basic Law,” and the U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly requested that diplomatic missions not be located in Jerusalem.
If the ambassador intended objectivity, he would avoid loaded Israeli terminology—such as “Jewish State” five times in his post. Benjamin Netanyahu first used the term “the Jewish state” prominently in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 2011, emphasizing it in the context of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
The ambassador closes by lauding values Israel purportedly represents, suggesting they are in decline in the West. Perhaps he hasn’t spoken with ordinary citizens in Western countries who, after witnessing over a year of ongoing genocide, question what values Israel now stands for. To assert that Israel’s “successes” reflect the permanence of these values ignores the many who view the Israeli government, particularly under Netanyahu’s watch, as embodying a regime bent on war, increasingly isolated, and operating with unbridled impunity.
Dr. Fadi ELHUSSEINI
Ambassador of Palestine to Hungary
