There are moments in international affairs when the words spoken in a room become more important than the agenda written on the paper. There are moments when the manner in which we debate becomes a reflection of the values we claim to defend. The exchange that took place at the United Nations between Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon and Malta's Vanessa Frazier was one such moment.

It was not merely an argument between two diplomats. It was a reminder of the fragile balance between political disagreement and the principles that should govern international dialogue: respect, accountability and the protection of human dignity.

The United Nations was gathered to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict - a day created to ensure that the suffering of victims of war is neither ignored nor forgotten. It is a solemn occasion dedicated to people who have endured some of the worst forms of cruelty imaginable. It is therefore deeply regrettable that the discussion descended into personal confrontation.

Strong disagreements are part of diplomacy. They are expected. Nations will defend their interests, challenge reports and question conclusions. But disagreement cannot become an excuse for intimidation, personal attacks or attempts to silence another voice.

When Vanessa Frazier intervened and reminded the ambassador that the discussion should not become personal. She was not defending a political position. She was defending a principle: that institutions of international importance must operate through argument and evidence, not through hostility.

A diplomat's strength is not measured by the volume of his voice, but by the strength of his reasoning.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the wider context. The report that triggered the exchange concerns some of the most serious allegations imaginable - allegations of sexual violence committed during armed conflict. Such accusations must never be treated lightly, regardless of who is accused or who the victims are. Sexual violence in war is not a political weapon; it is a crime against human beings and an attack on the dignity of society itself.

Every victim deserves to be heard. Every allegation deserves a serious and impartial examination. Every perpetrator, whoever they may be, must be held accountable.

This principle must apply universally. It cannot depend on nationality, religion, political alliances or the identity of the accused.

The suffering of Israeli victims of sexual violence during the attacks carried out by Hamas must not be dismissed or minimised. Equally, allegations of abuses against Palestinian civilians must not be ignored simply because they are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. A genuine commitment to human rights requires consistency.

Justice loses its meaning when it becomes selective.

This is why international institutions matter. They exist precisely because individual states, especially during periods of conflict, often see events through the lens of survival, security and national interest. Independent mechanisms are necessary to examine facts, verify evidence and provide a measure of accountability when emotions run high.

But these institutions must also protect their own credibility. Their findings must be transparent. Their methods must withstand scrutiny. Their conclusions must be based on evidence rather than perception.

Criticism of international bodies is legitimate. Indeed, healthy criticism is necessary. The United Nations, like every institution created by human beings, is not beyond examination. Reports must be questioned. Procedures must be reviewed. Errors, if they occur, must be corrected.

However, questioning an institution is different from undermining the people working within it through personal attacks.

The ambassador's frustration with the report is understandable from Israel's perspective. A country facing international criticism and security threats will naturally defend itself. But diplomacy requires more than defending one's position; it requires the ability to engage with uncomfortable realities.

The same applies to all sides.

For Malta, and for Maltese representatives serving internationally, there is a particular responsibility. Our country has always believed in multilateralism, dialogue and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We have long understood that small states have influence not through power, but through credibility.

That credibility depends on standing for principles even when the circumstances are difficult.

Vanessa Frazier's intervention should therefore be viewed within that tradition. She was not merely representing Malta; she was representing a wider expectation that international forums must remain places where disagreement is possible without disrespect becoming the language of debate.

The world is already witnessing enough violence. It does not need more aggression in the rooms where solutions are supposed to be found.

The tragedy of the current conflicts is that civilians continue to suffer while political leaders argue. Children lose their lives. Families are destroyed. Hostages endure unimaginable trauma. Communities are left carrying wounds that will take generations to heal.

The least the international community can do is ensure that the pursuit of justice remains grounded in humanity.

There is a danger today that every discussion becomes reduced to choosing a side. One must either defend Israel or defend Palestinians. One must either support a report or reject it entirely. One must either accept a narrative or condemn another.

But human rights cannot work like a flag raised by one side against another.

The correct position is far more demanding: to recognise suffering wherever it occurs, to demand accountability wherever crimes are committed, and to insist that every human life has equal value.

The events at the United Nations should not only be remembered because of a heated exchange between diplomats. They should remind us of something deeper: that the way we discuss justice is itself part of the pursuit of justice.

If international institutions are to maintain authority, they must protect both truth and dignity. If diplomacy is to survive, it must allow disagreement without humiliation. If humanity is to move forward, it must reject the idea that defending one victim requires denying another.

The world needs more courage in confronting wrongdoing - but it also needs more humility in the way that courage is expressed.

Silencing voices will never create peace. Respectful dialogue may not immediately end conflicts, but without it, lasting peace will always remain impossible.

That is the lesson we should take from this moment.

Dr Adrian Delia is the Nationalist Party's Shadow Minister for finance