Now that I spend my time teaching university students about international communication, I often reflect on my days as a speechwriter at the United Nations. I sometimes give examples from my own experiences at the Organization-how speeches are written, how communication takes place in a sometimes heated context, the personalities, the politics and how all these intersect in the inspiring and maddening place that is the United Nations.

In my classes, I tell my students stories about how I watched the principles of communication play out in the General Assembly, the Security Council or in hushed and secret meetings in other UN chambers. They seem to enjoy these reflections, some no doubt imagining themselves someday working at that grand building in New York City. It is just a shame, though, that most of the time I am using the United Nations as an example of what not to do.

I was a speechwriter for the Israeli Government at the United Nations over a particularly tumultuous period in the Middle East, which included the assassination of Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Rantisi, the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, countless Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and Israeli military actions in Palestinian civilian areas, as well as the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement from the Gaza Strip. There was a lot of action on the ground-and at the United Nations, there was definitely a lot of talk. I'm just not sure if there was, or is, ever a whole lot of listening.

At a recent meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the representative from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) left immediately after making a statement on behalf of his country. The American Ambassador, John Bolton, did not take this kindly. "I want to call your attention to that empty chair", he told the Council. "That is the second time in three months that the representative of DPRK, having asked to participate in our meetings, has rejected a unanimous resolution of the Security Council and walked out of this chamber."

The United Nations was born out of the spirit of dialogue-and walking out of a meeting certainly does not foster that spirit. The DPRK representative, however, is by no means alone in exhibiting this sort of behaviour. In fact, the United States itself, as well as so many other Member States, falls into the same unconstructive patterns, such as the reciprocal snubbing that occurred between President George Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the opening days of the sixty-first session of the General Assembly. And look at the way the United States-the delegation was completely absent, save a low-level note-taker-almost completely ignored President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela when he spoke in a vitriolic and totally unconstructive manner. The American delegation did not want to hear him and he did not want to be heard. As comedian Jon Stewart commented afterwards: "Thank God for the UN. Where would we be if world leaders didn't have a place where they could all get together and ignore one another?"

The Middle East conflict is reflected at the United Nations with this same kind of unproductive rudeness. It was a strange feeling to write speeches that I knew would be essentially ignored by a large number of UN Missions and that some other delegations would boycott completely. It was equally strange to be part of a delegation that sometimes pays little heed to or even publicly scoffs at statements by certain UN officials. There were times too, while I was part of the Israeli delegation, when we came very close to walking out of meetings in protest at what was being said. I was always relieved that we never did.

In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the complete communication breakdown is acutely obvious. There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli Government does not deal with, or listen to the voices of Palestinian suffering in a sufficiently serious manner. At the same time, however, the Palestinians and their allies blame so many extraneous details of the Middle East situation on Israel, that it is sometimes hard to discern the legitimate concerns-of which there are many-from the immense verbiage that surrounds them. I'll never forget when I witnessed a Member State blaming Israel for sibling rivalry among Palestinian children. Israel is responsible for plenty of negative things, but sibling rivalry is certainly not one of them.

When I first started at the United Nations, I was surprised by how many diplomats use it as a stage for political theatre rather than as a venue for furthering the interests of the people they are representing. Many attend meetings with the specific purpose of failing to reach agreement, so that they can report to those at home that they refused to compromise. I even saw diplomats playing to their domestic audiences in a literal manner: on more than one occasion, I was aware of high-level figures on the international stage working to change the time of a UN debate in order to better play the hardliner for those watching the evening news in their home countries. (Curiously, when I left the United Nations and started work in the Israeli Prime Minister's office, I noticed the opposite phenomenon: speeches ostensibly meant for domestic consumption were actually intended to send a message to foreign States or even foreign populations.)

Although I often miss it, my time at the United Nations is behind me. I now teach at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, one of the most multicultural universities in one of the most multicultural cities in the world. The students hail from as many places as UN delegates do. I teach them the importance of listening respectively and sincerely, and of at least trying to understand someone with an opposing point of view. Their attempts to employ these skills are often successful, as are our discussions on politics, religion, nationalism and law.

Ideally, I would be able to point to the United Nations as a model for employing the skills these students are learning-as a portrait of what to do, instead of what not to do. I firmly believe that the UN spirit is an inspiring one, and I hope that one day my students-and all students-will be able to learn something from its diplomats. For now, though, it seems like its diplomats could learn something from them.