Fair enough, you seem to be pointing towards censorship of dissenting voices within the UN. So lets first get some facts straight.

Alice Nderitu is not a lawyer nor is she a judge at ICC or ICJ, neither does she work for Amnesty. So that leaves, at least for now, their two and a maybe genocide verdicts in the clear. These remain standing.

Now lets take a closer look at Alice Nderitu. She certainly has an impressive track record as a hands-on peace keeper and mediator. She clearly understands complicated conflicts and how to defuse them. Which makes what she has to say on how to solve the conflict very important to listen to. I have a hunch that labeling active perpetrators doesn't help that proces but polarizes it. But the question of as to whether genocide has been committed is a specialized international legal issue to which she has no say.

And then the awkward and often unfair question: is she impartial? A glance at her Wiki page, suggests that this needs closer inspection. Ties to the Aspen institute (and thus to its sponsors) is just one of typical red flags that spring up. I'm not saying that she is biased (or rather loyal to Israel), just that there are clear ties to it that should be researched before drawing any conclusion. Also the exact grounds of her UN dismissal need to be studied as to whether can they be directly linked to her opinion on the genocide or that they are uncorrelated.

Let's leave it to that for now. I grew up during the cold war in Europe, the one thing we learnt to second nature is to never trust anything at face value from nobody. I have no doubt that some of the verdicts could be corrupt. What makes them plausible is that they come from different sources and that one, the ICC, is biting the US-hand that feeds it. When a dog bites its master you know that the master has gone to far. It's a break point. Personally I don't think that this one is going to go away. I expect it will expedite the long due two state solution.