This weekend, on the eve of the Jewish holiday that marks that people’s resistance to savage pagan occupation (Chanukah), the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution that is stunning in its moral blindness. It condemned all Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — two regions where Jews lived for thousands of years before an Arab set foot in Palestine.
Those regions were captured from Jordan in one of Israel’s many wars of self-defense against genocide. They have never belonged to any Palestinian state, because one has never existed. Jordan doesn’t want them back. In a series of agreements, Israel has accepted that most of those conquered regions would form the basis of a Palestinian state, if it ever felt safe in granting one.
Jews are buying land and moving to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem for a new Palestinian state; these Jews would form a tiny minority of its citizens, much smaller than the Arab contingent of Israeli citizens. So why are Jewish settlements considered an obstructionist “barrier to peace”? Why condemn Israel for letting its citizens buy land and live there?
Need Palestine be Judenrein?
The answer, of course, is obvious: Because the Palestinians are viciously intolerant of Jews, and today only Israeli troops keep the Arab majority in the conquered territories from “driv[ing] the Jews into the sea,” as the charter of Hamas promises. (Hamas is the radical Islamist terrorist organization that most Palestinians support.) Jews were violently expelled from virtually every Muslim country in 1948, from ancient communities that long pre-dated the warrior cult of Islam.
So the assumption on which the UN based its resolution is that of course the Palestinians would do that to the Jews in these territories, the moment they got the chance. Therefore, because the Palestinians are so intolerant and wanna-be genocidal, to plant Jews in the territory which the Palestinians were promised is an obstacle to peace. Have you got that? Such is the moral logic that governs the “international community.”
Israelis, being realists, know this too — and they’re not going to hand over Jews to the tender mercies of a Hamas administration. So in a sense, you could say that by settling Jews in a region, Israel is laying permanent claim to it. That need not be true, of course — if a Palestinian government could be found that wouldn’t demand that every square inch of its territory be judenrein.
The U.N. Only Holds White People to Civilized Standards
The resolution condemning Israel was classic United Nations: A preening, self-congratulatory moralistic veneer that covers blank hatred and a vicious will to power.
Indeed, as Paul Johnson documents in his classic history Modern Times, passing such resolutions and promoting such bankrupt policies has largely been the function of the United Nations since the 1950s, when the loathsome Kantian moralizer Dag Hammarskjold transformed the international body into the action arm of the “non-aligned” nations — which were almost uniformly run by vicious dictators (Castro, Nasser, Idi Amin) who drove their people into unprecedented poverty and misery.
It was Hammarskjold who cozied up to post-colonial despots, some of them guilty of genocide, while damning the Europeans who were trying to leave their colonies in some kind of livable order. According to Johnson, Hammarskjold actually said that black-on-black genocide was none of the U.N.’s business; its job was simply to remove the white man from Africa. In other words, it seems that Hammarskjold invented multiculturalism — which boiled down, is the theory that only white people can be expected to hew to civilized standards. So only they should be condemned.
The U.N. Headquarters is Already a Madhouse
The latest piece of paper from the toxic United Nations applies the same logic to Jews. Of course they should be held to the very highest canons of civil rights legislation — while we take it for granted that Arab Muslims will slaughter Jewish women and children the first time they get the chance. Just accept that moral standard, as President Obama did when he waved the resolution through, and everything makes perfect sense.
The United Nations does not serve the high ideals of peaceful cooperation and human rights for which it was founded so much as it uses them as rhetorical masks for the exercise of power. Human rights panels are frequently chaired by intolerant tyrannies like Islamist Saudi Arabia. Western nations typically send to the U.N. their most utopian, ideological representatives, who use the institution to promote a “globalist” agenda that arrogates power from democratic governments into the hands of unaccountable committees.
Austin Ruse, who for decades has fought to defend the rights of unborn children and the family, has recounted here at The Stream how the U.N. tries to impose manufactured “rights” to abortion and “transgender” recognition on unwilling elected governments. It has invented global “crises” such as “overpopulation” and climate change catastrophe to serve as the pretext for U.N. agencies to grasp for ever more power over the wealth, laws and policies of nations such as ours.
In a sane world, which perhaps President Trump will help to bring about, the U.S. would not fund the United Nations, host it, or even dignify it by being a member. New York City would be a much better place without the lavish consulates of starving Third World countries dotting the Upper East Side. Take the U.N. headquarters, that massive monument to hypocrisy and double standards, and put it to proper use: as a public mental hospital. (For more from the author of “Drive the U.N. Into the Sea” please click HERE)