Reply #60: This is not true

[aranthus]

First, I didn't say that the UN is irrelevant. I said that UN resolutions are irrelevant to a discussion of right and wrong. In particular I was saying that UNGAR 194 was irrelevant to the issue of whether the Palestinians have a "Right of Return". As I will show further down, the UN does more than merely pass resolutions, so it has some usefulness. Second, and more important, the UN did not create Israel; the Israelis did.

Sanctioned its inception. Again, not true. The history of UNGAR 181 is somewhat complex, and the Resolution is long, but you should take a look at it. It does not sanction anything. 181 is about this: The British were ruling Palestine because they conquered it in World War Two. they had the League of Nations rubber stamp that conquest in I believe 1920. Then in 1947, they wanted to abandon Palestine. They knew that when they did, the Jews would declare a state, the Arabs of Palestine would go to war to prevent it, and the Jews were probably going to get massacred when the Arab states joined the war. The British also knew because they were conspiring with the Jordanians) that Jordan was going to insure that was not going to be a Palestinian state win, lose, or draw. Because of all of this, the British wanted the UN to rubber stamp their withdrawal from Palestine, just as the League had rubber stamped the original conquest. So the British told the UN to declare an end to the Mandate. since the UN does what the member governments tell it to do, the UN declared an end to the Mandate. It also made recommendations to the British as to what the British should do before they left. The interesting thing is that the British made very clear before the resolution was even voted on that they were not going to do anything that the UN was about to recommend. So the resolution ultimately doesn't mean what you say it does.

What is really going on here is that you assume that Israel is otherwise illegitimate, and that it needs UN sanction to justify its existence. It's really a backhanded attack on Israel's right to exist. Is there a UN resolution sanctioning France? Or Japan? Do those states lack legitimacy because the UN hasn't legislated in their favor? Of course not. Israel has the same right to exist as France, Japan, Italy, or any other state, and the UN has nothing to do with it.

To ignore this part of history is wrong. Obviously, I haven't ignored the history of the Partition Resolution, or its text, which I have read several times. To the contrary, I think it is a stark proof of my ultimate point that UN resolutions have no moral value.

It's completely fair, honest, and right to call you out on that.

You cannot have it both ways and then continually cry that folks are putting words in your mouth.

How have I tried to have it both ways? I haven't claimed that the UN is the moral justification for Israel, you have. You're wrong. The moral justification for Israel is the same as for any other state, and the UN has nothing to do with it.

By stating that Resolutions are always irrelevant you are undercutting key processes of the the UN itself.

In so doing you are denuding the UN of authority.

Yes. By claiming that UN resolutions have no moral authority I am claiming that the UN has no moral authority.

In so doing you are taking away any role the UN plays or has played. No I am not. The UN has many roles that have nothing to do with UN resolutions. The UN acts as a forum for countries to speak to the world. It acts as a meeting place for countries to talk to each other. It provides a political umbrella for common projects such as the WHO and UNICEF. It provides political cover for actions that UN member states are going to take (such as the two Gulf Wars). Just because the place has become a moral cesspool doesn't mean that the UN plays no role at all.