In an earlier blog I wrote about how UN General Assembly Resolutions were seriously flawed in the concepts and wording they used in an effort to bring about what can be presented as a solution to some real problems. Today I want to focus on how those resolutions, which are recommendations only, and are NOT statements of what is loosely termed International Law, are actually used to exacerbate some of the very situations they are supposed to be helping.
I could start with resolutions regarding Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea. But there really is no reason to do so because the Russians simply ignore the UN when it serves their interest. But the thing I want to look at is that package of resolutions about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Let’s look at what is said, in part, in Resolution 3236. One part starts which “recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means.” The Palestinians claim “all means” includes attacking and killing Israeli civilians, which is why PA leaders claim that Palestinian terrorists are legitimate “freedom fighters” and why Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, to mention only one case out of many, made a speech on Palestine Authority TV supporting the idea that Israelis should be killed,
The continuation of that section of the resolution says “in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations…” The UN Charter, of course, prohibits targeting civilians, even in war. Chapter 1, Article 1, opens by saying that “international disputes” should be resolved “by peaceful means.” But that is not the way the Palestinians see it. They chose to oppose the original Partition Resolution by force of arms and have never changed that stance. They cry foul and call Israeli forces War criminals when any Palestinian is killed or injured. This includes the women and children they often use as human shields. On the other side of their mouths they encourage all Arabs to try to harm Israelis. This is fair because of the wording of the UN resolution mentioned above. It seems to me that there has not been such a blatant example of “doublespeak” since the days of Stalin.
Wetherhorn 