More particularly, Israel was the only UN member excluded from its various regional groupings. It should be part of the Asian grouping. However, Arab Muslim states have barred its membership. Due to that ban, Israel can’t sit on the Security Council or on other main UN bodies.
The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, on the other hand, was awarded a ‘permanent representative status’ by the General Assembly in 1975. The PLO even opened an office in Manhattan, New York. Later, in 1988, the PLO’s representative status was upgraded by the General Assembly, which designated it as ‘Palestine’.
What powers did the PLO have as a result of its place in the UN? Bizarrely, considering that the PLO was a terrorist group, it could then enter into discussions about peace processes when in the General Assembly, as well as draft resolutions on the Middle East generally.
In 1974, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. He did so with a gun holster attached to his hip. In his speech he referred to his carrying a gun and an olive branch.
Above all this, the UN established a special unit on Palestine which became part of the UN Secretariat.
Another Arab autocracy, or family fiefdom (at least until now), Syria, is also a member of the UN. More specifically, this sponsor of terrorism and practitioner of state torture and mass killings, began a two-year stint on the UN Security Council in 2002 and it even served as president of the body in June of that year.
Bearing in mind the UN’s penchant for Muslim autocracies and dictatorships, along with its liking for the PLO, it won’t be a surprise that many commentators have been very critical of the UN as a whole. Jean Kirkpatrick, a former UN Ambassador, wrote:
‘The UN has the image of a world organisation based on universal principles of justice and equality. In reality, when the chips are down, it is nothing other than the executive committee of Third World dictatorships.’
In other words, the UN does not concern itself much with grandiloquent rules and principles. What it does is represent the specific ideologies of its members and those states which support other UN members.
It is of course the UN’s attitude towards Israel which clearly shows us the truly political nature of UN members and even of the UN as a whole.
The UN is very concerned with Israel’s behaviour. It’s like an over-strict parent, or rather, more like an evil step dad.
The way the UN keeps its beady eyes on Israel is through its various investigative committees, special representatives and ‘rapporteurs’. These various guises of the UN have dealt with Israel more times than any other member-country.
For example, the Special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel fifty-one times during 27 years of activity. That’s right. 51 times in 27 years. That’s almost twice a year for 27 years.
Now take the Commission on Human Rights at the UN. This may seem bizarre, but if you add up all the condemnations of the Commission it can be seen that, up until 2005, 26% of them referred to Israel alone. Place that startling fact alongside the parallel cases of, say, Syria and Libya. These dictatorships have never been criticised by the Commission on Human Rights. Never.
The Security Council too has been very selective when it comes to its condemnations. Whereas the Security Council has very frequently condemned Israel, it didn’t once criticise the PLO and it hasn’t done the same to the hundreds of thousands of Arab attacks on Israel.
Take also the UN’s ‘Emergency Special sessions’. Virtually every time there has been an Emergency session it has been about Israel. Put it this way. It was never convened over Bosnia, the mass carnage in Rwanda, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor (in which hundreds of thousands died), or China’s occupation of Tibet.
Perhaps the most blatant example of the UN’s extreme bias against Israel was the General Assembly approval of Resolution 3379, which characterised Zionism as a ‘form of racism’. This characterisation of Zionism seems strange when one realises that the UN never once used the word ‘anti-Semitism’ before November, 1998. That was when the UN was fifty years old.
You can conclude from all this that although the UN is officially ‘anti-racist’, it is not that bothered - or bothered at all - about anti-Semitism in the world. That is because so many UN members are either Muslim or Arab, many times they are both. For example, in 1983, the Libyan UN Representative, Ali Treiki, asked the following rhetorical question at the UN:
‘Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?’
Not wanting to be outdone by Libyan Muslims, the Saudi Arabian delegate, Marouf al-Dawalibi, stood before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission and said:
‘The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.’
Seven years later than that, in 1991, it was Syria’s turn. The Syrian Ambassador to the UN made it plain that the Jews killed Christian children in order to use their blood to make matzos.
Now if someone were to say that all these libels are examples of ‘anti-Zionism’ rather than of anti-Semitism, he would have to be either extremely retarded or extremely duplicitous.
The UN Against the US and Israel
Not that Arab and/or Muslim states have had it all their own way.
The United States has always been a good friend of Israel, as everyone knows. However, it is certainly not the case that the US has supported Israel on every occasion, (for instance, with regard to the ‘Suez Crisis’.) In 1977, the US withdrew from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) for two years because of that organisation’s blatant anti-Israel position. Seven years later, in 1984, the US also withdrew from UNESCO, again, because of that organisation’s position on Israel. Finally, in 2001, the US joined Israel in boycotting the UN World Conference Against Racism when it came to realise that this conference didn’t seem to recognise anti-Semitism as a kind of racism. More than that. The boycotting nations realised that this ‘anti-racist’ conference was itself a hotbed of racism towards the Jews of Israel and elsewhere.
As I wrote earlier. The United States hasn’t supported Israel on every occasion. For example, in December 1990, the US condemned Israel for expelling four leaders of Hamas. They were expelled because of their roles in many terrorist outrages against both Jews and Arabs. This is where the blatant UN bias against Israel can be seen again. The resolution against Israel’s expelling of four Hamas terrorists did not even include a single word about Hamas and its terrorist record. (Just as the UN never criticised the PLO in earlier times.) Indeed things got worse than that for Israel. The Security Council called on the Geneva Convention to sort Israel out. This was the first time that the UN had invoked the Convention against a member-state.
The same kind of thing happened again in January, 1992, only this time 12 Palestinian terrorists were involved. Israel expelled 12 Palestinian terrorists and was then condemned by the US for doing so. Again, Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and others, did not seem to register on the UN’s radar.
However, in July 2002, the United States reversed its policy on these issues. It stated that it would veto any Security Council resolution that failed to mention, and also to condemn, Palestinian terrorism as well as to name Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade as the groups responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel.