Successor to the Nazis

No difference between the UN and the PLO.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg,

Paul Eidelberg
Paul Eidelberg
PR
On November 7, 1975, the United Nations endowed the PLO with observer status in the General Assembly. Three days later, the Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 which states that "Zionism is Racism." A profound and deadly irony underlies these resolutions.

Recall that the UN was created in 1945 as a reaction to Nazism, which had precipitated World War II and the
That resolution was a tacit declaration of war against Israel and the Jewish people.
Holocaust. However, in 1975, when the PLO was entrenched in the General Assembly, it became the successor to the Nazis. That resolution was a tacit declaration of war against Israel and the Jewish people. The UN opened its doors to the PLO and thereby legitimized a worldwide terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.

The PLO should be viewed as the spearhead of the UN. It was only after the PLO was given observer status that one proposed resolution after another, hitherto quashed, was passed condemning Israel and questioning its legitimacy. Since the Arabs could not defeat Israel on the battlefield, they used the PLO and its presence in the UN to defame and destroy the "Zionist entity".

The balance of power in the UN's Human Rights Council is held by the Organization of the Islamic Conference - a consortium of despotic Islamic regimes that contradicts the UN Charter. The OIC, Alex Grobman points out, "adamantly maintains that the definition of terrorism never include 'armed struggle for liberation and self-determination,' so that when Arab terrorists blow up Jewish men, women and children in synagogues, cafes, shopping malls, pizza ships, buses, and discotheques, it is acceptable and justifiable."

When Oriana Fallaci questioned Yasser Arafat about whether he was seeking peace, he replied: "We don't want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel's destruction and nothing else.... We shall fight on to victory. Even for decades, for generations, if necessary." This accords with the jihadi ethos - and Islam has the largest bloc of states in the UN.

As Bernard Lewis points out, there is no bloc of Christian or Buddhist states that meets and decides on a common course of action at the UN. In contrast, "Some fifty-five Muslim governments, including monarchies and republics, conservatives and revolutionaries, practitioners of capitalism and disciples of various kinds of socialism, friends and enemies of the United States, and exponents of a whole spectrum of shades of neutrality, have built up an elaborate apparatus of international consultation and even, on some occasions, of cooperation. They hold regular high-level conferences, and, despite differences of structure, ideology, and policy, [they] have achieved a significant measure of agreement and common action."

Given the power of the Islamic bloc in the UN and Islam's worldwide network of mosques preaching jihad and hatred of the Western civilization in general, and of America and Israel in particular, it is not only absurd and comic, but also self-demeaning and self-destructive for the US and Israel to remain in the UN.

In 1975, Senator Patrick Moynihan, US Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that the US should remain in opposition to the UN. In contrast, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said the UN was not worth saving and that the US should "let it sink." By remaining in the UN, both the US and Israel undermine what is most needed in this nihilistic age, moral clarity.

Moral clarity is especially needed with respect to Islam, which Bat Ye'or called a "culture of hate," but which, for that reason, may be called a "culture of evil." What else can be said of Iran, the emerging superpower of the Middle East, that preaches "death to America" and "death to Israel"? What else can be said of Saudi Arabia, which finances terrorist groups to implement these maledictions? The UN has become a generator of this evil, which far outweighs any good some obscure UN agency may serve to relieve poverty and disease in Africa, where it has actually contributed to inter-tribal conflict.

Consider the United Nations Relief and Works Administration. UNRWA has perpetuated the stagnation of Arabs in refugee camps that have become seedbeds of terrorism, and which PLO propaganda exploits to magnify hatred of Israel.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has collaborated with Hizbullah. Armed with thousands of missiles from Iran conveyed via Syria, Hizbullah has gained control of Lebanon. Instead of serving the cause of peace, UNIFIL actually contributed to Hizbullah's attack on Israel and the Second Lebanon War.

Hence, the UN, in the name of peace, is pursuing the genocidal cause of Nazism, the destruction of Israel.

I see no practical difference between the UN and the PLO vis-a-vis Israel. When Arafat admitted to Oriana Fallaci that "peace for us means Israel's destruction and nothing else," he was making explicit what is implicit in the UN's "Zionism is Racism" resolution. What else does this declaration of war against Zionism mean if not the elimination of Israel? The elimination of Israel would be the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Problem."

Although the "Zionism is Racism" resolution was rescinded by the UN, rescinded were only words on a piece of paper. The genocidal effect of that resolution remains. The UN has not promoted peace; it has not promoted collective security; it has not promoted or protected freedom and human rights; in short, the UN is the enemy of the very ends for which it was originally established. In short, the UN is a noisome and noxious failure.

Hence, no intellectually honest and upright nation should remain in this den of iniquity. Of all nations, Israel should take the lead in quitting this organization, whose anti-Israel resolutions have anti-Semitic or Nazi-like motives.

What does Israel have to lose by taking this step? Israel will not forfeit its legitimacy. The UN has repeatedly made nonsense of Israel's legitimacy by denying its right to defend itself against PLO terrorists. This is precisely the effect of the UN Goldstone Commission Report, which denounced Israel's retaliation against Hamas, a terrorist group whose charter, like that of the PLO, calls for Israel's annihilation.

Moreover, by ruling that the definition of terrorism cannot be applied to groups engaged in armed struggle for self-determination, the UN places Hamas on the same level as Israel. Hence, the UN is steeped not in moral
The UN has not promoted peace; it has not promoted collective security.
equivalence, but in moral reversal, which makes nonsense of the legitimacy of any UN member and therefore of the UN itself. Furthermore, the UN's countless resolutions condemning Israel, while never condemning Israel's Arab assailants, is not only a manifestation of moral reversal, but also a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example:

Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Article 30: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

What would Israel gain by quitting the UN and calling for the establishment of a United Nations of democratic states committed to peace, prosperity, and human dignity - a UN that would help poor nations achieve these ends? Israel will then be true to its historic mission: it will not only promote moral clarity and serve as a beacon of light to mankind; it will also help alleviate human suffering by placing its extraordinary scientific and medical knowledge at the service of humanity without being obstructed by UN-generated anti-Semitism.


More Arutz Sheva videos:


top