UNdoing The World's Business

The United States is the center of the diplomatic world. That's been the case for quite a while. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in establishing the League of Nations – even if the United States never joined. And the establishment of the United Nations during World War II was, in large part, based on American initiatives. In 1945 that newly-organized body was formally established when the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, and eventually was headquartered in Turtle Bay on land donated by the Rockefellers. It was a noble endeavor.

There were many reasons for constituting the organization – initially it derived from the formation of an alliance to defeat the Axis powers, but, by the time it was finally established, the war was over. Nonetheless it was believed that a forum where all nations could meet and talk would be preferable to multiple discussions and multiple treaties between nations, and it was felt that problems could be talked out and wars averted. Honorable goals, indeed.

Declarations of rights followed, and agencies were formed in order to deal with particular problems – problems whose solution would benefit us all, but primarily the impoverished, oppressed, and needy around the world. We might approximate Wendell Willkie's goal of One World.

It didn't take long to discover, however, that serious problems existed. Perhaps the most obvious of these was the veto, that allowed certain nations to block decisions of the Security Council – the most important action organ of the UN. The veto, itself, however, made sense on paper. It was clear that when the organization admitted more members – members who may not have aided in the defeat of the Axis – they might outvote the “heavy lifters” who had done the bulk of the fighting and dying during the war, the nations that founded the UN, and those nations might use the UN for their own purposes. Giving the founders, nations large in power but small in numbers, the power to block actions that might involve them in popular whims, more war, or anything else undesirable, was considered a wise action.

The result, however, was that these powerful nations, with different national interests and agendas, used their veto in the service of political aims, and they have done so to the present. Vetoes provide bargaining leverage when that is needed, and the illusion of being in control, although they know that countries that were once their allies could also veto their own favored programs. Perhaps these were unintended consequences, but they should have been anticipated.

What's left, then, is a General Assembly quite capable of righteous indignation and of talking, but a Security Council that can stymie any meaningful action – and almost invariably does. And the result is that the founders have “protected” their interests in the Council, but the other nations have hijacked the General Assembly. (And they've manipulated it – for example, making Israel the scapegoat for all the world's problems while they ignore the wars, genocides, and tyrannies around the world. Their words result largely from antisemitism and economics, but are framed in the jargon of political correctness and liberal ideology. It's Israel now, but could be another nation once Israel is out of the way.)

That is not to say that the UN doesn't have useful projects which, when not used as political tools, help the disadvantaged. There are efforts to improve health and to feed the needy; there are scientific projects and programs that provide aid in time of natural disaster. But when it comes to man-made disasters – actions and situations that might be viewed as suggesting responsibility – the UN is likely to be paralyzed by one or more of its members. And that's the case when conflict benefits one of the founding nations. Nations are more concerned about their own interests than the benefit of the world.

What are our interests? Specifically, how do we benefit from the UN? Has that organization achieved what it aimed at? Unfortunately there are still many wars, and there have been many murderous attacks to which the UN has not responded. The organization may have provided a forum for talk, but it has not prevented war, because war, murder, and even malicious speech are the acts of people – even if only a minority of people – people who have only their own interests at heart. And while they may try to affect the words and actions of the United Nations, they will not be affected by it. Their personal, and to a lesser extent their national, interests are all they care about. And they want the world to care about them too.

Has the UN made other alliances unnecessary? NATO, the EU, Confédération Interalliée des Sous-Officiers de Réserve (CISOR), the Islamic Military Alliance, the Peninsula Shield Force, and numerous other organizations suggest that this is not the case. Many such treaties and alliances exist outside the UN even though they should have been eliminated long ago.

Sad to note, however, the UN failure has not come cheap. The United States is assessed more than all the other founders combined for “peacekeeping” operations. Erin R. Graham , in an opinion essay in yesterday's Washington Post – one attempting to minimize and justify the cost to the US, – notes that “The United States also pays an estimated 28 percent of U.N. Peacekeeping budgets, due to its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member on the Security Council” but omits any mention of the far smaller assessments for the other “veto-bearing member[s].” It is of interest that our country, which supplies a home for the organization, also pays 22 percent of its total annual budget.

And there are costs to New York and to New Yorkers. In addition to the loss of valuable property in mid-town Manhattan, and the taxes that would accrue from it, there is the inconvenience of street closings and traffic congestion during General Assembly sessions. Not to be overlooked is the fat that the diplomats from many countries have immunity to all our laws, and, most annoyingly, are exempt from the parking and other regulations which we must observe.

The UN has failed, and we are all paying a high price for that failure. One solution (and I'll have more to say on the subject next week) is withdrawal from the UN and utilization of the property on which it stands. The billions saved by not supporting its bureaucracy and operations could be used to fund the kinds of health and agriculture projects which have been successful – without a “middle man” to drain off some of what we offer. And the absence of an outside controller would give us a greater ability to act in a timely manner.

Obviously it's not that simple. But the first step is acknowledgment that our hopes for unity and world peace have not been met. Perhaps we'd be better off if we were not at the center of the diplomatic world.

The Final Perek

I wrote a few months ago about my concerns regarding the relationship between Israel and the United States. I'd like to add to what I said then, but with emphasis on what I fear may be the final outcome of the conflict in the Middle East. My fear is based on both history and future demographics, in addition to the attitudes of the world's nations.

One of the most beloved of books in the Jewish literature is entitled Pirkei Avot, literally Chapters of the Fathers. It is, primarily, one of the tractates from the Babylonian Talmud – Avot – and deals with the history of the Torah and the implications of Jewish law regarding right and wrong and proper behavior on the part of individual Jews. The original tractate consists of five chapters but a sixth was added – probably in pre-Geonic times, more than thirteen hundred years ago – when it became customary to read these lessons in the six weeks between Pesach and Shavuot, the period from the escape from Egypt in biblical times until the Jews received the Torah at Mount Sinai. (The work included the period from Moses to the time of the Sages.) The chapters are arranged to educate the Jewish People, and to inspire them and improve their behavior so that they would gain the greatest benefit from the Torah, which we receive symbolically each year.

But in addition to the travails of the Jews before the epiphany at Sinai, the time since as been marked by a long campaign of defamation and oppression. There is no need to review specific incidents, though they were many, for it is clear that the history of antisemitism is a long one. What has become obvious, however, is that the battle against the Jews has entered a new, and perhaps concluding, phase. And Avot is not up-to-date, but it still guides us.

It's interesting, though coincidental, that Islam originated in the same era as the weekly reading of Avot. Islam traces its roots back to Abraham and has adopted Jewish teachings within the Qur’an, though Muslims view the Qur'an as “The Final Testament.”  While he originally admired the Jewish People, when his attempts to convert them all to his faith were unsuccessful, Muhammad formed a less favorable view and his followers have hardened their positions further. Jews and Christians, “people of the Book” (he viewed the “old” and “new” testaments as components of the Bible and the basis for the Qur’an) were considered dhimmis, potentially protected – though second class – citizens of a Muslim state, who were required to pay a special tax. They were tolerated – but barely. We may have had the same ancestor, but we have very different outlooks.

Despite their origin geographically and historically, therefore, there are many differences between Muslims and Jews, only two of which are worth mention at this time because they have implications in regard to the final outcome of the current contention. One relates to the view of life. First, although for Jews a threat to life justifies the violation of Sabbath laws, and self-injury or placing one's life in jeopardy is forbidden, for the Muslim, death is preferable to violation of Shariah (Islamic law). Hence the following from the London Times:

A man was arrested in Dubai after he fought off lifeguards trying to save his drowning daughter, telling them that he would rather she die than be “dishonoured” [sic] by having unknown men touch her.

“Honor killings,” based on the perception that a woman has dishonored her family by being courted by a man not chosen or approved by her family, or even being raped, are, sadly, more common than we might want to believe. And the use of children as shields in some military actions – with their deaths predictable and often desired for political reasons, further reflects a view of life and death different from our own. As does the whole idea of martyrdom and its rewards.  Dying to kill Israelis is martyrdom.

I am also troubled by the whole idea of taqiya. Dan Perkins wrote in “The Hill,” a Washington newspaper “for and about Congress,”

“One of the guiding forces is called taqiya. This principle is sometimes referred to as dissimulation. Dissimulation, is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth from an infidel -- in our case America is the infidel. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth.

Muslims are taught from a very young age, that when they deal with infidels they do not have to do what they have said they’re going to do.

The concept stems from the words of Muhammad in the Qur'an: “War is deceit.” A treaty with a Muslim government is suspect. Relying, therefore, on the Iranians to inspect their own military installation in Parchin, for example, is not wise.

Adding to the deceit that Islam promotes, and the eagerness to die that it espouses, are the realities of Islam's numbers and high birth rate, and the readiness of the rest of the world to please Islamic nations for reasons of their economies and their preference for Muslims over Jews. Although all proclaim that the Jews control their governments, finances, and the press, most of the world's nations oppose Israel, those nations favor the Islamic world for economic reasons, and the world' media is tilted against Israel.

With the world's support, “The Final Testament” appears to be the one that will prevail. No one will fight it, irrespective of the implications for their own countries and religions. There are increasing numbers of Muslim voters who must be courted. Short-term benefits are their goal. Long-term aims must take a back seat.

But Israel cannot accept that approach. Their existence is at stake. With surrounding hostility, and facing an ever-enlarging and more powerful enemy presence, blind trust is not an option. Only certainty, if that can be obtained. The issue is not a two-state solution, but the question of whether there will be any Jewish State.

The final perek in the history of the Jews will either include the miracle of the coming of the Messiah and their rescue from the oppression of those who would destroy them, or the destruction itself. Only G-d can decide what is right. So we hearken back to the words of David ben Gurion: “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.”

Next Episode: “Conflicting Rights” – You're right too.

Repairing The Breach

No question about it. PM Netanyahu and Israel's voters have painted themselves into a corner. They may have felt that they had no choice – that they had to go it alone – but the result is that they have thrown down the gauntlet in front of their oldest and most influential ally. In the face of a world that favors the Palestinians, the Israeli electorate has chosen to demonstrate its lack of confidence both in the world, and in its American ally.

It is a basic rule of argument that, even when all “right” is on your side, you do not paint your opponent into a corner if you ever hope to achieve some agreement in the future. There has to be a way out that does not involve a total loss of face. And you certainly don't allow him to corner you.

But the worst possible result is when you do the job for him.ⁱ “Right” and “wrong” are irrelevant issues if an ultimate reconciliation is desirable. If that reconciliation is to be achieved, one side will then have to blink. It will have to back down on an action or a principle that it had theretofore observed or announced – a “red line.” Absent some kind of condition in the original position,ⁱⁱ such a backing down will be an admission of error, and it will trigger a loss of confidence by those who had supported that position until then.

Sadly, however, that is where we are now. A nation that appeared to be weak and adrift when facing terrorism around the world; one that had been signaling its wish to be “evenhanded” in negotiations for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine impasse – a nation which initially pledged that Iran would not be permitted to have nuclear weapons, but is now willing to accept them while somewhat delaying their assembly – is seen by Israel as abandoning it. Whether or not the premises and the conclusion were correct, it was foolhardy for the Prime Minister not to take a patriotic stance that was so inflexible rather than one that still had some wiggle room in it. And it was dangerous for a significant part of the electorate to base its choice on that stance. It appears that a chasm has been opened – an irreparable rift between nations that share basic values. And that is a chasm that must be closed.

But how do you do that? Clearly the United States must “win.” If Israel prevails it will be further “proof” to an anti-semitic world that the Jews control our country, and they are the source of all evil. Israel will lose by winning. Our country, which is perceived as weak and leaderless, one already losing the respect of the world, will suffer a further decline in prestige and see its role in world affairs further diminished.

Netanyahu, and Israel, must “lose.” The challenge will be to find a way to do so in a way that can be presented to the voters as a political necessity rather than a disavowal of the promise he made to them. Even if the best result would be a stronger stand by the United States, and that is Israel's goal, Israel will not be permitted to defeat our country in a head-to-head confrontation. Ideally we will recognize the importance of good relations with Israel and the strengthening of our image around the world – it may take years and a change of administration to reach this point – but a breach in our alliance now will make rapprochement in the future more difficult.

Are there any plausible steps that can be made at the present? Perhaps. It's not likely that either side will recant – at least not willingly. Some modifications may be possible however. Most important, though, for the moment at least, not very likely, will be the restoration of American prestige. It will take time for our friends to trust and rely on us again, and it will take time before those who disagree with us take our wishes seriously. We do not project the power and resolve that was, once, our hallmark. But regaining that image is critical to our influence around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. It's all about us.ⁱⁱⁱ

Israel, however, is a small state. However valuable it may be to us, it must recognize its role as our follower, not as our leader. Netanyahu has pledged not to have a Palestinian state during his time as Prime Minister, but the Knesset can overrule him.^iv Or he can initiate steps that will result in such an entity following the completion of his term.^v Alternatively, Netanyahu, in building a coalition, may be “forced” by potential partners to accept modifications of his pledge, in order to prevent the establishment of a left-wing government that might be worse for the country. And there are, I'm sure, other scenarios that can be adopted.

But Israel must act quickly, before the United States takes any steps by which it paints itself into a corner. Before the United States does anything irreversible, like voting in the UN to authorize a Palestinian State within borders unacceptable to Israel, healing must take place. It's not impossible, but it will be to everyone's best interests if we don't simply sit around and watch the paint dry.

I        It does not matter if your opponent (friend? – the one you are debating – one with whom you might wish ultimate reconciliation) is completely wrong. In fact, if he is completely wrong it's even more important that you leave him a way out.

ii        A “back door” – a condition under which you might modify your position. Or at least a hint that can be “spun” into proof that you have achieved your aim.

iii      The possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons must be taken more seriously by us. Initially President Obama pledged that it would never happen (the American people have learned that a leader's pledges aren't worth much, and the Israeli people must learn the same lesson) but those words have been forgotten. Initially, however, the risk was primarily Israel's – the country which Iran had vowed to eliminate. And Israel is expendable. But with Iran's development of intercontinental missiles, the nuclear threat to the United States is a consideration we must factor in. In this case the danger faced by the United States may make it more sympathetic to that facing Israel.

iv       This would result in a new election, but that provides another opportunity for the Israeli electorate to speak its mind.

v        Ideally a strengthened United States will be able to convince the Palestinians to accept a defensible Jewish state within borders agreeable to Israel. And guarantees will be provided for the survival of Israel. Perhaps the possibility of a state when Israel has vowed there will be none, will make the PA more amenable to an agreement.