By Howard Zern – 

For a number of years, I, like many, perceived the United Nations as a body of states deliberating on and in some cases enforcing laws, rules and procedures agreed upon by its member nations across a variety of interactions between sovereign countries.  Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that the United Nations has simply become an assembly to promulgate self-serving points of view and vitriol only occasionally within the framework of international law, but more often outside of that framework.  In many respects this once respected organization has degenerated into a debating society, albeit a not very good one, without legal foundation and has forfeited any mantle of arbiter of international law.
There is an axiom in our own country that we are “a nation of laws, not of men.”   That is to say laws have been created to establish certain standards.  Citizens that go beyond these laws or standards are held accountable.  Laws were also established to protect people’s rights in a myriad of ways from the fickleness of public opinion or the emotional simplicity of feeding on hatred.  The same holds true of international law; so when opinion or debate replaces law or the enforcement of law becomes selective, then the entity, in this case the United Nations, must be called into question.
The examples below represent some of the ways in which the UN has violated its own charter and international law:

1. The partition of ‘so-called’ Palestine into the State of Israel and the Palestinian territory – After partition in 1948, Israel became a recognized state within temporary borders, while the balance of the territory was administered by Jordan. The partition plan that called for a self-governing Palestinian territory and with non-defined borders was never put in place. The first violation of international law occurred when the Arab states invaded the new State of Israel to destroy it; this was repeated by multiple invasions over the years.  International law clearly recognized the State of Israel, but in every respect the Arab states rejected international law by invading a lawfully recognized country.  They nullified their and their Palestinian satellite’s right to seek redress 60 years later when it suddenly became convenient.  Prior to the 1967 war there was no Palestinian self-determination; it came into being only after the Arabs lost.  During all these wars, The UN stood by and did nothing to defend Israel and sanction the invaders.

2. United Nations’ Non-Governance of the Palestinian Territory – The UN was legally bound to take over the non-governing territory in 1948 according to Article 73 and ensure “territorial neighborliness” outlined in Article 74 of the UN Charter.  By not taking control, Israel was eventually forced to provide governance to protect its security since the UN abdicated its responsibility.  Essentially, the UN accepted a Jewish state, but did not accept a non-governing territory, both without defined boundaries. Because the Arab states nullified resolution 181, the non-governing Palestinian territory administered by Jordan became a no-man’s land with ‘unclaimed’ territory; for certain its boundaries were still not defined and still remained to be negotiated. Israel basically had as much right to the contiguous territory as did the Arab states.
It is difficult to definitively determine why the UN chose to play a hands-off during the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948.  I personally have no doubt that most UN members fully expected the new State of Israel to be decimated in the war.  It is only when Israel came out victorious did the UN decide to try to enforce resolutions 141 and 242 already nullified by the Arab countries.

3. Adherence to the Oslo Accords – This international contract between the Palestinian Authority and Israel concluded that the territorial boundaries of Israel, including settlements within the armistice line and a proposed Palestinian State could only be settled by direct negotiations.  There was no exclusion if one side later on did not agree where settlements were located.  This accord reflected the agreement at the end of the 1948 Arab invasion of Israel and was supported by international law.
If the UN adheres to its own charter, they must insist on the explicit agreement reached by the two parties.  With the Palestinians now wanting to have recognition as a state within specific boundaries, it is in direct contradiction to international law.  The UN must immediately insist on both sides serving out its agreement if it is ever to be taken seriously as a body of law rather than an opinion poll. Failure to insist on Oslo nullifies any future UN votes on this matter.

4. Hezbollah and Hamas –The rearming of Hezbollah was not supposed to happen based on UN presence in Lebanon and accords.  Daily rocket attacks occur on a sovereign UN member, Israel, by the Palestinian Authority through Hamas for over a decade without any UN sanctions. The Palestinians were to provide security for its own people and respect the rights of its neighbors, including Israel; a requirement of a member state.  The fact that one Palestinian faction cannot control the other; or they play one off against the other is not Israel’s issue.  Yet The UN continues to allow this charade,

It is clear that the UN has picked and chosen when to enforce international law.  It is equally clear that the UN appears to have little intention of honoring its international commitments, or the mutual commitments of the two parties involved in the dispute.  If this turns out to be the case, the UN has lost its significance and should no longer be afforded the billions of dollars our country has poured into it.  The United States, however, must remain at the debate, but ensure that the United Nations and our funds are not used against us or our allies.

Howard Zern lives in West Hartford.