In 1917, war-pressed Britain sought to curry favour with the growing Zionist movement by promising a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. The Palestinians, nine-tenths of the territory's population at the time, were not consulted. Thirty years later, when the UN voted to give Jews 53% of the land, the 13 “Eastern” countries that objected were overruled by 33 “Western” countries, which between them ruled over some 120 future members that surely would have voted otherwise had they been able to. Small wonder Palestinians see the world through a lens of victimhood.
Since when does being outvoted in the UN constitute the right to "victimhood"? Does that mean that Israel qualifies as a "victim"?
I could argue that it was primarily the dictatorships of the "Eastern" countries that voted against establishing Israel, versus the free "Western" countries. Or that the "120 future members" which the Economist figures would have voted against Israel are now and would likely have been dictatorships as well. However, there is no point, because once you get into a huff about anything involving the UN, you've probably already lost your argument.
The UN tends to be where good causes, intriguing ideas, and bright intentions go to fester and rot.
<< Home