UN General Assembly v. UN Security Council

Submitted by Ludvikus (United States), Dec 20, 2017 at 18:44

Dear YJ Draiman,

You would save yourself a lot of needless words
if you didn't overlook the distinction between
the General Assembly of the United Nations and
the Security Council of the United Nations.
Only the latter has the force of "International Law."

The more important question isn't being asked - in my opinion.
Why has the UN Security Council intervened in the Civil War in Palestine
which hasn't ended 1947?.
The 1917 Balfour Declaration is often cited as the grounds for making Palestine
the "national home of the Jewish people." But that is a serious error.
It was 5 years later, in 1922 that the League of Nations adopted said declamation
and thereby it became international law
because the United Nations is the successor of the League of Nations.
Accordingly, the Civil war between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine has never concluded.
Why, therefore are the 193 member states of the United Nations,
acting partly through the 15 members of the Security Council
imposing their will on that civil war?
Notice how different that is
from the civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen
where the Arab blood spilled is far greater,
yet the UN isn't taking a stand on the terms to end these civil wars. Why?
Is it because of Anti-Semitism? I can think of no other explanation,
except perhaps appeasement of Arabs and Muslims,
the latter having 57 states (Muslim majority) forming the OIC
- Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".