The United Nations General Assembly voted on a non-binding resolution calling for an immediate “humanitarian truce” in Gaza. 120 countries voted for the measure, with 45 abstaining. Only14 nations voted against it: Israel, the US, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Guatemala, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Tonga. Eight EU members supported the cease-fire, including Belgium, Ireland, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain.
The vote was not surprising, but disgraceful nonetheless. One might think that Belgium, France, Luxembourg, which suffered so at the hands of the Nazis, might have a greater appreciation for the need to take a strong stand against evil-doers, but no. The UK, disgustingly, abstained, but anti-Semitism is popular there.
Of course, a cease fire or truce simply means that Hamas and Iran advance the ball a little further up the field, with a touchdown meaning the eradication of Israel. Those 120 countries know it, too, or should, especially since the resolution didn’t even bother to condemn the October 7 Hamas attack on Israeli civilians, or to call for the release of the 230 hostages the Hamas took captive on that day.
“One must not stand silent in the face of a second Holocaust,” the Czech Defense Minister Jana Černochová said, calling on her country to withdraw from the United Nations in protest. “The Holocaust is back, and we must not be silent again.”
“I am ashamed of the UN. In my opinion,” her statement continued. “The Czech Republic has nothing to expect in an organization that supports terrorists and does not respect the basic right to self-defense. Let’s get out: Exactly three weeks ago, Hamas murdered more than 1,400 Israelis, which is more victims per their population than the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda murdered on 9/11/2001 in the USA. And only 14 countries, including ours, stood up against the unprecedented terrorist attack committed by Hamas terrorists, clearly and comprehensible!”
Well, bingo, and good for her. The Czech Republic quickly denied that it has any intention of leaving the U.N.
Donald Trump has been right about some important issues, and one he has been absolutely right about is the foolishness of the United States continuing to support the U.N. to the excessive extent it does. The body is corrupt, anti-democratic, and openly anti-U.S. Our reaction to this nauseating and ominous vote needs to go well-beyond a simple “agree to disagree.”
Ethics Alarms 
Let the U.N. move to the Hague. The U.S. should pull out, abandon it entirely.
It was breathtaking how many Pro-Palestinian demonstrations there were in Amsterdam the three years we were there. The Dutch brought in Moroccan workers after WWII once the Dutch went socialist and stopped working themselves. Incredible given the Dutch helped the NAZIs ship more than seventy thousand Dutch Jews to Auschwitz. Within recent memory.
That isn’t incredible, it is continuity.
Frankly, we need to set up a new “United Nations” that is primarily composed of commercial republics. But we already have entities like that – such as NATO (even while is has some problematic members).
The big misstep obviously was including the USSR as a veto wielding power. After that, when the USSR collapsed, we should have clearly demanded a review of whether or not Russia counted as the USSR seat.
But the design of the UN was flawed anyway, no mechanism for adjusting those sorts of things, but then again, was it ever meant to be effective?
It won’t go away, and as long as it won’t go away, we should have it here in the USA. But we should be using our own heft as a much greater bully pulpit than we do AND we should be using our own financial support of the UN far more extortively than we do.
I don’t believe this sentiment demonstrates an understanding of the role and purpose of the UN.
The UN does not serve an economic purpose like the EU, and it does not serve a strategic purpose like NATO.
It really should serve as a sort of diplomatic clearinghouse. It is a forum where every country has a seat. Thus, by its nature, it is going to be a forum where enemies sit down together. But, that is a good thing. Disputes of all natures have an immediate forum for consideration. And, if that can facilitate diplomacy, great.
And, resolutions like this one provide an immediate gauge of the state of national views.
Having said all of that, the UN, like every other organization, has succumbed to mission-creep. It does far more than it really should.
But, bailing on it because you don’t like the views of the other members is a silly reason for trying to get out.
The UN just did everyone a favor by showing the world where governments really stand.
-Jut
But that’s not what its supposed mission was, Jut. Wilson’s vision was that such a body existed to keep world peace and “make the world safe for democracy.” Obviously ensuring that terrorism “works” does not make anyone safe, and the “mission creep’ that has the UN telling nations like the US, who underwrite it, how to govern is sufficiently obnoxious to demand repudiation. The diplomacy clearing-house description reminds me of my amusingly pompous 8th grade history professor, who stated, as “fact,” “The UN is a debating society!” If only that were true…
The only way to make the world safe for democracies is an organization composed of democracies willing to throw their militaries at countries threatening various democracies.
On average, that’s really just US and a few begrudging allies.
The UN has way too many non-democracies and way to many democracies not willing to fight for democracy.
UN: “‘Wilson’s vision’? I think you have this confused with the League of Nations.”
By diplomacy clearinghouse, I did not mean to cast it as a debating society. I do not think it can keep world peace, but it has the ability to facilitate it.
Mission Creep is this:
UN Commission on the Status of Women
United Nations Commission on Human Rights
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs
United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development
-Jut
How about “UN officials taking bribes from Saddam to neutralize international embargo?”
Now, you and I both know that the U.N. is just Wilson’s League of Nations with a few more teeth and the US as a member, with the WW II-barn door features after the League’s WW I barn door features flopped so spectacularly…
You forgot the U.N.’s most lucrative grift: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
PWS
P.J. O’Rourke once called the UN a Parliament of Dictators. Count the votes. How many votes do totalitarian dictatorships have v. free countries? If it wasn’t for the Security Council, what would happen?
Israelis would be murdered with no inhibition for one thing.
I shared this article on several usenet newsgroups and already some posters are expressing their Judenhass.
https://groups.google.com/g/Talk.Politics.Guns/c/MUHpXxJ97Ak/m/dM7TylWaAwAJ