Its the UN versus the US over Jerusalem Guess who wins that matchup

It’s the U.N. versus the U.S. over Jerusalem. Guess who wins that matchup.

Readability

It's the U.N. versus the U.S. over Jerusalem. Guess who wins that matchup.

The United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil is con­sid­er­ing a draft res­o­lu­tion nul­li­fy­ing any move by any nation to rec­og­nize Jerusalem as the cap­i­tal of Israel. The res­o­lu­tion does not men­tion the United States or Pres­i­dent Trump, but let’s be hon­est. This is all about the United States and Pres­i­dent Trump after he kept his promise and rec­og­nized Jerusalem as the eter­nal cap­i­tal of the nation of Israel.

I’ll get into the philo­soph­i­cal prob­lems with this move and what it says about the cor­rupt, inef­fec­tive orga­ni­za­tion itself, but let’s briefly point out how ludi­crous this move would be logis­ti­cally. To pass a res­o­lu­tion requires all 15 mem­bers of the United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil to agree. Any of them can veto it. The United States is one of five per­ma­nent mem­bers of the Secu­rity Coun­cil. I don’t think U.S. Ambas­sador to the U.N. Nikki Haley will need to seek guid­ance from the White House about whether or not to exer­cise our veto on the resolution.

In other words, this is 100% sym­bolic. It’s meant only to get the U.S. on record say­ing we are against a res­o­lu­tion that attacks our week-​old deci­sion. More impor­tantly, it gets the other four­teen nations on record say­ing they oppose Pres­i­dent Trump’s actions, though a press release would have been just as effective.

I’d love to see another mem­ber of the Secu­rity Coun­cil veto it for effect, but that’s almost cer­tainly not going to happen.

Now, let’s talk about the philo­soph­i­cal impli­ca­tions of this move. The United Nations is, in essence, say­ing that one sov­er­eign nation (the United States) does not have the right to rec­og­nize another sov­er­eign nation’s (Israel’s) cho­sen cap­i­tal. The only jus­ti­fi­able instance where the United Nations is right to con­demn the actions of a sov­er­eign nation is when they are either com­mit­ting crimes against another sov­er­eign nation, such as the Iraqi inva­sion of Kuwait, or when a nation is com­mit­ting atroc­i­ties against its own peo­ple, such as what is hap­pen­ing in Myan­mar against the Rohingya Muslims.

What the United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil is con­sid­er­ing doing is an affront to any freedom-​loving Amer­i­can or Israeli. It’s actu­ally an affront to any freedom-​loving mem­ber of the human race, but a major­ity of coun­tries have been indoc­tri­nated into anti-​Israel rhetoric. The push to make a nation the size of New Jer­sey give away land to peo­ple who want to kill them is absurd. To say Israel can­not have Jerusalem as its cap­i­tal or that the United States can’t agree with them is equally absurd.

The United Nations Security Council is considering a draft resolution nullifying any move by any nation to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The resolution does not mention the United States or President Trump, but let’s be honest. This is all about the United States and President Trump after he kept his promise and recognized Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the nation of Israel.

I’ll get into the philosophical problems with this move and what it says about the corrupt, ineffective organization itself, but let’s briefly point out how ludicrous this move would be logistically. To pass a resolution requires all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council to agree. Any of them can veto it. The United States is one of five permanent members of the Security Council. I don’t think U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley will need to seek guidance from the White House about whether or not to exercise our veto on the resolution.

In other words, this is 100% symbolic. It’s meant only to get the U.S. on record saying we are against a resolution that attacks our week-old decision. More importantly, it gets the other fourteen nations on record saying they oppose President Trump’s actions, though a press release would have been just as effective.

I’d love to see another member of the Security Council veto it for effect, but that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

Now, let’s talk about the philosophical implications of this move. The United Nations is, in essence, saying that one sovereign nation (the United States) does not have the right to recognize another sovereign nation’s (Israel’s) chosen capital. The only justifiable instance where the United Nations is right to condemn the actions of a sovereign nation is when they are either committing crimes against another sovereign nation, such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, or when a nation is committing atrocities against its own people, such as what is happening in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims.

What the United Nations Security Council is considering doing is an affront to any freedom-loving American or Israeli. It’s actually an affront to any freedom-loving member of the human race, but a majority of countries have been indoctrinated into anti-Israel rhetoric. The push to make a nation the size of New Jersey give away land to people who want to kill them is absurd. To say Israel cannot have Jerusalem as its capital or that the United States can’t agree with them is equally absurd.