The UN Distorts History and Enables War

This may seem to be a strange title. World organizations have been praised as promoting peace and good will between nations and advancing the social, economic, health, educational and political status of millions of human beings. But it is true to a very limited extent. The structure of the General Assembly and Security Council permanently tilt the decisions and actions of the United Nations (UN) away from what an unbiased observer would deem to be fair, honest or just.

All sane people can agree that peace is better than war, but the UN has accidentally or by design enabled and promoted conflict.

Born in 1946 as the heir to the useless League of Nations, it represented the greatest hope of mankind for a new era in international relations and world peace. It has failed miserably, not least because of the presence of veto power held by the the five permanent members of the Security Council, and equally nefariously, the presence of voting blocs in the General Assembly based on affinities between members that transcend politics or geography. As a debating society it might have some use but as an instrument of peace and justice it cannot be taken seriously. Direct inter-state efforts to solve mutual problems privately without the intervention of nations who have little involvement in a dispute is much more fruitful than any discussion in the debating hall along New York's East River.

The September annual general debate at the UN is instructive. Many heads of state and government along with their delegations come to New York. Little besides traffic gridlock is produced. The various dignitaries have their ten minutes of fame on the world stage and if they are lucky or important enough, perhaps even have their profundities mentioned in a newspaper or seen on television. An interesting example of this is the address of King Abdullah II of Jordan on September 23, 2025. The Jordanian monarch spoke eloquently but ignored uncomforable historical events that would undermine his arguement. Among the items he addressed were the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel, the length of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the war in Gaza, Israeli "land grabs" and desecration of Muslim and Christian holy sites and Israeli agression against, among others, Iran. He also stressed that Palestianian statehood is not a reward but rather a right. Analysis of the speech's points easily demonstrate the one-sidedness and distortions he articulated during his ten minutes on the podium. Nowhere in his speech did he mention the attack on Israel by Hamas on a Jewish religious holiday. This is not the first time Muslims made war on Israel during a Jewish religous holiday The Yom Kippur War of 1973 began with a coordinated Egyptian and Syrian attack on the holiest day of the year in the Jewish calendar; yet the Muslim world insists that no fighting take place against them during their holy month of Ramadan. (This has been contested by no less a Muslim authority that Imam Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran). The absurdities continue. Israel seems to attack Gaza with special bombs that are programmed to kill only women and children and avoid men, according to the Gaza Health

Department. As the King never mentions Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the listener may assume that Israel simply attacked Gaza for no legitimate reason. Historical distortion and revisionism can truly be called an international sport at the UN. Yet the distortions and revisions continue. Abdullah fails to mention the assassination of his great-grandfather and namesake Abdullah I, murdered at the Al Aqsa Mosque by a Palestinian extremist for the crime of negotiating peace with Israel. He forgets to mention that the West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950 and all of its residents were granted full Jordanian citizenship. Where was the push for a two-state solution when that territory and Gaza were under complete Arab control? Regrettably, there was none. At that time, it would have been simple to establish a Palestinian state. The Arab states had no desire and need for such an entity. The need only arose after failure to win on the battlefield so diplomacy was substituted in an effort to win what was lost by war. But life is not a school yard game, where if we are dissatisfied with the call, we ask for a replay. There are no replays in life except at the UN. Abdullah also forgets "Black September", September 1970, when his father's troops killed, according to Yasser Arafat, 25,000 Palestinians over several days. Others estimate the deaths at "only" 2-4,000. But that was to protect the Hashemite throne, so, it is acceptable. Finally, on July 31, 1988, a decree by King Hussein disengaged Jordan from the West Bank thereby revoking Jordanian citizenship from its occupants, rendering them stateless. This occurred by revoking the Palestinians national number (raqam watani). According to Human Rights Watch, Jordan continues to revoke citizenship of Palestinians to this day. This is to ensure that Jordan does not become the alternative homeland for the Palestinians. The plight of the Palestinians is not enviable. However, the Arab states have a free pass though they have kept them in refugee camps, not allowed them to integrate into the countries they reside in and keep them and their descendants stateless to prolong and provoke wars in the Middle East. This has the approval of the UN and its various subsidiary welfare agencies.

This is an analysisi of only one intervention in the great debating society known as the UN. Tens of millions of pages if not hundreds of millions, have been archived since the UN's founding eighty years ago. Most of its first forty-five years saw obstruction and lies propogated by the Communist bloc, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its satellites, with the able assistance of the People's Republic of China (PRC). After massive decolonization of theThird World during the early 1960s and their admission to the UN, the non-aligned movement

became an important force in the General Assembly with anti-western animosity their leading position, leading them in many cases to align with the Soviet bloc. Today, after the downfall of the USSR, its devolution into Russia and other successor states, the leading voting bloc is now the fifty- seven member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Spread throughout the world, they generally have an anti-western orientation and their support of Russia and PRC is not constructive.

The UN promotes war by the actions of either the voting blocs in the General Assembly (OIC) or by Russia and PRC using their veto vote to block any action which might be beneficial to world peace and progress.. The cynical behavior of these two permanent members of the Insecurity Council has been throwing monkey wrenches into anything even vaguely usefult that the UN might attempt. All wars must end by a resolution to the dispute, usually with one side winning and imposing its will on the loser. Russian and PRC vetos and support from voting blocs who are more anti-Western than pro-democracy have enabled the Russian war against Ukraine. The "inadmissability" of territorial gains by war is convenientlty forgotten when dealing with the illegal Russian seizure of Crimea. On the other hand, UN attacks on Israel for defending itself is relentless. UN pressure stole Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973, directly leading to continuing conflict. So much for the UN's peace keeping efforts.

The UN, or indeed any internatonal organization cannot continue on this course. It is doomed to follow in the footsteps of its failed predecessor, the forgotten League of Nations. That unhappy organization should not be forgotten. Its failures led to the worst and most lethal war in history. Perhaps reform of the UN is impossible. Herbert Hoover was correct when on August 10, 1962 he called for a Council of Free Nations to replace it.

History will continue, but it will be more difficult than ever to really understand what is true and what is false. After all, over a century later, it is still difficult to ascertain which country bears major responsibility for World War I. Was it Germany or Austria-Hungary, or maybe Serbia or Russia? Opinions vary. Maybe in another century we can begin to asess responsibility. Meanwhile, the UN remains a depository of confusion and lies.

Garry S. Sklar

Las Vegas, NV

Sep. 26, 2025