Can't have it both ways on Israel and UN
Nick Ferriman and Eric Bahrt have written respectively that recognition of Israel by the UK and the US is illegitimate because at the time of the Balfour Declaration 40 per cent of English male adults did not have the right to vote, and in the US African-
The points are irrelevant. The governments of the UK and US have never put diplomatic recognition of any foreign country or government to a popular vote. As an example, voters in the UK and the US were not asked their opinion when their governments chose to recognise the rebel coalition in Libya as the new government just a few months ago. Furthermore, if no US government policy is legitimate if it was enacted before every American citizen had the right to vote, then I guess we can just scrap the Bill of Rights and every law or act before 1965 – including the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ferriman and Bahrt have frequently railed against Israel’s right to exist. They can’t have it both ways. Israel is recognised by the United Nations. Ferriman and Bahrt exhort Israel to abide by UN Resolutions, including 242 that calls for Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 conflict borders, but they themselves obviously don’t accept the UN resolution that recognises Israel as a sovereign state. That’s hypocrisy.
Likewise, Horst Bullinger rails against Israel because it is a Jewish state, and he does “not support the creation of religious states, including a Jewish one”. Yet I’ve never read letters by Mr Bullinger in The Nation complaining about the existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Syria (where the President is required to be a Muslim); Egypt and Jordan (where Islam is the official state religion); Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries. All of these countries impose far more oppressive restrictions on religious minorities and religious freedom than Israel. Yet only the existence of a Jewish state outrages Mr Bollinger enough to write letters to newspapers. Why is that?
James Gleason
Bangkok
