One of the Biggest Shams On Earth

The UN Human Rights Council Is A Sham

The United States Is Right To Leave It

Withdrawing from the council and defunding its activities makes the point that the United States will not be held hostage by the lowest common denominator at the United Nations. 

Matthew Brodsky
The Federalist


No matter the lens applied, it is hard to view the United Nations as a serious body. A look at its specialty councils and commissions reveals an Orwellian world where committee titles mean the opposite and the resolutions they pass exacerbate the problems they’re supposed to address.

Even modest attempts at internal reform have somehow managed to churn out results that make bad situations even worse. Nowhere is this problem more evident than in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR), a world body that gives hypocrisy a bad name.

In blistering critiques delivered by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from what Haley referred to as “a cesspool of political bias.” A year ago she called for dramatic and needed institutional reform, but what she found instead was an innate inability to change. Remaining on the council would effectively make the United States complicit in turning a blind eye to some of the world’s worst ongoing atrocities.

Criminals and Abusers Police Criminals and Abusers

The Geneva-based body was established in 2006 as the successor organization to the Human Rights Commission. Seeing no reason to grant the new body legitimacy, the Bush administration decided against seeking membership because some of the world’s worst criminal regimes and serial abusers would be included in its rotating membership of 47 states. That changed in 2009 with the “outstretched hand” policy of the Obama administration, which included the decision to join the council and seek its salvation from within.

" Between the Idea and the Reality . . . Falls the Shadow"

Media Coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian Clash Is Built on a Myth

Daniel Harsanyi
National Review Online

No matter how often Hamas tells us that rioters on the Israel–Gaza border are armed, the media keep referring to them as “protesters” and “demonstrators.” No matter how often Hamas concedes that those rioters are part of a broader “war,” the media simply won’t report it as such. And even though rioters assure reporters they have a desire to kill and burn Jews, left-wing journalists and pundits continue to frame Israel as the aggressor.

This week, a senior Hamas official bragged that 50 of the nearly 60 people killed by the Israeli Defense Forces at the Israel–Gaza border were members of Hamas. Israel has identified around 24 of those killed during the riots as Hamas members — ten of them reportedly members of the internal-security apparatus. All of this is an amazing coincidence considering how the clashes have been portrayed as a massacre of innocent civilians and children.

Hamas, of course, has no problem boasting about these deaths, but it’s the goal: If you’re going to embed armed terrorists in a ginned-up mob that has been propagandized, paid, coerced, and then sent toward military installations and civilian centers across the border, you are counting on casualties. Because martyrdom is the point.

Instead of taking them at their word, Hamas apologists continue arguing that Gaza is an open-air prison. This is true only if you consider people who lock themselves up as prisoners.

Censorship and Media Manipulation in Gaza, Part I

Hamas In Control

A couple of days ago we posted a piece on the strategy of Hamas in the recent turmoil in Gaza.  Further to that theme, we direct your attention to an article in The Atlantic back in November 2014 by Matti Friedman, then a member of the "Press Corps" covering Israel.  

That year was in the midst of yet another "Gaza War".  The "War" has began again: same issues, same actors, same duplicity, and same prejudice on the part of the media covering the events.  They are now the "useful idiots" on the scene, to take up Lenin's alleged phrase.

During the Gaza war this summer, it became clear that one of the most important aspects of the media-saturated conflict between Jews and Arabs is also the least covered: the press itself. The Western press has become less an observer of this conflict than an actor in it, a role with consequences for the millions of people trying to comprehend current events, including policymakers who depend on journalistic accounts to understand a region where they consistently seek, and fail, to productively intervene.

An essay I wrote for Tablet on this topic in the aftermath of the war sparked intense interest. In the article, based on my experiences between 2006 and 2011 as a reporter and editor in the Jerusalem bureau of the Associated Press, one of the world’s largest news organizations, I pointed out the existence of a problem and discussed it in broad terms. Using staffing numbers, I illustrated the disproportionate media attention devoted to this conflict relative to other stories, and gave examples of editorial decisions that appeared to be driven by ideological considerations rather than journalistic ones. I suggested that the cumulative effect has been to create a grossly oversimplified story—a kind of modern morality play in which the Jews of Israel are displayed more than any other people on earth as examples of moral failure. This is a thought pattern with deep roots in Western civilization. [Matti Friedman, The Atlantic.]

He goes on to describe the incestuous relationships between the omni-present NGO's, the media and  the UN in Israel.  This leads to an institutional blindness to the activist roles played by NGO's and the UN.  It is only recently that some "bad press" has emerged on the immorality and moral depredations of the staff of organizations like Oxfam.

Confusion over the role of the press explains one of the strangest aspects of coverage here—namely, that while international organizations are among the most powerful actors in the Israel story, they are almost never reported on. Are they bloated, ineffective, or corrupt? Are they helping, or hurting? We don’t know, because these groups are to be quoted, not covered. Journalists cross from places like the BBC to organizations like Oxfam and back. The current spokesman at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, for example, is a former BBC man. A Palestinian woman who participated in protests against Israel and tweeted furiously about Israel a few years ago served at the same time as a spokesperson for a UN office, and was close friends with a few reporters I know. And so forth.

These organizations long ago ceased to be "neutrals"; rather they became partisan actors doing the bidding of the Islamic extremists in the region.

Why Has Gaza Got All Wound Up Again?

Human Shields

Gaza is in the news once again.  It is not the first time.  It will almost certainly not be the last.  What we see on display--as we have so many times before--is the ruthless, hate-filled machinations of Hamas, using its own population as human shields.  

To be sure, when the citizens of Gaza get on the bus and ride to the border fence with Israel, then start storming the fence, they are face to face with deadly force that could well kill them.  But what you don't see is armed Hamas guerrilla fighters up front and centre.  That is not the objective.  Their objective has a propaganda point to make.  Their citizens are little more than "useful idiots".  The objective of Hamas is to isolate Israel and turn the rest of the world into an Israel-hating phalanx in the hope that Israel will be ultimately be destroyed.

Just how much the civilian bus-riders believe in Hamas and its violent extremism is hard to tell. What is clear us us is that Hamas could not care a fig for the citizens it is supposed to protect and nurture.  Using them as human shields and front-line cannon fodder does not really fit the bill of protecting and nurturing.

A Has-Been Cause

Another Blow to the Palestinians 

Trump Threatens To Cut Off Aid

By cutting off hundreds of millions in American aid to the Palestinian Authority, the president could radically alter the Middle East.

By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

President Trump set off another Twitter firestorm last week when he hinted that he may be considering cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Trump was angered over Palestinian unwillingness to engage in peace talks with Israel after the Trump administration announced the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Given that the U.S. channels its Palestinian aid through third-party United Nations organizations, it’s unclear how much money Trump is talking about it. But in total it may exceed $700 million per year, according to reports.

A decade ago, the U.S. row with the Palestinian Authority would have been major news. But not now.  Why?

The entire Middle East has radically changed — and along with it the role and image of the Palestinians.

John Kerry: A Sandwich Short of a Picnic

Kerry to Israel: A State Cannot Be Both Jewish and Democratic

National Review Online
Andrew McCarthy

Our ineffable secretary of state, John Kerry, delivered another parting shot at Israel today, offering the Obama administration’s “vision” for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There are many things to be said about it — not least that Kerry’s speech, like last week’s venomous, Obama-orchestrated United Nations resolution on which it builds, is something “pro-Israel” Democrats make sure to do after Election Day.

For now, I just want to highlight one gem (noted by Michael Warren at The Weekly Standard).

Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”

Presumably, Kerry was referring to the fact that Israel has a significant Arab-Muslim population. He conveniently did not mention, since it must never be mentioned, the vow of Mahmoud Abbas (the Palestinian leader Kerry sees as Israel’s “peace partner”) that, “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — soldier or civilian — on our lands.”

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

A Diem That Needs Some Carping

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

The current conflict between Israel and the United States is a really odd one. For the Israelis, the whole thing is a matter of life and death, a serious conflict. On the Obama/Kerry side of things, their behavior more closely resembles a one-sided junior high girls’ slap fight. But before getting into all that, a few disclaimers.

The disclaimers are necessary because the topic of Israel is one which when broached frequently causes a festival of sweet reason to break out. Or one assumed it was supposed to be a festival of sweet reason, said something sensible therefore, and found oneself vituperated soundly with accusations that one was of the Joooooss.

Since the bottom line is that I am pro-Israel, in a way that our president most assuredly is not, I must therefore begin with the disclaimers. Pro-Israel does not mean being in favor of everything Israel might be, say, or do. Since the very first thing that will happen in the comments section here is that someone will require me to defend something I do not wish to defend, I thought it best to get all that out of the way. I think I can do it in one paragraph.

I am a Christian first, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ extends over all nations, including Israel.

More Idolatrous Civic Religion

Trump Chooses a Hard-line, Pro-Settler Ambassador to Israel

Trump has named David Friedman as his choice

The American Conservative
Daniel Larison

David Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who represented the president-elect over his failing hotels in Atlantic City, served Trump’s advisory team on the Middle East. He has set out a number of hardline positions on Israeli-Palestinian relations, including fervent opposition to the two-state solution and strong support for an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

He has called President Barack Obama an antisemite and suggested that US Jews who oppose the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are worse than kapos, Nazi-era prisoners who served as concentration camp guards.

Trump has made a very bad choice here, but unfortunately it is entirely in line with what we thought we knew about his positions on Israel and Palestine. He has made no secret of his pro-settler views, and he has adopted virtually every conventional hawkish “pro-Israel” position from his support for settlements to hostility to the nuclear deal with Iran. Choosing Friedman is consistent with the generally hard-line, pro-settler positions Trump has already taken, and so it may be the least surprising thing he’s done during the transition.

This is just the latest development in the ongoing transformation of the GOP into a radically hard-line “pro-Israel” party that goes beyond what it was during the Bush years.

Neo-Marxists Misuse of the Crusades

Just So Stories

Neo-Marxism has sought to make a big deal about the Crusades.  They (the Crusades) have been colourfully adjusted in the telling to "frame" the West as exploiters and oppressors and the Arabs and associated people as the exploited.  As Voltaire once put it, history is a trick the living play upon the dead.  The Neo-Marxist propagandists and pseudo-scholars of the late twentieth century told a tricky tale more fanciful and exotic than Scheherazade.

It was well done, insofar as it made an entire Western generation--at least those in the ruling Commentariat--deeply guilty in there own eyes, which, of course, was the entire point.  Rulers who feel guilt are likely to want to make atonement and restitution for the evil of forbears, which, according to the frame of Marxism is a jolly good thing.

Over this narrative, the present generation of Neo-Marxists have added another development.  The Crusades exploited the Arabs.  But the Arabs and Islamic nations roughly correspond.  Therefore, the present struggles between Israel and its Arab nations represents a modern manifestation of an evil westernised Crusader nation versus the exploited Arab nations.  Western Neo-Marxists rush to stand in solidarity with the exploited freedom fighters of the PLO and Hamas.

Both the narrative and the frame are so far removed from historical reality that they can be justly characterised as cheap propaganda.  A slick trick upon the dead.

Letter From America (About Bibi)

The Real Middle East Story

Walter Russell Mead
The American Interest

Precisely because he has a colder view of international affairs than Obama, Netanyahu’s leadership has made Israel stronger than ever.

Peter Baker notices something important in his dispatch this morning: at this year’s UNGA, the Israel/Palestine issue is no longer the center of attention. From The New York Times:

They took the stage, one after the other, two aging actors in a long-running drama that has begun to lose its audience. As the Israeli and Palestinian leaders recited their lines in the grand hall of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, many in the orchestra seats recognized the script.

“Heinous crimes,” charged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. “Historic catastrophe.”  “Fanaticism,” countered Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. “Inhumanity.”

Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu have been at this for so long that between them they have addressed the world body 19 times, every year cajoling, lecturing, warning and guilt-tripping the international community into seeing their side of the bloody struggle between their two peoples. Their speeches are filled with grievance and bristling with resentment, as they summon the ghosts of history from hundreds and even thousands of years ago to make their case.

While each year finds some new twist, often nuanced, sometimes incendiary, the argument has been running long enough that the world has begun to move on. Where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once dominated the annual meeting of the United Nations, this year it has become a side show as Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas compete for attention against seemingly more urgent crises like the civil war in Syria and the threat from the Islamic State.

Baker (and presumably many of his readers) don’t go on to the next, obvious question: What does this tell us about the relative success or failure of the leaders involved?

Theatre of the Absurd

Idleness is the Devil's Workshop

One of the strangest phenomena to emerge in our generation is the vast overreach of national governments to the point of believing they can police the whole world.  A pick pocket relieves a tourist of his wallet in Rio.  The British police issue a warrant for his arrest, and gets geared up to prosecute the perp, should they ever get their hands on him.  The British metropolitan police have become gendarmes of the world, for the world, and over the world.  

How have such bizarre beliefs and actions come about?  They are an expression of global Humanitarianism, an ideology which holds that all mankind are under the same law and accountable to it.  Alleged war criminals in Bosnia or Africa, once arrested, are hauled off to the Hague to be tried.  These overreaching claims of law and justice surely undermine the concept of sovereign nation states.  They also assert an implied doctrine, a suppressed premise--namely, that there is one law that governs all men, cultures, nations and to which all men are subject.

In a more Christian era, such a claim of universal law would have been instantly recognised as a reference to the law of Almighty God, the Ten Commandments.  But in our secular world, God has been replaced by Man, in semi-divinised form.  There is a universal law, and universal jurisprudence and it is the Law of Man.  The British police are servants apparently, not of the citizens of Great Britain, but of global Humanitarianism.  

Consequently it strikes us as bizarre that the British metropolitan police are summoning an Israeli politician for questioning on suspicion of war crimes.

The Tradition of Philosemitism

Taking Up an Honourable Cause

Gertrude Himmelfarb has written an engaging book on the history of philosemitism in England.  It "began" with Oliver Cromwell who encouraged Jews to return to England, which had been the first country to expel them during medieval times.  Gradually, over two and a half centuries not only were Jews migrating to England, but gradually they were winning or being granted an increasing list of civil and political rights--during centuries when such rights were not universal by any means.

The Christian Church, particularly through the influence of the Great Awakening, played a positive role.  At the end of the eighteenth century, for example, a Jewish financier and philanthropist, Abraham Goldsmid raised a fund to help and assist the Jewish poor throughout England.  Himmelfarb tells us that "of the eighty-seven initial subscribers, forty-one were Christians".   [Gertrude Himmelfarb, The People of the Book: Philosemitism in England, From Cromwell to Churchill (New York: Encounter Books, 2011), p. 56.]

In the mid-nineteenth century, Conservative leader,  Benjamin Disraeli was arguing that the Church was the key instrument for the "renovation of the national spirit".  But he went on to address the origin of the Church.

The Left Nurtures Anti-Semitic Prejudices

Why the Left Hates Jews

Kevin D. Williamson
National Review Online

Why does the Left hate the Jews?

The Labour party in the United Kingdom is being convulsed at the moment with a public reckoning of the anti-Semitism of some of its most prominent members, including the former mayor of London, “Red” Ken Livingstone, who has just been suspended from the party for arguing that Adolf Hitler was, effectively, a Zionist. He was trying to explain away the anti-Semitic remarks of MP Naz Shah, who suggested that Israel be liquidated and its population forcibly resettled in the United States.

In the United States, the Harvard Law Record went to some lengths to conceal the identity of a law student who attacked a visiting Israeli dignitary as — in the classic anti-Semitic formulation — “smelly.” That student was Husam El-Qoulaq, a Palestinian leftist. The campus Left has, to no one’s surprise, rallied to his defense. Among those defending him were a number of Jewish law students, who insisted that El-Qoulaq couldn’t possibly have known the anti-Semitic history of “smelly Jew” rhetoric, in spite of his having been reared at the world center of such nonsense.

Others insisted that the Harvard case and the Labour cases are — this, too, will be familiar — not at all about anti-Semitism but about anti-Zionism.

That argument does not stand up to two seconds’ scrutiny, and never has.

Mad As Hatters

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them

Should a political party nourish and protect racism within its ranks?  Well, if it is the KKK, it's very raison d'etre is racist, so of course it should and would protect racism.  Should that party be deemed a legal association?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But that is not what is primarily at issue here.  The question is whether racism should be tolerated within a political party. The answer to that question is in the hands of the political party itself.  

Freedom of speech and freedom of association (fundamental precepts of a free society) require that the rest of society respect the right of some to gather together to advance a racist platform.  But, of course, that leaves the rest of society free to pillory (figuratively speaking) the party and its platform . . .  as the US has done with respect to the KKK.

This leads us to consider the depths to which the Labour Party in the UK has sunk.  Even The Guardian, Labour's representative within the media, finds itself in a quandary.  Should it criticise the Labour Party for its embedded racism, or not?  Again, from our perspective, the UK Labour Party is free to become a political party with a racist platform if it so chooses.  It appears increasingly obvious that racism is the new normal--at least to many within it.

Full Inclusion Now Underway?

May the God of Israel and His Messiah Bless You

Joel C. Rosenberg has published an interesting post at his blog.  Given what appears to be a significant upsurge of interest amongst Jews in Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah, one wonders how long it will be before Israel will become recategorised as a Christian country.

As you read this, do so with the spectacles of Romans 11 firmly in place:  "So I ask, did they [the Jews] stumble in order that they might fall?  By no means!  Rather through their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.  Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their  failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"  [Romans 11: 11-12]

A big, untold story: Since last Yom Kippur, millions of Jews have begun searching for the Messiah, and for atonement for their sins. The media isn’t reporting this. But it’s worth examining.

 

Over the past year since the last Day of Atonement, millions of Jews around the world have begun a quest to find the Messiah.

At sundown, we begin Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This is the highest holy day on the Jewish calendar, and one of great Biblical and historic and cultural importance to my people.  I so wish I was home with Lynn and our sons in Israel tonight. Instead, I am in the U.S. speaking at a number of events, from Dallas to San Luis Obispo to Washington, D.C. to Toronto. I am speaking about the darkness that is falling in our world. But I am also explaining to people about a fascinating phenomenon that I’m observing.

Since last Yom Kippur, millions of Jews have begun a quest to find the Messiah. For reasons I cannot fully explain, Jews are suddenly searching for answers to the deepest and most important questions concerning life and death and God and atonement and eternity, in numbers unprecedented in history. Some are searching through the Hebrew Scriptures for answers. A stunning number are actually reading the New Testament, most for the first time. They are searching on Google for information about the Messiah. They are even watching a new series of videos by Jews who claim to have found the answers. The videos — some of which have gone viral — were produced and posted on a new website called www.imetmessiah.com.
To me, these are fascinating developments. They certainly aren’t being reported by the media. But they are worth examining. That said, more on all that in a moment.

First, a few thoughts about Yom Kippur itself. 

The Islamist Side of Obama's Face

It's My Way or War

President Obama's dirty slip is showing.  Faced with the increasing likelihood that his "peace at any price" deal with Iran will be rejected by Congress, he has taken once again to browbeating his opponents.  But this time, the opposition is not just from political parties.  It is broader than that.

The US Jewish community--largely formerly an Obama fan base--is turning against him.  Rabbi Richard Block explains his dissent and rejects Obama's nasty denunciation of his opponents.  He also exposes, once again, Obama's disingenuous deceptive and misleading "framing" of the issues.

Turning of the Tide

An Open Letter to Israel

The editors at ContraCelsum have no particular connection to the nation of Israel.  We do not see the existence of Israel as any representing any particular fulfillment of biblical prophecy, although the existence of Israel as a modern state surely falls under the decrees of God's providence.  But His purposes for His ancient people will be fulfilled whether Israel continues to exist as a nation, or not.

To say this begs a question.  Will Israel survive as a nation state?  We are not used to states going out of existence, but of course it has happened many times in human history.  It is highly likely, for example, that the state of Iraq might cease to exist.  Syria similarly.  If Israel were to cease to exist, why ought that to surprise us--as if such a thing had never happened before?  After all there are plenty of voices, some near at Israel's hand, calling for the annihilation of that nation and its expunging from human history.

Perhaps most significantly, Israel's strongest supporter (in a geo-political sense) has been the United States.  Yet under Barack Obama that support has not just waned: it has turned into near official hostility, with the President recently engaging in rhetoric that if any other Western state were to utter in an official, or semi-official capacity, would be deemed anti-semitic.

Letter From London (About The Real Problem in Palestine)

Why Netanyahu is Back

by David P. Goldman
Asia Times Online
May 10, 2015

^{Originally published under the title, " Why Israel Has a Right-Wing Government."}


I left Israel last week just before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a new coalition with the Bayit Yehudi ("Jewish Home") and religious parties, with the slimmest of parliamentary margins. The response from the punditeska was a predictable as the emergence of a gumball after one introduces a quarter and turns the knob: Netanyahu and the ogres from the settlements are the supposed obstacle to peace. Inside Israel, the matter looks otherwise. I don't meddle in Israeli politics, but the reason Israelis support a tough government should be obvious to the casual observer.

Writing in the May 7 Financial Times, former Obama Middle East aide Philip Gordon warns Netanyahu against "expanding settlements, punishing the Palestinian Authority for its quest for international recognition, [and] insisting on an indefinite presence of Israeli forces on the West Bank and intervening militarily in Gaza. The risk is that this could ultimately lead to the collapse of the PA, Israeli reoccupation of West Bank cities and expanded global efforts to isolate Israel."

The reason Israelis support a tough government should be obvious to the casual observer.

It is inconvenient for diplomats to say so, but the Palestine Authority collapsed quite some time ago.

Supporting Testimony

Shards of Truth

Christians are "presuppositional" creatures.  They believe in the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable God because not to be believe in Him destroys the very possibility of meaning itself.  Therefore, all of life and existence--the entire cosmos itself--testifies to God.  The fact that these sentences have meaning and can be discussed, cogitated upon, debated, and argued provides proof of God Who has created and sustains all things.

As Karl Popper once expressed it, the cosmology of stochasticity or randomness or evolutionism cannot possibly be true, because were it to be true, it could never be described or meaningfully discussed.  The fact that it can be described, debated, and discussed is a certain proof that it cannot possibly be true. 

When archaeological discoveries are made which are consistent with ancient biblical history, wise Christians do not see these as "proving" the Bible's account.  Rather they provide supporting testimony.  We smile when pieces of evidence emerge which testify to the historical accuracy of the Biblical account.

Here is one such example:

Ideological Curios, Part III

The Spirit of Ahab still Lives

Israel is a divisive topic.  For many--particularly those on the Left, in the Commentariat, and amongst the chattering classes--it represents implacable evil, whilst Islamic Palestinians represent unimpeachable goodness.  For some Christians influenced by Dispensational biblical theology, Israel represents unimpeachable goodness, whilst those who oppose Israel--on any count--represent forces opposed to God.

Naturally, the world is neither that simple, nor binary. Christians run the risk of thinking in a binary fashion about the modern nation state of Israel when they read Biblical texts outside of the context of the "broad-brush" narrative of the Bible.

To cut to the chase, the modern nation state of Israel is not a fulfilment of biblical promises to the ancient Jewish people.  It is a creation of Britain, the United States, and the UN.  Is this a problem?  Not necessarily.  There have been plenty of such artificially created nations during the hey-day of imperialism, as well as before and after.

However, the artificiality of the origins of a nation should not be an argument to obliterate it.  In the end, nation states exist and should be reckoned with accordingly.