Peace's Curiosity

     I am perplexed by the application of Libyan rebels, and Palestinians seeking statehood to the United Nations.  Yesterday, I was alerted to the successful application of Libyan rebels' National Transitional Council.
     I pray I am not so ardent a supporter of the United Nations that I am blind to nuances of these two applications.
    A threshold question comes to my mind here.  What threshold of hope do we need before we give credibility to those participants seeking admission to or members of the United Nations?  Of the UN member states, do we support only those members we agree with?
    The United Nations was founded on October 24, 1945.  Many nations have become UN Member States  since that time.
    Afghanistan.  1946.  Cambodia.  1955.  China.  A UN founding member.  Cuba. A UN founding member.  Egypt.  A UN founding member.  India.  1945.  Iran. A UN founding member.  Iraq.  1945.  Ireland.  1955.  Israel. 1949.  Japan.  1956.  Jordan.  1955.  Kuwait.  1963.  Laos.  1955.  Lebanon.  A UN founding member.  Pakistan.  1947.  The Russian Federation.  A UN founding member.  Saudi Arabia.  A UN founding member.  Sudan.  1956.  South Sudan.  A member since 2011--the same year it became a nation separate from Sudan.  Syria.  A UN founding member. Viet Nam--the former North Vietnam--1977.  Yemen.  1947.
     A boring recitation?  I hope not.  My intent?  Evidence.  The members listed hardly may be claimed as safe homes for peace.  The United Nations, as a whole--as one body--may not ensure peace.  It is to each member to further that cause.  Yet, membership--application for membership--seems to indicate a willingness to be held accountable to negotiation--to peace.  Member states, and those applying for member status, subject themselves to the sanctions of the United Nations.  Sanction in both senses of the word.  Approval. Encouragement.  Endorsement.  Seal of approval.  Stamp of approval.  Sanction--the responsibility to sanction.  Ban.  Boycott.  Embargo.  Penalty.  Punitive Measure.
     Although we--the United States--have had serious differences of policy, and ideology--with nations such as China, France, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom--we have united ourselves permanently as guarantors of peace with these four other member states, as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
     The Obama Administration--many others--are squeamish to vehemently opposed to the approval of the Palestinians membership to the United Nations.  We were hardly buddy buddy with China, and Russia for many years after October 24, 1945.  Yet, we understood the cost of two world wars, the horrific toll of our atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6, and August 9, 1945 respectively.  The United Nations' founding was a commitment that such destruction need not occur at any time in our future.
     For many years, US Presidents have struggled to find ways to bring parties involved in the Middle East together to discuss issues critical to their survival.
    Why is this so difficult?  If we are committed to diplomacy--truly committed--then why is this so difficult?