The U.N.’s ‘Palestine’ Vote: Tinker Bell at Turtle Bay

O n Friday, a gigantic majority in the United Nations General Assembly voted to treat “Palestine” as a member state for almost all purposes. The vote was 143 to 9, with 25 countries abstaining.

And this week, it is expected that several European countries — perhaps Spain, Malta, Ireland, and Slovenia — will announce their recognition of the “State of Palestine.” Others have already done so, including Sweden.

Of course, there is no country called Palestine, which makes all these moves acts of . . . what? Simple hatred of Israel? Magical realism?

There is an exact precedent for such votes, and it is found in Peter Pan. In the tragic scene where the fairy Tinker Bell lies dying, Peter turns to the audience. Tinkerbell is going to die because not enough people believe in fairies, he says. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in fairies, maybe she won’t die, he pleads.

In the General Assembly, 143 countries clapped real hard. This is known as the Tinker Bell Effect, wherein the more you believe in something, the more it becomes reality. Magical thinking indeed, but applied in the U.N. in a limited number of cases — actually, just one: Palestine. Somehow the General Assembly never gets around to clapping real hard for Tibet or Kurdistan.

It’s worth listing the honor roll of countries that refused to clap: Argentina (due no doubt to its new president, Javier Milei), the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, the United States, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and Palau. I won’t list all 25 abstainers, but they include Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

The dishonor roll of those who voted to give “Palestine” most of the powers of a member state included the great thugocracies, such as Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, and Vietnam, plus every single Muslim-majority state. It also included democracies whose vote is simply unforgiveable, such as Australia, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, France, Greece, New Zealand, and Portugal.

Some of those votes reflected the ideology of the head of government or ruling party (Australia’s Labor government, or Chile’s president Gabriel Boric), and others were cheap political throwaways meant to appease pro-Hamas protesters. In other cases, governments may actually have thought they were bringing peace and the “two-state solution” closer. They were not.

For in addition to the Tinker Bell Effect, there is actually a counter-phenomenon known as the Reverse Tinker Bell Effect. Here, the desired outcomes become less likely or less true the more people believe them. Here are two examples, taken from posts in the Volokh Conspiracy website. The more people believe a charity desperately needs money and contribute to it, the less it will need money. The more people believe that X is a quiet and unspoiled vacation destination, the more people will go there and the less it will be a quiet and unspoiled destination.

In the case of “Palestine,” the more people believe that it exists and must be recognized immediately, the less likely it is that a real “state of Palestine” will ever come into existence. Why? Because the chances that the prerequisites for the creation of an independent, sovereign, peaceful Palestinian state will be met decline when countries and U.N. bodies stop demanding them. Why bother going through the years of hard work to control violence, end terrorism, stop teaching hate in schools and mosques, build institutions, and negotiate peacefully with Israel, when the General Assembly is happy to give you a pass. To repeat, the more countries say that Palestine exists, the less likely it is that Palestine will ever come into existence.

It is of course unclear whether the 143 countries that voted “yes” on May 10 care about this. Many no doubt think that, just as the original Tinker Bell scene was pure theater, so are U.N. votes. Many took the path of least resistance, worried about the impact internationally or locally if they voted with the tiny group that said no.

But others are motivated by hatred of Israel, Jews, and/or the United States. The Russian delegate said that “It is the moral duty of everyone” to give full U.N. membership to Palestine. This was a classic U.N. moment: a lecture on morality from Putin’s representative. Xi Jinping’s ambassador complained that the U.S. vote against the resolution was “not commensurate with the role of a responsible major country.” They joined the gang that would be happy not only to see “Palestine” created next to Israel, but to see it replace Israel.

This matters, at a moment when Israel is increasingly isolated. This U.N. vote is not pure theater. It did not elevate “Palestine” to full membership in the United Nations, because only the Security Council can do that and a U.S. veto prevented it. But the General Assembly did upgrade “Palestine’s” presence: It is now seated among member states in alphabetical order; can submit proposals and amendments, and agenda items, for all U.N. sessions; can have members of its delegation elected as officers of the General Assembly and its main committees; and can participate fully in all U.N. conferences and any conferences convened under the auspices of the General Assembly. It can do pretty much anything in the U.N. except vote.

The Palestinian representatives in Turtle Bay must be giddy reflecting on their victory, but people living in the West Bank and Gaza should instead reflect that they are joining the list of phenomena illustrating the Reverse Tinker Bell Effect. The more people believe Palestinians need do nothing more to qualify as a real country, the more distant is the possibility of their ever becoming one. The “two-state solution” would require changes in Palestinian society, governance, and conduct that cannot be achieved through magical incantations. Even at the U.N., reality is sometimes more important than clapping your hands and saying you believe in fairies.