I appreciate the humor in this thought, of course, but the analogy is awfully faulty.
In the American war between the states it was the so-called Rebels who fired the first shots by bombarding the hell out of Fort Sumter in Charleston (SC) harbor with artillery. After about 48 hours of this shellacking, Maj. Anderson, cmdg., was obliged to run up a white flag of truce and ask for permission to withdraw his troops in a peacable manner. The Union forces did not attack the Rebels; the Rebels either attacked US Army posts (as at Charleston) or simply subverted them and claimed the posts and all materiel (arms and ammo included) for the Confederacy (as in numerous cases in Texas and elsewhere). The British did seriously consider supporting the Confederacy against the Union inasmuch as the British textile mills and garment industry were laregely dependent on Southern cotton.
Had there been such a thing as the UN at the time, its delegates would probably have done nothing, just as nothing was done or declared when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 and some of the member Republics, coerced into joining the USSR after WW II, were scrambling to declare indepence from the Russian behemoth. I found it amusing as hell at the time that Gorbachev recognized the independence of the Baltic states -- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -- before then-President G.W.H. Bush would deign to do so. I'm sure it's one more reason why he was a one-term president. He certainly lost my vote and, I'm sure, the votes of amny, many other Baltic-Americans, Polish-Americans and other voters with ancestral ties to Eastern European nations overrun by the Soviets.
In the case of the present situation on the Arab street, I think the UN is just backing the most likely winning horse.