UN declares ‘Year of Palestine’, condemns Israel 6 times

...After all, if the secretary-general could voice disappointment at the Human Rights Council’s “decision to single out Israel as the only specific regional item on its agenda, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world,” why can’t he endorse the virtually identical sentiment expressed by the interpreter at this year’s absurd amount of General Assembly resolutions singling out Israel?

Hillel Neuer..
Times of Israel..
27 November '13..

The UN General Assembly yesterday condemned Israel in six resolutions, the most significant of which declares 2014 a “Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

The new year is now liable to bring escalated politicization within UN agencies worldwide, doing nothing to help Palestinians or Israelis on the ground, while inflicting yet further damage to the world body’s effectiveness and credibility.

The one-sided resolutions were adopted in tandem with the UN’s observance Monday of its annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.”

Regrettably, that highly politicized event was praised by British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant as equivalent in importance to the International Day on the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Mark Lyall Grant        ✔ @LyallGrant

Follow

Monday doubly important UN day. Int day for elimination of violence against Women & Day of Solidarity w/ Palestinian people. @UN_Women.

5:38 PM - 24 Nov 2013

Yesterday’s six resolutions endorsed the UN’s infrastructure of anti-Israel demonization, which includes an entire UN staff division dedicated to promoting an anti-Israel narrative with conferences held around the world.

The UN’s drumbeat of excessive, disproportionate and one-sided condemnations of Israel causes polarization, threatens to push the parties further apart, and is counterproductive to the already fragile peace process.

The UN General Assembly’s lopsided adoption, by the end of this year, of an expected 21 resolutions on Israel, and only four on the rest of the world combined, eclipses the plight of millions of truly needy human rights victims in places like China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, whose critical issues are being treated with indifference, if not contempt—indeed the UN just elected each of those tyrannies to its 47-nation Human Rights Council.

Consider the absurdity and hypocrisy in just two of today’s resolutions:

The UN is one of the most underrated – and expensive – comedy shows ever

...But at UN headquarters, none of this matters – or even registers. Because it is not important. The UN has no time for these minor matters. What the UN has time – and money – for is to proclaim (wait for it – you’re really going to enjoy this one) …

Ilya Meyer..
IlyaMeyer.com..
27 November '13..




UN member state the Philippines has been devasted by a recent typhoon, with huge loss of life and the eradication of many communities and population centres.

UN member state Syria increasingly resembles an apocalyptic graveyard.

UN member state Lebanon is once again gradually imploding into sectarian violence.

UN member state Afghanistan is currently debating legislation to allow the public stoning of people accused of infidelity.

UN member state Saudi Arabia chops off the hands of thieves.

UN member state Iran hangs gays, political dissidents and criminals from construction cranes in public squares.

UN member state Egypt is subsiding into anarchy, despotism and increasingly bold attacks on its original Coptic Christian population – people who have been living in Egypt since several centuries before Islam was even invented.

UN member state China still occupies Tibet.

UN member state Great Britain still occupies Gibraltar. And the Falkland Islands.

The Arab world going up in flames – but the US, EU and UN focus on Israel

Ilya Meyer..
IlyaMeyer.com
02 August '13..

The Arab world is aflame – but the US, EU and UN focus on Israel
Here’s a question: Why is it that there are no less than THREE Palestines? Three Palestines whose official policy is ethnic cleansing of Jews from their nascent territory.

Firstly there’s Palestine 1/aka Jordan, capital Amman, built on roughly 77 percent of the British Mandate area – the territory earmarked to be returned to the Jewish people as their rightful historic home. This thanks to such legally binding agreements as the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. More than 70 percent of the population of Jordan is Palestinian Arab, yet power is in the hands of the minority Hashemite ruler, King Abdullah, whose family was imported from Arabia to form an immigrant royal dynasty in the part of Palestine that was designated for Arab rule (and the exclusion of all Jews).

Then there’s Palestine 2/The Gaza Strip, capital city Gaza City. Here the extremist Islamist terror group Hamas holds sway after having removed its main political rivals – literally removed, through the simple expedient of tying their hands behind their backs and throwing them off the roofs of tall buildings. Other political opponents were hogtied and dragged behind motorcycles on public streets to send the requisite message of mutual tolerance and political diversity… Here too Jews have been ethnically cleansed – even Jewish graves were uprooted to create an Islamically pure environment for the Sharia aspirations of the proud Hamas regime.

And finally there’s Palestine 3/Most of Judea and Samaria, the historical heartland of the Jewish people, whose modern Arab capital city is Ramallah, Jewish capital city Jerusalem. This area is ruled by the non-elected rabid anti-Semite Mahmoud Abbas. He titles himself “President of Palestine”. Meantime, the Prime Minister of Palestine 1 is Abdullah Ensour, the Prime Minister of Palestine 2 is Ismail Haniyeh, and the Prime Minister of Palestine 3 is Rami Hamdallah. As recently as 2 days ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, on his way to “peace talks” with Israel, reiterated his long-standing demand that the Arab state of Palestine will have no Jews in it whatsoever. It is interesting to note, by way of comparison, that about 21 percent of Israel’s population consists of Arabs, both Christian and Muslim Arabs.

(Video) Anne Bayefsky - The UN vs. Israel

humanrightsvoices.org..
26 February '13..

In the last few decades the United Nations has been obsessed with one country. Is it North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, China or some other nation with a reprehensible human rights record? Those would all be fair guesses and they would all be wrong. Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Human Rights Institute, answers this riddle and explains the upside down moral universe in which the United Nations resides.

Published on Feb 24, 2013 by Prager University


For more human rights and United Nations coverage see www.HumanRightsVoices.org.

Human Rights Voices is dedicated to drawing attention to real victims of human rights abuses, bringing to light the record of the United Nations on protecting human rights, and providing an information base encouraging democratic societies to re-evaluate foreign policy directions for improving human rights conditions in the 21st century.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

The UN: A Frankenstein monster

Fresnozionsm.org..
05 July '12..

I may have written the following before, but it bears repeating:

The United Nations is a Frankenstein monster, an evil and vicious creature that has become precisely the opposite of what its creators intended. Rather than a vehicle to prevent war and ameliorate human suffering, to spread freedom and human rights, it has become a tool of the forces that want to propel the world back into pre-modern darkness.

From a statement released today by Hillel Neuer’s UN Watch group:

GENEVA, July 5 – The U.N.’s top human rights body defied the U.S. today by adopting a Cuban-led “right to peace” resolution that endorses resistance against “foreign occupation,” for the first time granting U.N. Human Rights Council legitimization of the terminology used by Middle East extremists to justify terrorist attacks against Americans and Israelis.

Initiated by Cuba, the resolution’s co-sponsors included Syria, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Belarus, China, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

Everyone should read the advisory committee’s repetitious, Orwellian draft of the resolution, in order to fully savor the absurdities that the occupy our UN. There is a lot of discussion of gender-sensitivity, climate change, the environment, foreign debts, disarmament, military outsourcing, etc. But there is also some language that is clearly aimed at Israel and the West.

Bayefsky - UN Negotiators in New York Produce New Durban III Outrages

Anne Bayefsky
Eye on the UN
For Immediate Release:
July 28, 2011



This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News.


Member states of the U.N. General Assembly are busy hammering out how to slam Israel and restrict human rights like free speech at “Durban III” – the racist “anti-racism” event to be held in New York on Sept. 22.

With the recent pull-outs by the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands added to the previously declared boycotts by the United States, Canada and Israel, negotiations at U.N. Headquarters continued Thursday over how offensive the final declaration of Durban III can become without more countries following suit.

The Durban III conference will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the conference held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. That event produced the Durban Declaration, which accused just one country on earth of racism, namely Israel. No negotiations, therefore, can hide the fact that Durban III is a commemoration – in the words of the authorizing General Assembly resolution – of a conference and an outcome remembered most notably for its overt anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the U.N.’s idea is that since the General Assembly hall in September will be filled with heads of government already present for the Assembly’s annual opening, more than a hundred world leaders will embrace the Durban Declaration and its racist-Israel mantra for the first time. Durban I sported only a handful of such leaders – like Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro -- while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the only one to attend Durban II.

On the table Thursday was a draft of a “political declaration” to be adopted by the General Assembly at the end of the day on Sept. 22. Negotiations proved to be a toxic combination of U.N. members either pursuing a contorted cover-up strategy or preferring more open Israel-bashing.

The co-chairs from Cameroon and Monaco made the agenda painfully obvious. They insisted that the 2011 declaration will “not re-open previously agreed text” since their “mandate is clearly not to renegotiate the Durban Declaration.” On the contrary, Durban III will have the Durban Declaration “at its core.”

Dann: The Palestinian UN sideshow

Moshe Dann
Israel Opinion/Ynet
31 May '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4076591,00.html

Op-ed: Palestinian statehood bid premature, immature and minor concern for Arab world

The Palestinian struggle to wipe out Israel, although ongoing and front page news has never been more than a sideshow in the Arab world. A convenient tool used by Arab dictators to divert attention away from local corruption and abuse, it has not and will not be of major consequence. The Arab world has more important concerns.

That is why exaggerating the consequences of Palestinian moves toward UN recognition distorts reality and creates a false sense of impending doom for Israelis and for the world. Hyping Palestinian causes and efforts to delegitimize and demonize Israel are in effect propaganda gimmicks aimed at Israel's destruction. These methods were common throughout history in different forms – blood libels, racist theories, Nazi screed, the Protocols, Holocaust denial – and promoted in churches and mosques. For some, it is a way of life.

With all the hoopla and media attention, however, the surge for Palestinian statehood is a minor event in the Arab world exploding with civil wars, demonstrations and riots. In real terms, the Palestinian diplomatic sideshow cannot compete with hundreds of people killed daily by Arab security forces in the Middle East and North Africa, revolutions and counter-revolutions without end.

Since they already have diplomatic recognition from 150 countries, the EU and the UN, what more does the PLO seek in statehood at the UN? The political self-definition of the Palestinians includes non- recognition of Israel and terrorist factions, like Hamas. Statehood, moreover, involves the ability to effectively control the territory claimed, reasonable and just civil institutions, desire for peaceful relations, and in the case of the PLO, an end to the "Palestinian refugee" issue.

Most significantly, the current Palestinian leadership has decided to go to the UN before holding oft-postponed elections, raising questions about its internal power struggle and future leaders; experts predict Hamas will take power. Amidst an ongoing civil war between Fatah and Hamas, despite their temporary "reconciliations," Palestinian leaps towards statehood are not only premature; they are immature.

Jew-hatred to persist

Jew-hatred will not change with or without recognition of Palestinian statehood. The PLO and Hamas will continue to pursue their goal of eliminating Israel, supported by Islamists, Jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood and others. Hezbollah will continue to amass missiles – although its current stock estimated at 50,000 seems more than enough to destroy Israel. And, regardless of President Obama's request that they come up with answers, Palestinian leaders can continue to remain silent while planning for conflict.

Exaggerating Palestinian moves toward UN recognition is dangerous when linked with demands for Israel to "do something!" It encourages opponents of Israel and settlements to pressure the Jewish State into more concessions to "head off the tsunami." Even more dangerous, it shifts the onus of preventing violence and promoting peace to Israel.

Finally, if the Palestinians make this move it will have no practical or diplomatic effect. It will, however, have one very important benefit for Israel: It will free us from the restrictions of the Oslo Agreements and the delusions that spawned.

If Arabs claim sovereignty in Palestine, Jews should match that with our own: Sovereignty now.

The author is a historian, writer and journalist


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Israel: UN Panic

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
30 May '11

There is considerable anxiety these days with regard to the threats of the Palestinian Authority (and now the Arab League) to ask the UN, in September, to officially declare "Palestine" to be a state.

Accompanying -- or fueling -- this anxiety is a great deal of misinformation. And so -- having consulted with legal experts here in Israel and done other research -- I will make my best effort to clarify a muddled situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

What is referred to as "international law" is not nearly as clear or definitive as many people imagine it to be.

There are certain written documents of international law. The Geneva Conventions (four treaties and three protocols pertaining to human rights during war) would be a prime example. But technically these apply only to those nations that have ratified the conventions -- that is, that have agreed to abide by their stipulations. Similarly, there is the charter of the UN, the principles of which have theoretically been accepted by all member states.

There is also "customary international law": When a practice is so common that there is a broad international consensus that it is obligatory, it becomes a rule of customary law considered binding upon all nations.

Sometimes, even though a treaty (such as a Geneva Convention) is binding only on signatories, the principles stated within that treaty have been so widely accepted internationally that they can be said to be "customary international law."

~~~~~~~~~~

This is what we have, broadly, from the perspective of international law with regard to the establishment of a Palestinian state:

The United Nations does not "recognize" or "declare" states into existence. All the UN can do is accept for membership states that are already in existence. (I'll come to this below.)

A state applies to the Secretary-General. The Security Council must then make a recommendation on membership and send that recommendation to the General Assembly.

But we can assume that the application by a Palestinian state would be vetoed in the Security Council by the US. This is close to a sure thing, because this is the principle on which Obama has advanced his policy and his public position: the state of Palestine must be established via negotiations. What is more, Obama is likely to be influenced by Congressional pressure and electoral considerations.

There is considerable talk among the Arabs now about going to the General Assembly for a declaration of statehood, to avoid that Security Council veto, but quite frankly, I don't know what they're thinking. In any event, a declaration of statehood for the Palestinians by the General Assembly would be only a recommendation without weight in international law. This is important to keep in mind.

Must Israel Make Concessions in Advance of September UN Brawl?

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
27 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/27/must-israel-make-concessions-in-advance-of-september-un-brawl/

In the wake of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s successful trip to Washington, Israel’s critics are in a grouchy mood. President Obama failed in his effort to ambush Netanyahu—they can’t deny that—and the result was a reaffirmation of American support for Israel that effectively ends any further diplomatic freelancing by the White House. But unhappy Israel-bashers claim it doesn’t matter.

They say Israel is still isolated diplomatically and will be forced—whether or not Bibi’s fans like it—to capitulate to international territorial demands without getting anything from the Palestinians in exchange. Either that, or the Jewish state will find itself being treated like the new South Africa after the United Nations recognizes an independent Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders with no swaps.

So does that mean that Netanyahu must take “bold” steps to give in to the Palestinians or face a diplomatic “tsunami” this fall? Despite the hopes of those who think the wrong guy won the fight between the two leaders last week, the answer is no.

First of all, the idea that Israel has the power to head off the confrontation in the UN in September is a fallacy. The spectacle of the world’s lining up to bash Israel at the UN will be daunting, but it will get the Palestinians nowhere. In the end, the United States will veto the resolution in the Security Council and that will be that. Israel won’t be any more or less diplomatically isolated than it is today. All that will have been accomplished will be to have proven (again) that the Palestinians won’t talk. The Arabs will be angry with the United States, but essentially nothing will have changed when the dust settles.


The worst mistake Netanyahu could make would be to budge an inch this summer as pressure again builds on him. He knows that any concessions made now will simply be pocketed by the Palestinians, but would fail to gain Israel any peace or international support. The Palestinians are choosing this route specifically to avoid negotiations. They won’t come back to them until their UN gambit has come a cropper.

Moreover, anyone who bets on rational behavior from the Palestinians hasn’t been paying attention to them the last several decades. In the next few months, Hamas and Fatah could fall out, leading to a collapse of either one of the two forces, reconfiguring the diplomatic map perhaps to Israel’s advantage.

But even more important is the fact that, after the UN initiative fails, the Palestinians will be forced either to launch a new intifada, which would make any talk of concessions or negotiations nugatory, or to come crawling back to peace talks. While the chances that either Fatah or Hamas will ever recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn are nil, there is no point in Israel giving anything up now in advance of real negotiations should they ever restart. A Congressional initiative to cut off funds to the Fatah-Hamas alliance running the PA could also strengthen Netanyahu’s hand.

Israelis want peace, but right now “bold” moves by Netanyahu would make the restart of peace talks even more unlikely. As difficult as the next few months may be for both Bibi and Israel’s friends to endure, the last thing he should do would be to concede territory merely to please Obama and the Europeans.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

How much antisemitism is too much?

Anne Bayefsky
January 16, 2011
info@eyeontheun.org

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today in The Jerusalem Post.

Recent WikiLeaks cables reveal that diplomats at the United Nations are haunted by a thorny question: how much UN-driven antisemitism is too much? The original UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people and owes its human rights foundations to the victims of the Holocaust. At today’s UN, we have now learned, diplomats hunker down near the General Assembly hall “listening outside with headphones on” trying to figure out the extent of the hate-speech that those on the inside should endure before walking out.

The particular subject of the WikiLeaks cable from US officials in Stockholm was a September 2009 Assembly speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sweden held the EU’s rotating presidency, and it fell upon Swedish diplomats to decide when Ahmadinejad had crossed pre-arranged “red lines.” As it turned out, some EU members walked out of the speech, while Sweden stayed put. According to the cable, the Swedes were upset by the “embarrassing” “lack of EU coordination” – not by the bigotry broadcast over the UN global megaphone.

What had the Europeans confused would seem to be Jewish conspiracy theory 101. Ahmadinejad had used his UN platform to describe Jews as “a small minority [who] dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery…to attain its racist ambitions.” Yet this roused a mere eleven of the UN’s 192 members from their seats, including the United States. Israel had chosen not to attend.

Five months earlier in April 2009, Ahmadinejad had mounted another UN-provided stage in Geneva and began by denying the Holocaust, claiming that the "Zionist regime" had been created “under the pretext of Jewish sufferings.” At this “anti-racism” gathering (dubbed “Durban II”) he continued: “The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces.” This time UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remained glued to their chairs. Nine states, including the United States and Israel, had decided to boycott beforehand, while the remaining EU states and a few others belatedly got up and left.

In September 2010 Ahmadinejad used his UN invitation to New York to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job – “segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack” for the sake of “the Zionist regime.” On this occasion seven countries, including the United States, headed for the doors. Israel had previously figured out it was not worth going.

Obama's Moment of Truth at the UN

Steve J. Rosen
Commentary Magazine
January '11

President Obama has affirmed repeatedly that, under his leadership, America's bond with Israel is absolute, unshakeable, and rock solid. But the Israeli public is not convinced. A Jerusalem Post poll in March 2010 found that just 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think his administration is pro-Israel, against 48 percent who think it is pro-Palestinian. J Street's pollster, Jim Gerstein, looked for a different result, but even his survey found that 55 percent of Israelis do not believe that Obama supports Israel.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also is not convinced that Obama is necessarily in Israel's camp. Abbas sees rich opportunities to drive a wedge between Israel and its "most reliable" partner, particularly on what the Arabs consider settlements in Jerusalem. Abbas witnessed, from Obama's first day, this administration's fixation on the most divisive and vexatious issue in the U.S.-Israel relationship. He sees that Obama does not regard the Jewish presence in the parts of Jerusalem that Jordan held before 1967 to be legitimate. (One wonders: Is Obama aware that more than half the Jews in Jerusalem live in this forbidden eastern half of the capital?)

Few blame Abbas for exploiting the opening that Obama created. Obama very kindly pointed a finger to his own soft underbelly, and Abbas merely accepted the invitation to target the sweet spot the president so generously exposed. Abbas told Obama that he cannot have the peace talks the president so desperately craves until Obama imposes on Israel the freeze in Jerusalem that the president promised.

(Read full "Obama's Moment of Truth at the UN")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Delegitimizing the Jewish State

Bat Ye'or
Middle East Quarterly
Winter '11, pp. 3-14

In a move that caught the Israeli government and the Jewish world by complete surprise, on October 21, 2010, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared the Tomb of the Hebrew Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories," admonishing the Israeli decision to add these biblical shrines to the list of Jewish historical and archaeological sites as "a violation of international law."[1]

The United Nations has become a foremost purveyor of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement. Nowhere has this obsession been more starkly demonstrated than at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, held in September 2001 in the South African town of Durban.

What is less known, however, is that the driving force behind "the attempt to detach the Nation of Israel from its heritage" (to use Israeli prime minister Netanyahu's words)[2] was the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which pressured UNESCO to issue the declaration and drafted its initial version.[3] U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has recently described the OIC as "a strategic and important partner of the U.N."[4] In fact, it has been the OIC that has successfully exploited its marked preponderance at the U.N.—where it constitutes the largest single voting bloc—to turn the world organization and its specialized agencies into effective tools in the attempt to achieve its goals, two of which are to bring about Israel's eventual demise and to "galvanize the umma [Islamic world] into a unified body."[5]

(Read full "Delegitimizing the Jewish State")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Western democracies: end the UN

Fresnozionism.org
24 December '10

News item:

The Palestinian Authority on Thursday informed the US and EU of its intention to request a UN Security Council resolution that condemns construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem.

The announcement was made during separate meetings held by Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat with US Consul-General Daniel Rubenstein and EU representative to the Palestinian territories Christian Berger.

Erekat said that the PA was hoping that the resolution would condemn the construction as illegal and in violation of international law.

There are good arguments that the settlements are quite legal in international law. In any event, such a decision could not be made by a political body, like the Security Council. It would require an impartial court to consider the legal issues, which of course doesn’t exist.

Maybe it is finally time for Israel to consider leaving the UN.

On the one hand, such an action would be applauded by her enemies as an admission that the state lacks legitimacy. So it’s very unlikely.

On the other hand, the UN is dominated by non-democratic states. There is an automatic majority in the General Assembly for any anti-Israel resolution, and the UN actually has a ‘division’ set up to support the cause of the Palestinian Arabs. Here is a 2002 list of some of the ways the UN acts against Israel. It’s only gotten worse since then.

In truth, the UN has lost its ability to perform its intended mission, which is to prevent conflict. It has been incapable of dealing with several high-profile genocides or stopping numerous wars. Can you think of one conflict situation in which UN intervention has actually helped? I can’t.

(Read full "Western democracies: end the UN")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Trampling International Accords

Brazil, Argentina, Others Recognize Palestinian State

Anna Mahjar-Barducci
Hudson New York
14 December '10

In direct violation of the Oslo Accords, which call for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by direct negotiations, Brazil and Argentina have formally recognized the state of Palestine as a free and independent within 1967 borders. This includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Uruguay has already announced that it also will proceed with a similar recognition in the coming month of January. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said that he expects Paraguay to recognize Palestinian statehood in the next few days, followed by Bolivia and Ecuador.

The decision of the two South American States provoked harsh reactions in the US and in Israel. The United States. Officials said that direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are still "the only way" to reach peace in the Middle East. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor commented: "They [Brazil and Argentina] never made any contribution to it [the peace process]… and now they are making a decision that is completely contrary to everything that has been agreed so far; it is absurd." Palmor said that such a disappointment would be conveyed by Israel to the concerned governments.

When two of the major stakeholders in the peace process, Israel and the US, seem to be so deeply against the idea of having recognition separated from direct negotiations, why has the Palestinian Authority launched a worldwide campaign to have more and more countries recognize the "State of Palestine"? US papers are calling it the "Palestinian Plan B" -- an alternative to the peace deal with Israel. The idea is to convince as many countries as possible to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, and use that to lobby the United States not to veto recognition by the U.N. Security Council.

(Read full "Trampling International Accords")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

No Occupied Territories

Eli E. Hertz
mythsandfacts.org
02 November '10

A UN coalition sought to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories,' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. They used capital letters for 'Occupied Territories' and then shifted to 'Palestinian Occupied Territories' and 'Palestine,' as if title or ownership could be assigned out of thin air.

No legal binding authority has empowered any UN organ, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to decide that the territories of the West Bank, known as Judea and Samaria, and Gaza could be transformed into 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' or 'Palestine.' UN organs' the EU and the U.S. use of these dishonest, loaded terms empower terrorism and the Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel . The phrase 'illegal occupation' is a "careless language" and "perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace," says Professor George Fletcher, an expert in international law: [1]

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been insistent, not least as regards questions of territorial title, that the rules and concepts of interna tional law have to be interpreted 'by reference to the law in force' and 'the State practice' at the relevant period." [2]

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Keep Our Eye on the Ball — Iran

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
13 September '10

One of the objections to the “peace process” — in addition to the uptick in murders of Jews attendant thereto — is that it is a giant and dangerous distraction. The administration and much of the media have lost track of what’s important: Iran and the mounting evidence that the sanctions have been, as conservatives predicted, useless. The New York Post, to its credit, has not dropped the ball. In this sharp op-ed, the Post reminds us:

In June, the administration prodded the UN into issuing what President Obama called the “toughest sanctions ever.” But the words “United Nations” and “tough” don’t belong in the same sentence, and that’s a fact Iran has been quick to notice.

According to the UN report, Iran has barred two senior inspectors from their nuclear sites, said it “underestimated” the amount of uranium it has enriched, is developing secret nuke facilities far from prying eyes, and “accidentally” broke the seals on several pieces of equipment that the IAEA had shut down.

(And a dissident Iranian group, the People’s Mujahideen of Iran, charged last week that extensive tunneling near Tehran is connected to the production of weapons-grade plutonium.)

The “solution” to this, of course, is yet another round of Israel bashing. We aren’t making zero progress with Iran? So the UN turns to the Jewish state:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

AP misrepresents Israeli flotilla probe co-operation

Just Journalism
25 August '10

An Associated Press article, published in today’s (8/25) Independent under the headline ‘UN official criticises Israel over Flotilla probe’ states that Israel is not co-operating with the inquiry led by the United Nations Human Rights Council into the flotilla incident. However, it does not explain that Israel is working with another UN inquiry, also mentioned in the article, and that Israel regards the UNHRC as politically motivated against it.

While the article is correct in stating that Israel is refusing to co-operate with the Human Rights Council’s inquiry, it simply notes at the end that ‘Another UN panel under New Zealand's ex-prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and Colombia's ex-president Alvaro Uribe is also examining the incident’. It does not include the fact that Israel is co-operating with that inquiry, which was established by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon – as reported in this AP article. Israel has also set up both a civilian inquiry with a wide ranging mandate, monitored by international observers, including Lord Trimble, and a military inquiry to investigate the incident.

(Read full report)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Oil and the United Nations (UN)

FreeMiddleEast
27 May '10


Oil - We need a UN (United Nations) that decides law based upon honor and justice. http://www.FreeMiddleEast.com for more info.



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Yet Another Critique Of The Goldstone Report--How The UN And Goldstone Ignored International Law

Daled Amos
09 August '10

True, Goldstone and his friends will continue to ignore the criticisms of the Goldstone Report, just as they have claim that such criticisms do not even exist.

But they do.

In The Goldstone Report and International Law, Peter Berkowitz, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, writes that aside from the bias of the Goldstone Report, the emphasis of the criticisms of the report have focused on the mistakes in both the factual and legal findings of the report--

But another and more far-reaching issue, which should be of great significance to those who take seriously the claims of international law to govern the conduct of war, has scarcely been noticed. And that pertains to the disregarding of fundamental norms and principles of international law by the United Nations Human Rights Council (hrc), which authorized the Goldstone Mission; by the Mission members, who produced the Goldstone Report; and by the hrc and the United Nations General Assembly (of which the hrc is a subsidiary organ), which endorsed the report’s recommendations. Their conduct combines an exaltation of, and disrespect for, international law. It is driven by an ambition to shift authority over critical judgments about the conduct of war from states to international institutions. Among the most serious political consequences of this shift is the impairment of the ability of liberal democracies to deal lawfully and effectively with the complex and multifarious threats presented by transnational terrorists.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Questions Arise About the UN Investigation into Israel's Action Regarding Flotilla

Obama administration assurances prove empty.


Anne Bayefsky
The Weekly Standard
06 August '10

Only days after Israel took the unprecedented step of agreeing to participate in a UN investigation on the Gaza flotilla incident, assurances given by the Obama administration have proven to be empty. The episode paints a disturbing picture of the administration's actions in pushing for this investigation, and suggests that Israel’s decision to participate should be revisited.

The incident at the end of May left nine dead on one of six boats attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. It was the only boat on which Turkish-backed pro-Hamas extremists preferred to attack the Israeli military rather than cooperate with Israel’s offer to deliver the goods overland after inspection.

Twenty-four hours later, at breakneck speed for the UN and at odds with its usual pattern of ignoring civilian deaths by the thousands anywhere else, the Security Council issued a presidential statement. With the approval of the Obama administration, the Council called for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards." A day later, the UN Human Rights Council established an allegedly “independent international fact finding mission” with a mandate to report on what it had already declared was Israel’s “outrageous attack.”

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.