Mahmoud Abbas' fake apology got him off the hook at the Security Council - by Elder of Ziyon

...The UN is a worthless organization, but this incident proves that it believes that there are two sides to every antisemitic statement.

Elder of Ziyon..
07 May '18..

From Haaretz:

The United Nations Security Council declined on Friday to adopt a request by the United States to condemn recent remarks by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that were widely criticized as being anti-Semitic, according to AFP. Diplomats said Kuwait rejected the U.S. draft and killed it, arguing that Abbas had already apologized and that it was one-sided.

There are no other details, but one can surmise a bit from this.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Question. What Happens When UN Security Council Resolutions are Ignored? - by Elliott Abrams

...The point is that plenty of countries defy the UN but in very, very few cases is this even noticed, and in fewer still is anyone punished. Israel remains a special case, whose maltreatment in the UN is a disgrace—and one that, until the Obama administration decided to allow Resolution 2334 to pass, the United States fought and prevented in the Security Council.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
05 January '17..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2017/01/05/what-happens-when-un-security-council-resolutions-are-ignored/

What happens when UN Security Council resolutions are ignored? That depends, really—on whether you are any of 192 other members of the United Nations, or are Israel.

Defenders of Israel often claim that it is treated differently by the United Nations from any other nation. That claim is accurate, and a brief look at Lebanon offers some proof. It continues to violate Security Council resolutions, year after year—but no one complains, and no one ever argues that Lebanon must be punished with boycotts or prosecutions for doing so. In fact they are often congratulated for their defiance.

The United Nations Security Council has been saying for decades that the Government of Lebanon must exercise control of its territory. Resolution 1559 of 2004 “Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” and “Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.” By “Lebanese militias” the UN was referring to Hezbollah, but dared not speak its name. In any event, the Government of Lebanon did not comply.

Resolution 1583 was adopted unanimously in 2005 and in it the Security Council

Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries and under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon;

Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it….

As the French ambassador said about that resolution when it was adopted, “in keeping with the present demands of the United Nations, Lebanon must extend its authority throughout the south, in particular, by expanding and deploying its forces and by disarming the militias.” But the Government of Lebanon did not comply.

Resolution 1701 of 2006, adopted to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah,

Welcomes the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the Government of Lebanon…to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon….

Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory…for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon….

Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel….

But the Government of Lebanon paid no attention, or more accurately was unwilling to comply because it was afraid.

Q&A about UN Security Council resolution 2334 - by Vic Rosenthal

...perhaps most important in the short term – at a time that worldwide hatred and threats against the Jewish people and the “Jew among nations” are greater than ever before, it will encourage Israel’s enemies, who will take it as a sign that the international community, including the US, is behind them.

A cartoon posted by Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah
party, which bloodily thanks the 14 nations
that voted for UNSC resolution 2334. 
Courtesy Palestinian Media Watch.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
26 December '16..

On Friday, December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334 with a vote of 14 in favor and one abstention – the US.

What does the resolution say? A lot of things (full text is here), but some of the important ones are

- The statement that Israel’s establishment of settlements across the Green Line (including eastern Jerusalem) “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace,” and the demand that Israel “cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”
- The condemnation of attempts to change the “demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.”
- The statement that the UN will recognize no changes in the pre-1967 lines except those agreed upon by both sides.
- The call for “all States … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
- The condemnation of violence, terrorism, incitement, etc. (The “fig leaf” that allowed the US to abstain on what was originally a 100% anti-Israel resolution).
- The request that the UN Secretary-General report on the progress of implementing the resolution every three months.

Is the resolution binding? No. It is a Chapter VI resolution, which is defined as a “recommendation.” So the UN can’t impose sanctions on Israel for violating its provisions. Only a Chapter VII resolution would be binding and would allow the imposition of economic sanctions or even the use of military force.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The United Nations vs. History: This is Not 'Palestinian Territory' - by Stephen M. Flatow

...It may be unfashionable to talk about the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel when the whole world is so determined to give that land a different name and award it someone else. But the truth is the truth, whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

Stephen M. Flatow..
Jewishlinknj.com..
25 December '16..
Link: http://jewishlinknj.com/op-eds/16348-the-un-vs-history-this-is-not-palestinian-territory..

The United Nations Security Council resolution condemning “Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” was one-sided and unfair. That’s obvious.

The resolution certainly won’t encourage the Palestinians to negotiate, since they see they can get what they want without negotiating. No doubt about that.

And the countries that voted for it are brazen hypocrites, since every one of them is occupying territory to which they have much less claim than Israel has to Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem.

But I think the most important point in this debate is being overlooked: The UN is condemning Israeli settlements in “Palestinian territory”—but the territory in question is not “Palestinian.”

It may be unfashionable to talk about the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel when the whole world is so determined to give that land a different name and award it someone else. But the truth is the truth, whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

And For That Disgraceful Anti-Israel UN Security Council Vote the Winner Is?

...come to think of it, with the cash-pressed New York Times looking to vacate and sublet eight floors of its headquarters as a way of cutting costs and increasing revenues, perhaps there’s a win-win to be had. Let Hamas move out of Gaza, out of the West Bank, and into the Times building in Manhattan. Cut out the middlemen, and have the terrorists take over the editorial- and column-writing duties directly. After all, they’re advocating essentially the same thing, an approach that the Israeli government aptly describes as disgraceful.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
25 December '16..

In the aftermath of Friday’s disastrous and disgraceful UN Security Council vote condemning Israel, a competition has emerged over who deserves the blame.

Prime Minister Netanyahu blamed the Obama administration. He said it “not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the UN; it colluded with it behind the scenes.”

The American permanent representative at the United Nations, Samatha Power, who works for President Obama, blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu, ...

...I’ve got a different view of it. In my view, the guilty party here isn’t so much either President Obama or Prime Minister Netanyahu, but the New York Times. The UN vote — “disgraceful,” as Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon put it — was in fact the culmination of a successful, year-long editorial campaign by that newspaper. It was a campaign aimed precisely at taking Israel’s security decisions out of the hands of Israel’s democratically elected leaders and placing those decisions, instead, in the custody of a council whose members include Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Communist China and Venezuela.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

UN resolutions and Hanukah: we will always shine our light to the world - by Rain Forest

...The nations of the world have, yet again, a choice. This time, what will you do? Your ancestors sat silently by… will you do the same? Do you want to be part of the darkness tries desperately to smother the light? Or would you rather add your own light to ours? All it takes is one candle to chase away the darkness.

Rain Forest..
Inspiration from Zion..
24 December '16..

Throughout our history there have been times when it’s been illegal to be Jewish, when our land has been occupied by foreign powers who tried to force us to bow to their gods and make us forget about ours.

We’ve been scattered, enslaved, accused of every evil in the world, tortured and slaughtered.

There have been times when it’s been illegal for Jews to work in the field of their choice. When Jews were not allowed to create anything. When Jews could not own land (were they afraid of the power in the connection between Jews and their land?).

Jews had to be marked as Jews when they were in public –
the Nazi yellow star wasn’t the first time that happened, it was the most recent.

Outcast, downtrodden, almost exterminated.

Every nation that has risen up against the Jewish people has ultimately failed.
The greatest empires the world has ever seen have dwindled and fallen.

But the Jewish people have remained.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

I Am Glad The US Abstained on UNSC Resolution 2334 And Here Is Why - by Sheri Oz

...So thank-you President Obama. I am not upset with your instructions to the American UN ambassador to abstain. I am not upset by the fact that you were probably instrumental in the preparation of the resolution (according to Alan Dershowitz). Quite the contrary. I am glad that you allowed the UN to shine once more in its aura of duplicity and stupidity and turn up the light, not on foes but on friends who are foes.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
24 December '16..

The US has served as a fig leaf for the UN Security Council (UNSC) for far too long. When the US would veto resolutions, the names of all those countries who voted in favour of the resolution would fade into the dungeons of unnecessary details that need not be filed or remembered.

Not so now!

We will remember that Egypt obliged US President-Elect Donald Trump and Israel (most likely the former rather than the latter) by backing down from raising the resolution proposal to the UNSC floor. Kudos to Egypt!

We will remember that Senegal, Malaysia, New Zealand and Venezuela placed the resolution back on the agenda the very next day, the last working day before Christmas and probably the last working day of 2016.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The perfidy of Barack Obama will not be the last word - Anne Bayefsky

...The Security Council and President Obama leave a trail of devastation across the planet, with evil empowered and good forsaken. But their record does not have to be our future. Today’s vote reminds us of what it takes for evil to triumph.

Anne Bayefsky..
Human Rights Voices..
info@humanrightsvoices.org..
24 December 16..

The vicious condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council on December 23, 2016 is a watershed moment in U.S.-UN relations – albeit not as President Obama hoped. Following the vote of fourteen in favor and one American abstention, Palestinian representative Riyadh Mansour and American Ambassador Samantha Power exchanged a telling handshake. Evidently, President Obama believes that he has put one over on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the incoming Trump administration. But here’s another possibility: treachery at the UN will not be cost free.

Let’s be absolutely clear about what has just happened. The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

This is not just any lie. This is the big lie of modern antisemitism. This is the lie that drove a Palestinian teenager in June of this year to creep into the home of 13-year old Hallel Ariel and butcher her with a knife in the back as she slept in her bed.

The expectation was that the U.S. would finally abandon Israel at the UN - by Jonathan Tobin

...Trump may not be able to undo a UNSC resolution unilaterally once he takes office. But it will give him added incentive to make gestures that show the world that the United States still has Israel’s back, such as a move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Moreover, as Eugene Kontorovich writes in the Washington Post, he could also order the State Department to reverse its stand on the legality of settlements—a position that would outrage the foreign-policy establishment and put the U.S. at odds with its allies but would also be rooted in justice and history.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
22 December '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/can-trump-stop-obama-at-united-nations/

This was supposed to be a day that ended with some high drama at the United Nations Security Council. The expectation was that the U.S. would finally abandon Israel at the UN, during President Obama’s last days in office, by failing to veto a measure that would label the presence of all Jews in the West Bank and in parts of Jerusalem lawbreakers. With the handover of power in Washington only 29 days away, we have a few more weeks to find out if that’s what Obama will do, but the answer won’t come today. Reportedly, last minute pressure from Israel on the resolution’s Egyptian sponsors resulted in Cairo postponing the vote, possibly “indefinitely.”

Was this outcome merely the product of the increasingly close relations between Israel and an Egyptian government that sees the Jewish state as an essential ally in its fight against ISIS terrorists in the Sinai as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Perhaps. If so, then a biased resolution that places all of the blame for the lack of peace on Israel and only pays lip service to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence (without naming the Palestinian Authority and Hamas as the guilty parties) will soon be revived by another sponsor. But it’s also possible that the real diplomatic struggle here isn’t so much between Israel and Egypt or even the Palestinians as it is between Obama and his successor.

The assumption has been that once the presidential election was over, there would be nothing to restrain Obama from launching a parting shot at his longtime antagonist, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That calculation turned out to be incorrect. While Obama need no longer fear a pro-Israel backlash from the voters or Congress, he does have to reckon with the intentions of his successor. In the last month, there was speculation that Obama would forgo a betrayal of the Jewish state at the UN because he feared doing so would only push Trump further into the arms of the pro-Israel community. In the wake of Trump’s naming as the next ambassador to Israel his friend David Friedman—an ardent backer of Israel as well as a supporter of the settlement movement and of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv—the president may be further tempted to undermine Netanyahu and impede Trump’s plans.

That’s why Trump’s challenge to Obama this morning, in which he blasted the proposed resolution as “deeply unfair” to Israel and demanded that it be vetoed, may have had as much impact on today’s postponement and the chances of reviving the effort as any message Netanyahu may have sent to the Egyptians.

Netanyahu, Sisi, Obama and the UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements - by Elliott Abrams

...I had actually thought Mr. Obama would veto, because a refusal to do so would certainly do damage to his party–a party that has suffered electoral defeats at the congressional and state level throughout his presidency. But if the information I received was right, he was more interested in departing with another smack at Israel.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
22 December '16..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/22/netanyahu-sisi-obama-and-the-united-nations-resolution-on-israeli-settlements/

The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to vote today (Thursday, December 22) on an Egyptian-sponsored resolution on Israeli settlement activity.

Egypt, the Arab representative on the Security Council right now, pulled the resolution this morning, so there will be no vote. There are several mysteries here, including why Egypt did that, and how President Obama planned to vote: yes, abstain, or veto.

First, it’s important to realize just how bad the resolution was. Here’s part: The Security Council–

A fantastic feat of obliterating the truth and propping up the lie

...Preposterous and specious as assorted UN resolutions, documents and declarations unexceptionally tend to be, their detrimental cumulative effect is undeniable. In the very least they implant and inculcate tendentious vocabulary in the minds of the uninitiated. They accentuate and approve prejudices. They affix and appear to quasi-legitimize an agenda of hate – in galling distortion to the original vision of the UN’s mission.

Why would “peaceful worshipers” stockpile
weaponry and in a holy site at that?

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
27 September '15..

Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas vowed to prevent Jews from “defiling al-Aksa Mosque with their filthy feet.” Was there no-nonsense condemnation of such incitement from the UN? Not a hint thereof.

The UN never ceases to blow our minds although the organization’s barefaced bias shouldn’t realistically surprise any reasonable Israeli. Yet somehow we compulsively continue to assume that abundant incontrovertible evidence before all eyes would finally even the skewed international scales.

Invariably however, time and again we are shown that no absurdity is too absurd for the UN.

The UN Security Council for instance managed in one outlandish statement to ignore the in-your-face aggression by Muslims on the Temple Mount while inter alia also expunging all trace of Jewish links to Judaism‘s holiest site.

It was a fantastic feat of obliterating the truth and propping up the lie.

To begin with, there was no mention of the term Temple Mount, thus in effect wiping out 3,000 years of Jewish history (to say nothing of the derivative Christian historiography). All that was mentioned was the subsequent superimposed ArabicHaram al-Sharif (Noble Compound). Repeatedly, that was the one and only appellation used for the site.

It was as if Jews were never there, have no connection to the Mount, had invented a bogus narrative about a non-existent temple and now arbitrarily seek to usurp the rights of Muslims whose sanctuary this was exclusively from time immemorial. All this subscribes to a tee to the outrageous history-defying contentions blusterously reiterated by Arabs/Muslims in general and by the Palestinians particularly.

The Temple Mount and the UN Encouragement of Palestinian Violence

...while this latest example of UN bias against Israel might be dismissed as meaningless, it is actually quite significant. Palestinian leaders seeking to foment a wave of religious hatred against Israel will only be encouraged by this kind of international support to step up their incitement.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
20 September '15..

With incidents of Palestinian violence growing in recent weeks, Israelis are wondering now if the Jewish New Year that is just beginning will soon bring with it a new war with Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Hamas has been hard at work in recent months digging new terror tunnels and fortifying the strip with Iranian assistance. But the decision of the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas to try to compete with the Islamists by ramping up tensions in Jerusalem has made a renewal of last year’s fighting an even greater possibility. But rather than seek to calm these tensions, the United States has been largely silent about Abbas’s incitement as well as Iran’s role in stirring up more trouble. Just as troubling is the way the United Nations Security Council has reacted to the dispute over the Temple Mount. Last week, it issued a statement that made it clear the international community has no respect for Jewish rights in the holy city. But it also indicated that it is openly siding with Palestinians who are seeking to use this issue as a way to stir up even more hatred against Israelis and Jews. The willingness of the Obama administration to acquiesce to this disreputable stand shows its untrustworthiness as an ally as well as the dangers that lie ahead for Israel should the president seek to restart peace talks.

Any discussion about the Temple Mount must begin with an acknowledgment that Israel has sought to preserve the unsatisfactory status quo whereby the holiest spot in Judaism remains under the sole authority of a Muslim Wakf. Jews are prohibited from praying on the site, a rule enforced by Israeli police. But not even this is enough to satisfy Palestinian radicals who routinely harass non-Muslim visitors and subject Jews who dare to ascend the plateau to constant abuse. Just as bad, the mosques there have been used as staging areas for Arab violence with stones and firebombs stored there. While a minority of Jews has agitated for the right to pray there, the “hardline” Netanyahu has resolutely opposed them. But it has been forced to step in to forestall violence on the Temple Mount, which overlooks the Western Wall Plaza.

But as they have done throughout the last century, Palestinian leaders are using the Temple Mount to fuel more hatred by claiming that Jews are trying to destroy the mosques. Even supposed moderate Abbas said this week that he was seeking to prevent “filthy Jewish feet” from desecrating holy places and did so without criticism from the Obama administration that has lauded him as a force for peace. The number of incidents in which Palestinians used firebombs or stones to attack Jews, included one in which a 64-year-old Jewish man was murdered on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, is rising. Not to be outdone, the possibility of Hamas using its massive rocket arsenal to up the ante with both Israel and Abbas’s Fatah Party may bring the region to the brink of another war.

Yet faced with this crisis, the UN Security Council issued a statement that both ignored the truth about what is happening on the Temple Mount. The Security Council referred to the Temple Mount — the site of the biblical Holy Temples — upon which Muslim conquerors subsequently built mosques only by its Arabic name, the Haram al-Sharif. This is a blatant denial of both Jewish and Christian ties to the site. Nor did it mention that Palestinians who seek to deny not only Jewish rights but also Jewish history in Jerusalem solely initiated the violence there.

It ignored the question of Jewish rights and merely stated that the “Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif must be allowed to worship in peace, free from violence, threats, and provocations.” This is absurd since no one is threatening Muslim worshippers there with violence. To the contrary, it is the Palestinians who are threatening the Jews as well as seeking to prevent Jews from exercising their rights.

Surprise? Turning Refugee Camps into Weapons Warehouses

...The UN Security Council has clearly not heard of the fighting in Ain al-Hilweh. That is why it has not even issued a statement expressing "concern" over the plight of the Palestinians in the camp. The international media, for its part, has thus far shown little interest in the story. Why? The answer, as usual, is simple: No Israeli involvement. The 120,000 Palestinians living in Ain al-Hilweh are "unfortunate" because they are not being targeted by Israel. Otherwise, there would have been an international outcry and the UN Security Council would have held an emergency session to condemn Israel and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
01 September '15..

Palestinians are once again paying a heavy price for allowing terror groups and armed gangs to operate freely inside their communities. But this is not happening in a refugee camp in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Rather, it is taking place in Lebanon, one of three Arab countries that host hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

This explains why the international media and human rights organizations have shown little interest in what is happening inside the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, Ain al-Hilweh.

For the past two weeks, dozens of Palestinian families from Ain al-Hilweh have fled their homes after fierce clashes that erupted between Fatah militiamen and terrorists belonging to a radical Islamist gang affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

The UN Security Council has clearly not heard of the fighting in Ain al-Hilweh. That is why it has not even issued a statement expressing "concern" over the plight of the Palestinians in the camp.

The international media, for its part, has thus far shown little interest in the story. Why? The answer, as usual, is simple: No Israeli involvement.

The 120,000 Palestinians living in Ain al-Hilweh are "unfortunate" because they are not being targeted by Israel. Otherwise, there would have been an international outcry and the UN Security Council would have held an emergency session to condemn Israel and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

The need for Israel to submit its own resolution to the Security Council

...For what the Palestinians are trying to do is to undo UNSC Resolution 242 by getting rid of the parts they don’t like. Resolution 242 was adopted after the 1967 Six-Day war, and it is still in force. It is the relevant and binding UN decision that sets the principles for negotiated peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors. There is no reason to change it, but there is a reason the Palestinians want it repealed.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
17 December '14..

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) reportedly intends to submit a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) aimed at demanding a full and unconditional Israeli withdrawal to the armistice line that separated Israel from Jordan between 1949 and 1967. Rather than lobbying the United States to veto the PLO resolution, and rather than trying to convince France to drop its own supposedly more benign draft, Israel should submit its own resolution to the UNSC.

The Israeli resolution would demand a Palestinian renunciation of the so-called “right of return” and a UN commitment to dismantle the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) within two years. This way, UNSC members would have to vote on two resolutions: one that demands an unconditional and total Israeli withdrawal (the PLO proposal), and one that demands an unconditional and total end to the cynical perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem (the Israeli proposal). UNSC members that claim to support the two-state solution will then have to explain why they are willing to impose one ingredient of that solution (i.e. ending Israel’s partial control of the West Bank) but not the other (i.e. ending the Palestinian claim, clearly incompatible with the two-state solution, that six million Arab “refugees” should be granted the option of becoming residents and citizens of Israel).

The PLO’s refusal to end all claims against Israel (including the claim that the descendants of the 1948 refugees should have a “right of return” to Israel) is the reason Yasser Arafat rejected the December 2000 Clinton proposal (which would have granted the Palestinian state 96% of the West Bank) and the reason Abbas rejected the September 2008 Olmert proposal (which would have granted the Palestinian state 99% of the West Bank, after land swaps). Abbas admittedly has said that he does not intend to return to his hometown of Safed, but he also insists that he can only renounce his own “right” but not that of six million “refugees.” He confirmed this two weeks ago (on 30 November) in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar Al-Youm. “We cannot close the door to those who wish to return,” Abbas insisted.

The Israeli proposal would thus send the following message to UNSC members: if you want to impose a settlement instead of encouraging a negotiated one, then it has to go both ways. You cannot just ignore one of the main sources of the ongoing stalemate and let the Palestinians get away with a fanciful demand that is incompatible with the two-state solution.

For what the Palestinians are trying to do is to undo UNSC Resolution 242 by getting rid of the parts they don’t like. Resolution 242 was adopted after the 1967 Six-Day war, and it is still in force. It is the relevant and binding UN decision that sets the principles for negotiated peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors. There is no reason to change it, but there is a reason the Palestinians want it repealed.

Can Israel lose in the UN what it won on the ground?

...Whatever else you may say about PM Netanyahu, he has no illusions about the attitudes toward Israel found in the European and American capitals. Whether they believe that an attenuated, weak and dependent Israel can and ought to survive, or that the ‘mistake’ of 1948 should be ‘corrected’ (they will deplore the violence inherent in the ‘correction’, of course), they clearly do not favor a strong, independent Jewish state.

Cambodian soldiers on their way to
Lebanon to “keep the peace” for the UN,
 Dec. 2012. They are actually human
shields for Hizballah terrorists.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
05 September '14..











Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2014/09/how-israel-can-lose-in-the-un-what-it-won-on-the-ground/

News item:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States is open to a new U.N. resolution on Gaza but only if it contributes to sustaining the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations said Wednesday. …

A draft resolution circulated by the United States, Israel’s closest ally, and obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press calls for the re-establishment of full Palestinian Authority control over Gaza, which was ruled by Hamas militants who refuse to recognize the state of Israel.

It includes a key Israeli demand, affirming that a lasting solution must ensure that Gaza is “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those under the full and legitimate control of the Palestinian Authority.”

The Palestinian Authority does not have the ability to disarm Hamas or prevent Hamas from rearming. On the other hand, it is dominated by people who hate Hamas as much as they hate Israel, so introducing the PA into Gaza can’t be all bad.

But if Hamas is really going to be castrated as it so richly deserves, only the IDF has the power to do it — and Israel has now left the field by prematurely ending the war. Unfortunately, Israel’s more sophisticated enemies are already taking advantage of this strategic failure:

The Security Council is also considering “elements” for a resolution proposed by European nations, and a Jordanian draft resolution backed by the Palestinians and their supporters which was written before the latest cease-fire .

The European proposal goes further than the Americans, calling for the establishment of an international Monitoring and Verification Mission in Gaza to ensure that the cease-fire agreement is implemented and to investigate reported violations.

On the surface, it appears as though the UN is supporting Israel’s call for disarmament of Hamas. But as happened in Lebanon after the Second Lebanon War of 2006, a UN mission will be a disaster for Israel. No UN personnel will endanger themselves by trying to interdict Hamas military operations in any way, and their ‘investigations’ will not result in action.

A UN mission will perform the same function for Hamas in Gaza that it does for Hizballah in Lebanon, which is to prevent Israel from taking action against Hamas. They will be human shields.

Surprise? Security Council Resolution Indefinitely Postponed

...A UNSC Resolution that "All missiles and rockets in Gaza must be removed or destroyed" could have been an important move in the right direction. Relegating demilitarization to the status of "long run goal" may leave us with a "dual use goods" import inspection and monitoring system "cat and mouse" game with the bizarre situation that any material Hamas manages to get through the system can be openly used to manufacture missiles since the ceasefire does not prohibit missile manufacturing activities!!! It is not too late.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
27 August '14..





Double cross at the UN? Security Council Resolution Indefinitely Postponed

Here's the timeline:

Immediately before and at the time that the ceasefire was announced, Israelis were talking about a United Nations Security Council Resolution being issued this week, with the help of the United States, that would include a call for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.

It was a logical extension of the 15 August Council of the European Union statement that "All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm".

The idea is to make it absolutely clear that disarmament is a requirement for the Gaza Strip - not some kind of Palestinian concession to be made sometime in the future as part of a package that includes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Unfortunately, already the morning after the ceasefire was announced there were news reports that the United Nations Security Council Resolution was indefinitely postponed by Washington.

Would Israel get a Security Council seat if it flogged criminals?

...Despite the end of the Cold War and the Oslo process, the Arab world and the PLO never ceased activating the “automatic majority” they enjoy at the General Assembly in order to isolate and defame Israel. It is the same “automatic majority” that blocks Israel’s access to Security Council membership, since non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly. So the only point of throwing Israel’s hat into the ring is to publicly remind the free world that it has become a minority in the very organization it founded and which has since been hijacked.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
I24News.tv..
23 October '13..

Much has been said and written about Saudi Arabia’s bizarre rebuff of the UN Security Council. What went nearly unnoticed is the fact that Israel announced earlier this month that it is running for a Security Council seat (in 2019). This is Israel’s first attempt since its admission to the UN in 1949 to join the organization’s most powerful body. Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, Israel stands no chance of being accepted (and declining). The fact that Israel’s bid is hopeless provides an opportunity to understand what is wrong with the UN.

While declining Security Council membership, Saudi Arabia is applying for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) - although its legal system practices flogging, amputations, eye gouging. It is a country that lashes rape victims instead of punishing the perpetrators publicly beheads homosexuals and, in February 2013, arrested 53 Christians for the “crime” of praying in a private home. It is one of the world’s most horrendous human rights violators, but its bid for UNHRC membership will be successful because most members belong to the same league. Since its founding in 2006, the UNHRC has included countries such as China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Mauritania (a country that practices slavery), Venezuela (under Chavez) and Ghadafi's Libya. Saudi Arabia will be in good company.

Unfortunately, the UNHRC is not the only UN body that makes a mockery of sanity and common sense. Earlier this month, Iran was elected to the General Assembly’s Committee on Disarmament and International Security. A country that openly defies Security Council resolutions in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorist organizations, is now entrusted by the General Assembly to monitor disarmament and international security.

Appointing pyromaniacs as firefighters is a UN tradition. In January 2003, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was selected to chair the UN’s Disarmament Conference. At the time, Iraq was defying UN weapon inspectors. That same year, Syria was sitting on the Security Council (it was elected in 2002) to enforce international law and order, while serving as an active arms transit between Iran and Hezbollah.

Israel, by contrast, was never elected to the Security Council, to the UNHRC or to the Committee on Disarmament. Would Israel stand a better chance were it to promote international terrorism, to amputate thieves, or to produce chemical weapons? Hardly.

Could Be That Israel’s Critics Are the Real Obstacle to Peace

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
19 December '12..

The Obama administration joined the chorus of United Nations, European and Arab critics of Israel this week when it blasted the decision of the Netanyahu government to approve plans to build new housing in two Jerusalem neighborhoods and one in the adjacent suburban area known as E1. While the Obama administration did not join its European allies and other members of the UN Security Council declaring the building illegal and an obstacle to a two-state solution that must cease immediately, it did declare that the activity put peace “further at risk.” Israel’s critics make the argument that this sort of condemnation is heightening the country’s isolation and is to blame for the lopsided vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinian Authority’s status at the UN earlier this month. But the hypocrisy of these charges makes it easy to understand why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is ignoring them.

The point here isn’t just—as we have repeatedly pointed out here at Contentions—that building in these areas of Jerusalem as well as in E1 wouldn’t prevent a two-state solution were the Palestinians inclined to negotiate with Israel to get one. The building within Jerusalem’s city limits in Jewish neighborhoods that were built decades ago, such as Ramat Sharon and Gilo, are in places that no one envisions being given to the Palestinians even in the most generous offer possible. The same is true of the new Givat Hamatos project. As for the E1 area in between the city and the suburb of Ma’ale Adumim, it, too, is in an area that Israel has always intended to keep. That is a point underlined by the fact that it was Yitzhak Rabin that put it under the jurisdiction of the adjacent Jewish town.

But the real hypocrisy isn’t the fact that all those countries as well as the Palestinians know very well that it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to a two-state solution if Israel built 100,000 new homes in these places or none at all. It is the fact that these countries continue to ignore the fact that it is the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate and who continue to issue statements making clear their intention to destroy Israel without drawing much comment from nations that are supposedly so interested in peace.

It begins and ends in Iran

Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
25 July '12..

Statement to the Security Council
Ambassador Haim Waxman
Israel's Deputy Permanent Representative
"The Situation in the Middle East"

Thank you, Mr. President - and allow me to extend Israel's appreciation to you for your able stewardship of the Security Council this month.

18 years ago, a bomb ripped through the Argentinian Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. 85 people were killed. Hundreds were injured. The Islamic Republic of Iran - a Member State of this organization - was responsible for this act, along with its proxy Hezbollah.

Last week, a suicide bomber exploded on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Burgos, Bulgaria. Six were killed, including a pregnant woman. More than 30 were injured. The victims were mostly young people on vacation. Again, Iran and Hezbollah were responsible.

In recent months, Israelis were targeted in terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in India, Azerbaijan, Thailand, Kenya, Turkey and, most recently, in Cyprus. Iran and Hezbollah were responsible for each and every one of these acts. This is just one part of a bigger picture. Iran and Hezbollah's most recent terrorist plots span five continents and at least 24 countries.

It should be clear to everyone in this hall that these horrific events are not isolated. A clear line of terror runs from the bombing in Argentina to the attack in Bulgaria. It begins and ends in Iran.

Marquadt-Bigman - Quote of the day

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
26 January '12..

We come together today after a year of turmoil in the Middle East. Great challenges stand on the horizon.

People are demanding dignity and seeking liberty after generations of oppression. Extremism threatens fragile societies. Human rights continue to be trampled. Unrest has shaken the foundation of the political order from the straits of Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea.

And what issue has this Council deemed the most pressing in its monthly debate on the Middle East?

Surprise, surprise…the status of municipal building applications in the West Bank.

In the last two monthly briefings by the Secretariat, barely a square inch of Jerusalem or the West Bank was left unexamined. Yet, entire Middle Eastern countries where people are being killed, repressed and tortured daily continue to go without mention.