Mahmoud Abbas at the UN again: Who cares? - by David Weinberg

Once again, an American administration is begging Abbas to put on his “moderate” mask, and not to “exacerbate” the situation with an inflammatory speech or with extreme moves against Israel. What difference does it make whether Abbas gives a “moderate” speech at the UN next week? His obstructionism is constant.

David Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
15 September '17..
Link: http://davidmweinberg.com/2017/09/15/abbas-at-the-un-again-who-cares/

Next week, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas will once again stand at the rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, an American administration is begging Abbas to put on his “moderate” mask, and not to “exacerbate” the situation with an inflammatory speech or with extreme moves against Israel.

I say that this not a real test of presumed Palestinian moderation. The real question is: How far can Abbas go in opposing real negotiation and compromise, encouraging violence, venerating terrorists, and pushing the criminalization of Israel internationally – while still being considered a paragon of peace by the global community?

Consider: For almost two decades, Israelis have been told that Mahmoud Abbas was the most reasonable Palestinian leader they could hope for; that he was Israel’s best partner for peace; that he was the moderate with whom a grand compromise deal could be reached. Israelis wanted to believe this so much.

But then came the Abbas who walked away from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s outrageously generous territorial offer in 2008; and the Abbas who refused peace talks with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu even after Netanyahu froze settlement construction; and the Abbas who left US Secretary of State John Kerry out in the cold in 2014.

Then there was the “PaliLeaks” opportunity to ready the Palestinian public for compromise with Israel. But Abbas ran away from that gateway too, vigorously denying the hints of compromise with Israel (about refugees, Jerusalem, and borders) that were in the leaked documents.

Ever since then, Abbas has used every international forum to spew forth extremist vitriol against Israel and seek the criminalization of Israel. His record of speech-making at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) is particularly appalling.

UN General Assembly Recognition of “Palestine”: Does It Matter? by Sheri Oz

...Since negotiations for a final settlement between the PA and Israel seem more unlikely than ever, in spite of international support for Palestinian independence, violence has once more become a popular means of applying pressure to Israel. It would be interesting to return to the original participants and see if or how support for violence has changed since 2012. Of course, the ongoing incitement in the PA will have to be accounted for at the same time. Perhaps that is another topic for study: the relationship between international recognition and state sanctioned incitement to violence.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
31 August '17..

I am guilty of trying to convince myself that United Nations General Assembly acceptance of “Palestine” as a nonmember observer state is of no real consequence. And of trying to convince myself that UNESCO determination of our Jewish indigenous sites, the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs, as, instead, sites “belonging” to Palestine are also of no real consequence. After all, neither the General Assembly (GA) nor UNESCO have the legal clout of the UN Security Council (SC).

So I applaud those in the UN fighting to protect Israel against delegitimization while calming myself that nothing bad will come of it if they do not succeed. After all, what is the GA going to do?

And then I discover two research articles examining whether or not UNGA recognition of Palestine matters to those living in the Palestinian Authority (PA). And the articles give me pause. They give me something about which to ponder a bit more deeply.

(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 UN General Assembly, the Golan, and Theater of the Absurd - by Elliott Abrams

...It’s hard to think of a better example of why the United Nations has become the theater of the absurd. The representative of a regime that rules perhaps ten percent of Syria and has murdered half a million of its own people, including with poison gas, condemns Israel for its “killing.” The General Assembly spends a day passing six resolutions denouncing Israel. And representatives of democracies all around the world hide and abstain.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
03 December '16..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/03/the-united-nations-general-assembly-the-golan-and-theater-of-the-absurd/

This past week the United Nations General Assembly commemorated once again the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” and took the occasion to pass six anti-Israel resolutions.

Ranging from the despicable to the absurd, these resolutions of course have nothing to do with reality in the Middle East, nor do they bring peace one minute closer. Let’s take a look at one–the resolution entitled “The Syrian Golan.”

This resolution (formally known as Agenda item 34 or document A/71/L.8) had many cosponsors. They included, and I quote, such world leaders as “Bolivia (Plurinational State of)” and “Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),” plus Zimbabwe, Comoros, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and of course a bunch of Arab states.

The heart of the resolution is this: The General Assembly

Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region…

Demands once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions;

What precisely would happen were Israel tomorrow morning to withdraw from what the UN calls “the Syrian Golan?” Would Islamic State try to overrun it and slaughter Druze living there? Would Iranian-backed militias take part of it? More likely, would the butcher Bashar al-Assad’s Iranian-backed army try to seize it? Or, most likely of all, would Hezbollah forces seize it?

How would that affect the people living there? Or the people living in northern Israel? Or the people living across the border from the Golan in Jordan?

(Video) Ambassador Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine

"Today’s debate is not about speaking for peace or speaking for the Palestinian people – it is about speaking against Israel."

IsraelinUN..
25 Nov '14..
H/T Kay..


Ambassador Prosor's remarks at the UN General Assembly as part of the international day of solidarity with the Palestinian People debate. This debate commemorates the UN's Partition Plan for Palestine, and results in numerous anti-Israel resolutions.



Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1--Os_apR0&feature=youtu.be

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 
.

U.N. - 9 Resolutions on Israel, 0 on Syria , Adopted Today

U.N. Watch..
Vol. 401
18 Dec. '12

GENEVA, Dec. 18 – The U.N. General Assembly today adopted nine resolutions on Palestinian rights and the Golan, sharply criticizing Israel, yet making no mention of Sunday’s massacre of Palestinians by Syrian warplanes firing missiles into a mosque in a Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus. Nor did the texts mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who continue to flee the camp.

By the end of this week, the current 2012 UNGA session will have adopted 22 country-specific resolutions on Israel – and only four on the rest of the world combined -- one each for Syria, Iran, North Korea and Burma, noted UN Watch.

Today’s resolutions criticized Israel for “the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people,” and focused on “the extremely difficult socioeconomic conditions being faced by the Palestine refugees in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

One resolution condemned Israel for holding on to the Golan Heights, demanding Israel hand the land and its people to Syria.

“It’s astonishing,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “At a time when the Syrian regime is massacring its own people, how can the U.N. call for more people to be subject to Assad’s rule? The timing of today’s text is morally galling and logically absurd.”

Benzimra - 3236: A Number Pregnant with Danger for Israel

Salomon Benzimra..
American Thinker..
03 June '12..

Commenting on American economic policy, David Brooks wrote: "A country is divided when different people take different sides in a debate. A country is really divided when different people are having entirely different debates."

Israel is experiencing the latter situation at the political level. The current debate on the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict deals with the demolition of some Israeli settlements, the way negotiations should be pursued, lines on maps and land-swap ratios, and appropriate responses to rocket attacks from Gaza. But the other debate, and the one worth focusing on (other than Iran), is the very nature of Palestinian claims on any territory west of the Jordan River. What are these claims? How did they originate? How legitimate are they?

These matters have not received the exposure they deserve. Future historians will be puzzled at how the fundamentals of the Arab-Israeli conflict were derailed to give way to a concocted narrative which spawned one absurdity after another -- and yet managed to capture the attention of world diplomats for decades.

Elder - The part of UNGA 194 that the Arabs ignore

Elder of Ziyon
23 October '11

Palestinian Arabs and their supporters never cease to point to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as proof that there is a legal "right to return" for Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendants. There are lots of arguments proving that this is invalid - not the least being that UNGA resolutions are not legally binding as well as the conditional nature of the text.

But, astoundingly, the very same paragraph in UNGA 194 also demands the resettlement of Arab refugees in Arab states!

The part of 194 that is always quoted is this one:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

But the second clause of the same paragraph says this:

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

The Conciliation Commission definitely interpreted this clause as meaning resettlement in Arab countries.

(Read full "The part of UNGA 194 that the Arabs ignore")

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.
.

Hamas' response to Goldstone?

Elder of Ziyon
24 January '10

Dia Al Madhoun, a Hamas judge and head of the Central Committee to Document and Prosecute Zionist War Criminals, has claimed that everything Hamas did during Operation Cast Lead was legal in international law.

In an article in the Al Qassam Brigades website, al-Madhoun lays out his "legal" arguments.

Firstly, he says, the rights of Hamas to use rockets and other weapons is protected by international law, and he brings as proof a UN General Assembly resolution from 1970 (25/2621) which "Reaffirms the inherent right of colonial peoples to struggle by all necessary means at their disposal against Colonial powers which suppress their aspiration for freedom and independence."

He doesn't mention that GA resolutions have no force under international law, before even getting to whether Gaza is "occupied" or whether Jews returning to their homeland are "colonialists."

(Read full post)
.

The Quartet's disturbing shift and America's new direction

Dore Gold
JPost
02 October 09

Amidst the major developments of the last few weeks surrounding Iran and the opening of the UN General Assembly, the Quartet - representing the US, the UN Secretariat, the EU and Russia - issued a new policy statement in New York on September 24 about the state of Israeli-Palestinian contacts that was extremely disturbing. Surprisingly, it has received little if any notice in the mainstream media.

As usual, the Quartet meeting in New York that issued the statement was held at a very senior level - including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with the US special envoy George Mitchell, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and Tony Blair, the Quartet representative.

At the outset, the statement discarded the principle of reciprocity, which not only is closely associated with the diplomatic principles advocated by Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but is also a fundamental axiom of international law. Astoundingly, the Quartet called on both parties to "act on their previous agreements and obligations - in particular adherence to the road map, irrespective of reciprocity (emphasis added)..."

The road map was issued in March 2003 by the Quartet, which was formed by the Bush administration to provide European states with a formal peacemaking role in exchange for gaining their support for the Iraq War.

But the original road map was "performance-based" - movement from one stage to the next was contingent upon the fulfillment by both Israelis and Palestinians of their respective responsibilities. Now this critical element appeared to have been removed. True, the erosion of the road map was helped by past Israeli governments that plunged into permanent-status negotiations before the Palestinians fulfilled their obligations. But it is the new formal position of the Quartet that provides the final blow to the road map's carefully structured conditionality.

In general, the Quartet wanted to provide its own multilateral stamp of approval on President Barack Obama's UN address from September 22. It is to be remembered that Obama's remarks were unusual in their exceptionally long and detailed treatment of the Arab-Israel conflict: Roughly one-tenth of the speech was devoted to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians - far more than any other conflict in the world. He specifically proposed the establishment of "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."

In doing so, Obama adopted language that was not balanced out by an equal reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which appears in the Quartet road map and did not call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines.

OBAMA'S PUSH for the 1967 lines is also evident in his language during his UN address that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

In April 2004, president George W. Bush sent a letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon stating that it was unrealistic to expect that Israel would withdraw from its large "population centers" in the West Bank. This acknowledgement of the settlement blocs granted a portion of the settlements a degree of legitimacy that Obama's formal remarks denied.

It also led Bush to accept the fact that Israel was not going to withdraw to the 1967 lines and was entitled to "defensible borders." The Bush letter, moreover, received massive support from both houses of the US Congress in June 2004, providing it with bipartisan backing (including Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Hillary Clinton). Given the language Obama used at the UN - and the Quartet now backed - it is not surprising that his administration has not openly committed itself to the 2004 letter.

The Quartet statement also goes out of its way to back the Palestinian Authority's new plan for building the institutions of a Palestinian state over the next 24 months - which was drafted by Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad. On the one hand, the Fayad Plan appears to address Israel's call for bottom-up peacemaking by tackling head-on the lack of sufficient self-governing bodies on the Palestinian side. On the other hand, it is a program that leads the Palestinian Authority seven-eighths of the way to an independent Palestinian state, leaving ambiguous how the Palestinians get to the finish line. What it leaves open is the possibility of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians or by someone else.
(Full Article)
.

Harsanyi: How to lose friends ...

David Harsanyi
Denverpost.com
25 September 09

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists — but we insist Israel do without preconditions.

We will not get entangled in the distasteful internal politics of Iran — but we define Israel's borders.

We will remove missile defense systems in Eastern Europe so we do not needlessly provoke our good friends in Russia — but we have no compunction nudging Israel to hand over territory with nothing in return.

This week, President Barack Obama spoke to the United Nations' General Assembly and insisted that Israel and the Palestinians negotiate "without preconditions." (Well, excluding the effective precondition that Israeli settlements are "illegitimate," according to the administration — so no pre-conditions means feel free to rocket Israel while you talk.)

This tact, Obama hopes, will lead to "two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."

Hate to break the news to you, but there already exists a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis. This security is attained through a perpetual war against terrorism and Arab aggression.

And the last time Israel withdrew from disputed lands without pre-conditions to allow the potential of the Palestinian people to shine through was in Gaza. The Arabs, hungering for the light of freedom, used the gift to elect Hamas — now an Iranian proxy and always a terror organization — to rain rockets down on the civilians that voted to allow the first democratic Arab entity in history.

If Obama expects Israel to end the "occupation" that began in 1967 he is also demanding Israel abandon parts of Jerusalem. If he really anticipates a Palestinian state will be "contiguous territory," what he expects is that Israel can't be contiguous.

And when he uses the word "occupation" he is negotiating for the Palestinians. None of the lands up for discussion are "occupied" territory. The president, a highly educated man, knows well that there has never been an ultimate agreement on borders, nor has there ever, in history, been a Palestinian state to occupy.

There is an ethical question that the president might want to answer, as well. Why would the United States support an arrangement that scrubs the West Bank of all its Jews? Why is it so unconscionable to imagine that Jews could live among Muslims in the same way millions of Arabs live within Israel proper? Not many international agreements feature ethnic cleansing clauses.

Isn't this, after all, about peace?

Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Jews would be slaughtered, bombed from their homes, rocketed from their schools. This indisputable fact reveals the fundamental reality of these negotiations.

Instead of reaffirming the importance of our relationship with Israel, Obama has renewed our membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council, presided over by exemplars of self-determination and human dignity like Libya, Syria and Angola. The hobbyhorse of this organization is accusing Israel of war crimes, which isn't surprising.

Noted intellectual George Gilder argues in his recent book, "The Israel Test," that where you stand on Israel — not always, but in general — is an indication about how you feel about the ideals of liberty and capitalism. The debate over Israel, he claims, is the manifestation of a deeper moral and ideological war around the globe.

"The real issue," writes Gilder, "is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous 'fairness,' between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment."

This nation has no inherent duty to wage endless wars to secure freedom for the world's masses — often against their will. But shouldn't it stand with those nations that already value the basics tenets of a free and peaceful society?

Or, are all people now equally deserving of our friendship simply because they exist?

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
.

What are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?

Ted Belman

Israpundit

24 September 09

Yesterday Pres Obama addressed the UNGA on the subject of the conflict between Arabs and Jews conflict and had this to say;

…I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world.

What is noteworthy here, is that he referred to “Palestine” like it was a state already. Is that not pre-judging the outcome? He also wants there to be peace with the “Arab world” which means more pressure on Israel to cave to the demands of Syria.

Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

He appears to be signing on to Netanyahu’s ideas regarding building the economy as a means to peace. But to my mind by rejecting the “legitimacy of the settlements”, he is declaring war on Israel.

The settlements are legitimate and legal. By taking such a position on no or spurious legal reasoning he is no better than Goldstone who took the position that Israel was guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Nether of the positions of Obama or Goldstone have any legitimacy. They are imposing on Israel an interpretation of law which favours the outcome they desire. Once again Obama has prejudged the outcome of negotiations. If the settlements are illegal as he says, then Israel Israel must agree to withdraw from all lands east of the green line. He made no distinction with respect to Jerusalem. But the US has long maintained the position that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome.

Most presidents have shied away from saying that the settlements were illegal and contented themselves with declaring them “obstacles to peace”. This, also, is a debatable issue.

The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)

Obama is misleading the world to say that negotiations should start “without preconditions” when he doesn’t mean it. The negotiations will be fraught with preconditions. He names a few such as that Palestine must be “independent”, “viable” and “contiguous”. But there are others such as the need to “end the occupation that began in 1967″. This implies full withdrawal rather than partial withdrawal as provided for in Res 242. Then there is the matter of whether the negotiations are starting fresh, which would be without preconditions, or whether the negotiations must pick up where they left off. Obama has been pressing for the latter.

As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private.

On the contrary, when is he going to say privately what he says publically. Once again he wants to be “honest” with us.

The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)

Now here is the bottom line, what are “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”?

Refugees There is no legitimate right of return, There is only a right to receive compensation for the property owned by them and left behind when they evacuated. The Jewish refugees have a similar right for property they left behind in Arab countries when they were expelled.

Land. The land lying east of the armistice line, which the Arabs refer to as the West Bank and the Jews refer to as Judea and Samaria, can in no way be Palestinian land as claimed. The Palestinians never had sovereignty over it. Having lived there or even owned small parcels of land there, never confers sovereignty. There is absolutely no way they can establish a “legitimate right” to these lands. According to international law,The Jews were given these lands, as their national homeland over which they had political rights. These rights have never been forfeited.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a Jewish concept, not an Islamic one. Jerusalem, as a city means nothing to Islam. Jerusalem means everything to Judaism. It is at the core of it. I have no idea why anyone would consider that the Arabs have legitimate rights over Jerusalem but am sure that Obama includes a share of Jerusalem as a legitimate Palestinian right.

“Legitimate rights” are important in a court of law. They have no place in negotiations. Negotiations are essentially a power play whether between Management and Labour in labour disputes or between countries in negotiating treaties. Obama is supporting the Palestinians to strengthen their negotiating position. He is attempting to influence the outcome while at the same time he says that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome.

It amounts to an imposed solution. Obama leaves little to be negotiated. He has predetermined all. In fact, has he not publically embraced the Saudi Plan.
.