Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts

Thursday, April 3, 2014

US/Israeli Interests Diverge as Palestinians seek UN agency membership



The implications of Palestine seeking membership in UN and international organizations are seismic for Israel, Palestine and the US.  The divergent interests of the US and Israel will come to a head in Congress as members will have to choose between US interests and the Israeli interests. For Palestine, it is now more at parity with Israel as the threat of seeking justice within these UN agencies makes Israelis shiver as the threats of international sanctions, economic boycott and international criminal trials for its current and former leaders loom in the horizon.

For the Palestinians, the decision to seek membership in UN agencies is a win-win move which was precipitated by Israel’s breach of its commitment to release the last of the 104 Palestinian prisoners it was holding before the Oslo Agreement.  Palestinians were enticed by Secretary of State John Kerry to restart peace talks with Israel in July, 2013 on condition that 104 Palestinians will be released and that final status discussions would be addressed. The Palestinians agreed not to seek membership in UN agencies.

When Israel breached its part of the agreement, the Palestinians, seeing no progress on the final status issues, applied to 15 UN agencies for membership.  Israel wanted Palestine to recommit to the talks beyond the April 29, 2014 deadline set out when the “talks” began but the Palestinians stated that the release of the prisoners was already agreed to and would not commit to extend the talks for the same agreement. The US then tried to sweeten the deal by considering releasing the notorious Navy spy Jonathan Pollard in exchange for the release of 400 Palestinian women and children prisoners held by Israel. (The reader should note very clearly that this is an admission by Israel that it is imprisoning Palestinian children.)

Additionally, Secretary Kerry elicited a show of “restraint” by Israel in new housing starts that did not include settlements in East Jerusalem and did not include housing starts already announced. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Israel, in what it thought was a cunning move before an agreement could be reached, announced over 700 new housing starts. This was the last straw for the Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization Action Committee unanimously voted to seek UN agency membership.

The divergence of US and Israeli interests was evident when Palestine was granted membership in the UN agency UNESCO in 2012.  The US had to stop paying its membership dues in UNESCO as two US laws, over 20 years old, compel the US to de-fund any UN organizations which approves Palestine’s membership. The laws were intended to keep Palestine out of these organizations as a way to protect Israel. The law, however, was ill conceived for it has and will hurt the United States while protecting Israeli interests.  Congress attempted to influence member nations of these organizations to vote against the acceptance of Palestine for fear of losing significant US funding.  Members of UNESCO were not easily bribed.

For two years the Obama administration sought a waiver from Congress without success, and last November the U.S. lost its voting rights at UNESCO as a result of being two years in arrears.  US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers urged Congress on April 2, 2014 to repeal or waive the law in its application to Palestine stating that defunding UN agencies that admit Palestine is not in the interests of the US. She stated that defunding these agencies would be a “double win” for the Palestinians. With US influence in these agencies diminished through losing its voting rights, Russia, China and even Cuba would take the lead.

UNESCO’s purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the UN Charter.  Some UNESCO sponsored projects include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programs; international science programs; the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press; regional and cultural history projects; the promotion of cultural diversity; translations of world literature; international cooperation agreements to secure the world cultural and natural heritage and to preserve human rights, and attempts to bridge the worldwide digital divide. These are all within the interests of the US but with the loss of its voting rights, that influence has been negated—all because Congress has put Israel’s interests ahead of the interests of the US.


A pro-Israeli Congress would be reluctant to allow Congressional members to vote their conscience to grant a waiver or repeal these laws. The Israeli lobby, true to its history of championing Israeli interests over US interests, will not allow Israel interests to be hurt and therefore, its considerable power over Congress will restrain Congressional members from voting for US interests and against Israeli interests. The Israeli lobby has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it champions Israel’s interest over the US interests; most recently over President’s policy visa vie Syria and Iran. The lobby in both cases wanted the US to attack these countries over a reluctant American public’s weariness over two unfunded wars.

With the Israeli lobby ever threatening each member’s election over their loyalty to Israel, members of Congress will be in a quagmire trying to decide whether they should act in the best interest of the US or Israel—or more accurately whether they are willing to put their own re-election interests at the mercy of the Israeli lobby or whether they will do the very thing they were elected—protecting US interests.

Secretary of State John Kerry was perceptive in January, 2014 when he stated that if a peace agreement is not reached, Israel will be further isolated.  He must have foreseen that the US must now act in its own self-interest and cannot therefore base its international relations based on the interests of Israel.

The US cannot allow other nations’ political agenda to drive the US out of the UN and its agencies. The decision whether to fund these agencies must be based on the totality of US security, political, and economic interests served by the agencies. Congress will have to stand up for American interests and tell Israel that the divergence of US and Israeli interests is at hand. US foreign policy cannot be based on the interests of another nation.

U.S. diplomats have warned Israel that the United States cannot stop further Palestinian moves at the United Nations, especially if the current negotiations collapse—which they have despite the statement by Secretary Kerry to not write off the “talks”.

The move to seek membership in UN agencies is yet another step toward legitimacy for the Palestinian State after having won “non-member observer state” status in 2012 from the UN General Assembly.  Legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority is also achieved from the Palestinian people who have been exasperated by yet another round of “talks” with Israel that are endless and lead to no end. A great majority of Palestinians, most of which are moderate and who were supporters of the Oslo Accords, have become frustrated with an endless state of talks that never end, that are always conditioned upon an agreement to agree on something else in the future.  They were also frustrated that as the Palestinian Authority was conducting “talks” with Israel, Israel killed over 60 and wounded over 900 Palestinians; Israel kept building and building more Israeli settlement housing; and the illegal Israeli settlers were cutting down more and more Palestinian olive groves. Thus, taking the step to seek membership in UN agencies is very much favored by the Palestinian people in Palestine and around the globe.

Once Palestine is a member of UN agencies, it can seek to address the Israeli violations. For example, Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared, and in an occupation of another country's territory. In addition, the United Nations Security Council, in 1993, adopted a report that concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts. 

The Fourth Geneva Convention clearly states the illegality of an occupying power moving its people to occupied areas. The International Court of Justice has given an advisory statement regarding the Israeli wall built deep on Palestinian land. The advisory ruling in 2007 states clearly that as an occupying power, Israel is forbidden to settle in Arab areas captured during the 1967 war.  Thus the status of the Israeli colonization (settlements as the press calls them) will be legally challenged through legal means once Palestine is granted membership in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Court of Justice.

Palestine will be in position not only to bring war crimes against Israeli officials but against countries and corporations who support or benefit from the occupation of Palestine. Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister during the War on Gaza in 2008-2009, was cautioned by legal experts not to leave Israel if the Palestinians resorted to the “nuclear option”, i.e. seeking membership in UN agencies. Corporations worldwide, like Caterpillar, can be sued for aiding in the Israeli practice of demolishing Palestinian homes, 27,000 since 1967. Legal precedents have been set by the case against former Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milošević and against Shell Oil--which had to make a hefty settlement to Nigerian farmers after being indicted for human rights violations in its efforts to extract oil. The tide is turning towards justice for the Palestinian people.

By applying for membership in UN agencies, the Palestinians are on the road to achieving parity with Israel. Parity is much needed. The latest action by the Palestinian Authority may be the action that achieves parity. Parity has been thwarted by the diplomatic shield that the US has been giving Israel for more than 6 decades. That shield is evaporating as Palestine’s admission into these agencies has caused a diversion of US and Israeli interests.



Thursday, December 6, 2012

World Community Lesson Flies Over Netanyahu


The last month in the Israel/Palestinian conflict has taught us a valuable lesson.  The world community took two actions that were fair and balanced, signaling to the parties, including the extremists, that enough is enough; end the conflict by nudging the parties towards boundary lines based on UN Resolution 242, i.e. a Two State Solution.

At first the world community supported Israel for defending itself against rocket attacks from the Hamas controlled Gaza. Then the world community overwhelmingly supported an upgrade in Palestine’s status at the UN from an “entity” to a “state.”  What is the world community of nations trying to tell the Israelis and Palestinians? 

I hope that both the Palestinians and Israelis interpret the world community actions in the spirit that I believe they were taken.

After the cease-fire between between Gaza and Israel, Hamas leader  Khaled Meshaal quickly stated that Hamas is willing to accept a TSS with 1967 borders. This is a major accomplishment for the advancement of peace in the region.  No similar statement was heard from any of the major parties within Israel. 

In fact, after the UN voted to upgrade the status of Palestine to that of observer “State”, Israel responded by stating that they will go forward with objectionable plans to build settlements in Area E1 around Jerusalem, which effectively kills the TSS by dissecting a West Bank home for a Palestinian State. This too is a major accomplishment but not for the advancement of peace but for the prolongation of the status quo, i.e. occupation.  This is sad.

Britain, France Spain, the European Union, Denmark, Sweden, Australia and Egypt have all summoned its Ambassadors to Israel, a step short of “recalling” the Ambassador to protest the Israeli settlemtn announcement.  Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to meet formally with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to sternly tell him to drop plans to build 3,000 new settler homes in a highly contentious strip of the occupied West Bank near Jerusalem.

Netanyahu responded by not fully appreciating what the World community was trying say to Israel and Palestine by telling the German press, "I appreciated the support of Chancellor Merkel and the German government during the operation in Gaza..At the same time, I would be disingenuous if I didn’t tell you that I was disappointed, as were many people in Israel, by the German vote in the UN.  

Netanyahu also stated that the UN vote also would unite the West Bank Fatah Party with the Gaza Hamas Party, as if that was taboo.  This just reinforces my argument that Israel is not looking for a TSS but a Three State Solution (TSS).  He also referred to Hamas as terrorist, overlooking the fact that in his own coalition includes the Shaas Party, whose  whose spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yousef calls for the annihilation of the Palestinians. 

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abass has signaled, after the upgrade of the UN status for Palestine and in response to the Israeli action on new illegal settlement building, that he will seek International Criminal Court action “in the case of Israeli aggression.”  Netanyahu responded by withholding $100 million of taxes that Israel collects on behalf of Palestinians and must turnover to the Palestinian Authority.

            The world community lesson of the past month has flown over Netanyahu’s head as he wants 100% consent without objection.  Not every country can be as controlled by Israel as the United States.  Netanyahu doesn’t seem to understand that 95% of the world community wants a fair and balanced resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians.  His defiance is hindering any chance for a TSS  and only drives Israel into a One State Solution (OSS).

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Arrogance of the UN Veto


            Arrogance is just one more word to describe the Apartheid Israeli government.  This time it involves the United Nations Security Council veto power which is granted to the five permanent members (United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia). 

            This week China and Russia vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution against Syria for the second time in four months.  The reaction from the US and Apartheid Israel was typical.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a "travesty". Members of Apartheid-in-Chief Benjamin Natanyahu’s cabinet were disappointed by the veto and Knesset members were appalled by Russia's behavior.

            This arrogant reaction by the US and Apartheid Israel comes after a February, 2011 US veto of a UN Security Council Resolution which would have condemned the settlements as “illegal” and after the US threatened to veto a proposed UN Security Resolution on Palestinian Statehood in September, 2011.

            Apartheid Israeli supporters point to the Russian naval base in Syria and to the sale of jet fighters to the Assad regime to state that Russia has some sort of culpability in the Syrian murderous crackdown of the Arab Spring in Syria. This position would suggest to any logical person that the US, which is working closely with Apartheid Israel on military exercises and sells (gives is a better word) jet fighters to Israel, is then complicit with Israel in the occupation of Palestine.

            The problem with the US foreign policy is that it does what it will not allow others to do. The US can support the illegal settlement of Palestine by Apartheid Israel but Russia and China cannot support the brutal Syrian murderous actions against its own people.  Apartheid-in-Chief Netanyahu is conspicuously silent on the Russian and Chinese veto. However, he did state recently before a cabinet meeting:

At the end of last week we received a reminder about the environment we're living in. We heard Iran's ruler talk about Israel's destruction, we saw the Syrian army massacring its own people. Some leaders have no compunctions about harming their people or their neighbors.[i]

Zvi Bar’el, the writer of the Haaretz opinion article in which this quote was taken, then stated:

True, it's a lousy environment. Only one sentence is needed to complete the picture: "And there are governments that don't mind continuing to occupy other nations for nearly 50 years.

            This arrogance of expressing moral outrage at the atrocities of other countries while committing atrocities yourself is typical of how repugnant the world political stage has succumbed.  This indignation comes down to the use of the UN veto by the five permanent nations.  The US cannot use the veto to allow Israel to continue its apartheid occupation of Palestine and its obnoxious suppression of the Palestinian human spirit to be free; and then condemn the Russians and Chinese for vetoing the condemnation of the Syrian brutal suppression of the Syrian people’s human spirit to also be free.  One cannot support the condemnation of one human suppression and veto the condemnation of another human suppression.  It just is not morally right.

            While the veto in the UN Security Council is a power that will not be so easily given up by the five permanent members, it is time to rethink this awesome power. At this juncture, however, it would be better if the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would rethink their use of the veto.  Instead of using the veto to advance one’s self-interest, they should use the veto on a consistent basis that will advance the human spirit to be free.   I understand that this may be asking too much from China, but the US, as the sole super power, needs to lead with a moral conviction.  The US needs to be consistent in its foreign policy.



(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

[i] Veto Morality, Zvi Bar'el, February 8, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/veto-morality-1.411637

غطرسة للامم المتحدة النقض

(قمت بترجمة هذه المقالة على Google. محدودة كما هو قدرتي على قراءة اللغة العربية،أنا لا يمكن أن تضمن دقة الترجمة)

            
غطرسة واحد فقط أكثر كلمة لوصف حكومة الفصل العنصري الإسرائيلي. هذه المرة أنها تنطوي على الأمم المتحدة حق النقض في مجلس الأمن السلطة التي تمنح إلى الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية (الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا وفرنسا والصين وروسيا).

            
هذا الأسبوع حق النقض ضد الصين وروسيا على قرار مجلس الأمن الدولي ضد سوريا للمرة الثانية في اربعة اشهر. كان رد الفعل من جانب الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل الفصل العنصري نموذجي. دعت وزيرة الخارجية الاميركية هيلاري كلينتون في ذلك حق النقض على "مهزلة". أصيبوا بخيبة أمل من أعضاء مجلس الوزراء بنيامين نتنياهو الفصل العنصري في ورئيس من قبل أعضاء الكنيست، واستخدام حق النقض قد هالهم سلوك روسيا.

            
هذا رد فعل متعجرف من قبل الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل الفصل العنصري يأتي بعد فبراير، 2011 الولايات المتحدة حق النقض لقرار مجلس الامن الدولي الذي من شأنه أن يدين المستوطنات بأنها "غير قانونية" وبعد الولايات المتحدة هددت باستخدام الفيتو ضد القرار المقترح الامن الدولي بشأن اقامة دولة فلسطينية في سبتمبر ، 2011.

            
أنصار الفصل العنصري الإسرائيلي تشير إلى القاعدة البحرية الروسية في سوريا، وعلى بيع طائرات مقاتلة لنظام الأسد أن أذكر أن روسيا لديها نوعا من اللوم في حملة القمع التي شنتها القاتل السوري من الربيع العربي في سوريا. هذا الموقف أن أقترح على أي شخص منطقي أن الولايات المتحدة، والتي تعمل بشكل وثيق مع إسرائيل الفصل العنصري في مناورات عسكرية وتبيع (يعطي هو أفضل كلمة) طائرات مقاتلة إلى إسرائيل، ومن ثم متواطئة مع إسرائيل في احتلال فلسطين.

            
المشكلة مع السياسة الخارجية الأميركية هو أن يفعل ما لن تسمح للآخرين للقيام به. يمكن للولايات المتحدة يمكن أن تدعم الاستيطان غير الشرعية في فلسطين من قبل إسرائيل الفصل العنصري لكن روسيا والصين لا تؤيد وحشية الإجراءات القاتل السوري ضد شعبه. الفصل العنصري في ورئيس نتنياهو الصمت بشكل واضح على الفيتو الروسي والصيني. بيد أنه في الآونة الأخيرة دولة قبل اجتماع مجلس الوزراء:رأينا في نهاية الأسبوع الماضي تلقينا تذكيرا حول البيئة الذي نعيشه. سمعنا الكلام الإيراني الحاكم حول تدمير اسرائيل، الجيش السوري ذبح شعبه. بعض القادة ليس لديهم الندم عن إيذاء الناس، أو جيرانهم. [أنا]تسفي Bar'el، وكاتب المقال في صحيفة هآرتس الرأي الذي اتخذ هذا الاقتباس، وقال بعد ذلك:صحيح، انها بيئة رديء. وهناك حاجة فقط جملة واحدة لاستكمال الصورة: "وهناك حكومات التي لا تمانع في استمرار لاحتلال دول أخرى منذ ما يقرب من 50 عاما.

            
هذه الغطرسة للتعبير عن الغضب الأخلاقي في الفظائع التي ارتكبت في دول أخرى، وارتكاب الفظائع نفسك نموذجا للكيفية بغيض الساحة العالمية السياسية واستسلمت. هذا السخط ينزل إلى استخدام حق النقض من قبل الأمم المتحدة والدول الخمس دائمة. لا تستطيع الولايات المتحدة استخدام حق النقض للسماح اسرائيل لمواصلة احتلالها الفصل العنصري في فلسطين، وقمعها البغيض من روح الإنسان الفلسطيني في التحرر، ومن ثم إدانة الروس والصينيين عن الاعتراض على إدانة القمع الوحشي السوري من الإنسان للشعب السوري روح ليكون أيضا مجانا. يمكن للمرء أن لا يعتمد على إدانة واحدة قمع الإنسان ونقض إدانة آخر قمع الإنسان. انها ليست مجرد حق من الناحية الأخلاقية.

            
في حين أن حق النقض في مجلس الامن الدولي هو القوة التي لن يتم بسهولة لذلك تخلت من قبل الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية، فقد حان الوقت لإعادة النظر في هذه القوة الهائلة. في هذه المرحلة، ومع ذلك، سيكون من الأفضل إذا كانت الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية في مجلس الامن الدولي وإعادة التفكير في استخدامها حق النقض. بدلا من استخدام حق النقض لدفع الفرد للمصلحة الذاتية، ينبغي لها استخدام حق النقض على أساس ثابت من شأنها أن تقدم الروح البشرية أن يكون حرا. وأنا أفهم أن هذا يمكن أن يطلب الكثير من الصين، ولكن الولايات المتحدة، باعتبارها القوة العظمى الوحيدة، يجب أن تؤدي مع الإدانة الأخلاقية. الولايات المتحدة تحتاج إلى أن تكون متسقة في سياستها الخارجية.

(Zanayed فادي © حقوق الطبع والنشر،. يتم السماح نشر أو توزيع هذه المواد شريطة أن لا تغيير محتواها وأشار المصدر وصاحبه.)[ط] الأخلاق حق النقض، تسفي Bar'el، 8 شباط 2012، http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/veto-morality-1.411637