David Singer: UN, OIC, EU and PLO invite Trump Retaliation

For this and related antisemitic cartoons click here

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

Humiliating President Trump by declaring his decision recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as being “null and void and must be rescinded” – spells financial and political trouble for the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU) and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The timing of Trump’s decision can certainly be criticised – but questioning Trump’s sovereign right to make that decision constitutes a flagrant attempt to undermine the offices of the democratically-elected US President and Congress. Trump’s decision was made in accordance with international law and American domestic law – making a mockery of those who have claimed otherwise.

The first two casualties of this unprecedented political and legal attack on America’s governing institutions could be:

1. the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (“UNRWA”) and 

2. the two-state solution proposed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2003 Roadmap – as endorsed by the UN, the EU and Russia (“two-state solution”)

US Ambassador to the UN – Nikki Haley – put UNWRA clearly in President Trump’s sights for retaliatory action when she declared:

“The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA’s budget. That’s more than the next two largest donors combined. And it’s vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.

I’ll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA’s budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.” 

UNRWA is facing the grim prospect of having to find up to US$400 million annually from other UN member States if Trump cuts America’s current voluntary contribution to UNWRA.

President Trump has already announced America will withdraw from UNESCO in 2018 – attributed in part to “anti-Israel bias” – which will require another US$143 million – 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget – to be found from other member states.

Biting the hand that feeds you does have consequences.

The catastrophic decisions made by the UN, OIC, EU and PLO over the past two weeks following Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration could seriously impact any “ultimate deal” Trump has been putting together to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution – which envisages a second (democratic) Arab state – in addition to (undemocratic) Jordan – on the land comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – remains in limbo since the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO in April 2014.

Trump can now justifiably jettison the two state solution – including Abbas and the PLO – from his ultimate deal – after Abbas defiantly declared on 22 December:

"The United States has proven to be a dishonest mediator in the peace process and we will no longer accept any plan from the United States"

Abbas’s outburst has effectively consigned the two-state solution to the dustbin of history.

Abbas has once again demonstrated the unerring ability of the Palestinian Arabs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – as happened in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, 2000/20001 and 2008.

Trump’s ultimate deal must now be seriously struggling to see the light of day.

David Singer: OIC in Legal Fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The 57 member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are living in a legal fantasyland of their own creation where non-existent principles of international law supposedly apply.

The final communique issued by the OIC following its Extraordinary Summit held in Turkey on 13 December 2017 makes their flight into legal unreality crystal-clear:

1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:

“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…

… Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

… The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.”

2. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.

No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.

There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim – namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

3. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.

The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.

Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization - whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law – the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:

· “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and

· “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20) 

The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.

The Jewish-Arab conflict remains unresolved because the Arabs have never accepted the binding validity in international law of the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 then-member States of the League of Nations in 1922:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States – one Jewish, one Arab – being eventually created in Palestine.

Today sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine resides in those two States – Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%).

Resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will become realistically attainable when the OIC:

1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and

2. recognizes the State of Israel

Cherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse – making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity – is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.

David Singer: "Growing Islamoparanoia Needs To Be Contained – If Rampant Islamophobia Is Not Allowed To Run Riot"

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Islam Must Degrade And Destroy Islamic State".


He writes:

The impassioned plea by the father of a Jordanian F16 fighter pilot captured by Islamic State has shot down attempts by American President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to distance Islam from the Islamic State (ISIL). Speaking to the media, the father of Islamic State’s star captive, 1st Lt. Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh, said:

“I direct a message to our generous brothers of the Islamic State in Syria: to host my son, the pilot Mu’ath, with generous hospitality. I ask God that their hearts are gathered together with love, and that he is returned to his family, wife and mother.

We are all Muslims.”

This desperate cry for mercy stands in stark contrast to what President Obama stressed at a media conference in August:

“Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” 

  Cameron has been equally as strident:

'We should be clear: this is not the “War on Terror”, nor is it a war of religions. It is a struggle for decency, tolerance and moderation in our modern world. It is a battle against a poisonous ideology that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim.'

Abbott was eager to support Obama and Cameron’s statements – telling a media conference during the Martin Place siege in Sydney last week:

'But the point I keep making is that the ISIL death cult has nothing to do with any religion, any real religion.'

These presidential and prime ministerial statements had followed a most explicit condemnation of Islamic State by Iyad Ameen Madani – the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the collective voice of the Muslim world – representing 57 countries over four continents comprising 1.4 billion Muslims – the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.

Must read: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4966/christians-churches-attacked

 As Vatican Radio reported on 25 July:

'In a statement, he [Madani] officially denounced the "forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a "crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they "have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.'

Yet the simple plea of one distraught Jordanian parent pleading for his son to be set free – stressing that “we are all Muslims” – will certainly sheet home the distinct unease being felt by non-Muslims living in Sydney – still reeling from the Lindt Chocolat Café siege and subsequent shoot out in Martin Place killing two innocent civilians and the self-styled Islamic cleric who perpetrated the siege.

Such unease subsequently found the head of the Australian Defence League and two other people being charged over a brawl near a mosque in Sydney's Islamic heartland – Lakemba.

The news that Sulayman Khalid, 20, was one of two men arrested on Christmas Eve as part of an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation into the alleged planning of a terrorist attack on Australian soil – has only increased such unease.

As the Daily Telegraph reported:

“Khalid, also known as Abu Bakr, appeared earlier this year on SBS’s Insight wearing a jacket emblazoned with the Islamic State flag and stormed off the set when questioned about his support for IS fighters.”

France has this week also seen three supposedly “lone wolf” incidents allegedly involving “deranged” Muslim perpetrators in:

1. Nantes – when a van was driven into a crowd killing one and wounding 9 other shoppers

2. Dijon – where a man shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is greatest” in Arabic) injured 13 in a similar attack to that in Nantes

3. Tours – where an attacker – also yelling “Allahu Akbar” – was shot dead after stabbing three police officers

Meaningless OIC condemnatory statements designed to distance Islam from Islamic State are no longer sufficient.

Surely the time has come for the OIC to galvanise its member States into pledging unified Islamic military action to degrade and destroy Islamic State.

Such steps could include:

1. OIC resolving that all 57 member States join the American-led coalition of 62 States presently fighting Islamic State.

Presently only 13 of those Islamic States have joined the coalition. Major Islamic States – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan and Nigeria remain uncommitted.

2. Making a unified Islamic approach to the United Nations Security Council by sponsoring a resolution calling for the use of armed force by the United Nations against Islamic State under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Four Islamic States – Malaysia, Nigeria, Chad and Jordan – are members of the UN Security Council and provide an effective bloc to pressure the Security Council – particularly those States exercising a veto - into taking such action.

Growing Islamoparanoia needs to be contained – if rampant Islamophobia is not allowed to run riot.

The Kotel: For UNESCO, just a separation wall

This is how UNESCO in its World Wonders Project describes Jerusalem, the holiest of Judaism's four holy cities, and the Western Wall, Judaism's sacred site there, to which throughout the centuries (except when put out of bounds to them) Jews have flocked to pray:

"As a holy city for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Jerusalem has always been of great symbolic importance. Among its 220 historic monuments, the Dome of the Rock stands out: built in the 7th century, it is decorated with beautiful geometric and floral motifs. It is recognized by all three religions as the site of Abraham's sacrifice. The Wailing Wall delimits the quarters of the different religious communities, while the Resurrection rotunda in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre houses Christ's tomb."

Notice the silence regarding the biblical significance of Jerusalem, the City of David.

Notice the use of the old term "Wailing Wall", which is usually avoided nowadays.  No doubt mention of the "Western Wall" would have had to have been followed  by something like "which is all that remains of the Second Temple, built about 19 BCE on the site of the very much earlier one built by King Solomon."

That would have been a reminder of its antiquity, and of the ancient Jewish presence in the Land, and that would never do.

For, needless to say, this terse, inadequate description is hardly an accident, hardly an innocent error by some bumbling, ignorant clerical assistant on UNESCO's staff.

The entire passage constitutes an exercise in politically motivated historical revisionism, an ignoble and deliberate censorship regarding Jerusalem: its pivotal importance in Jewish history, in Judaism, and in the Jewish psyche.

(There's an excellent video which succinctly sums uo the importance of Jerusalem to the Zionist movement itself, its centrality to Israel, something of which Palestinian rejectionists are only too aware aware; originally in Hebrew only, the video with English subtitles by Elder of Ziyon, is available here, and another excellent video, longer and more detailed, which argues that, in the interests of Muslims and Christians as well as of Jews, Jerusalem should not be divided can be seen on the Israel Thrives blog here)

When Bibi Netanyahu declared recently that "Israel without Jerusalem is like a body without a heart" he was articulating what Jews have felt down the ages; indeed, the celebrated Australian rabbi Jacob Danglow (notoriously, being a British super-patriot, a Johnny-come-lately to the concept of political Zionism, but from 1948 a proud supporter of Israel, used the same phrase almost word for word).

UNESCO's  obfuscation of the core connection between Jerusalem, Judaism, and the Jewish People is yet another instance of the Arabs' war against Israel by non-military means.  Wreaking of the influence of the  Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the World Wonders Project passage promotes a deliberate agenda of Muslim supremacy.

A petition, addressed to UNESCO, has been opened to protest this outrageous  anti-Zionist sleight of hand.. Originally in French, and perhaps a little dodgy in places, its translation is given as follows on its website:

'After having tried to erase the Jewish nature of Rachel’s and the Patriarchs’ graves, the latter being presented as a mere mosque, UNESCO aims now at the only [sic; "unique" in the French version] holy city of Judaism: Jerusalem.... [W]e find out that UNESCO presents the holiest place of Judaism, the "Kotel"... as a mere ‘separation’ between communities.

 Hiding the fact that:

The "Kotel" is the western wall of the second Jewish temple, only remnant of the masterpiece built 25 centuries ago, on the very site of the first temple, dated at least 30 centuries ago. By far the most ancient monument in town, much older than all its Christian and Muslim buildings.

The name "Wailing Wall" [sic; Mur des Lamentations in the French version] is due to the Jewish tradition during 2000 years to weep facing it, crying over the loss of their country and their temple.

On the other hand, UNESCO dares to rewrite history, transforming the "Dome of the Rock" into a sacred Islamic site; which it has never been in the past....'

See the petition here
(Hat tip: reader Rita)