David Singer: United States and Israel Quit over UNESCO’s Love Affair with “Palestine”

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

He writes:

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance – with America and Israel both quitting their membership of UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

America’s designated funding of 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget will now have to be met by other member states or UNESCO’s programs severely curtailed.

In October 2017, State Department spokesperson (now UN Ambassador-elect) Heather Nauert, clarified that America’s decision had not been taken lightly – citing continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO and the need for fundamental reform in the organization.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

• 2012– 8 resolutions condemning Israel, 1 condemning Syria and 0 other countries.
• 2013– 6 condemning Israel and 0 other countries
• January 2014– Cancelling an exhibition at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel
• October 2016– Disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount – only referring to it by its Muslim names – then several weeks later – passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name – though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.
• July 2017– Designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart — the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

UNESCO’s admission of “Palestine” to membership breached Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution which only allows States to be admitted to UNESCO.  “Palestine” was not a state under the criteria laid down under international law by the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

107 states voted to admit “Palestine” whilst the remaining 86 voted “No”, “abstained” or “did not vote”.

UNESCO’s legally questionable decision was never referred by UNESCO to the International Court of Justice or an arbitral tribunal for confirmation under Article XIV (2)of UNESCO’s Constitution.
Given what has transpired – such failure was a monumental misjudgement.

President Trump’s National Security Adviser – John Bolton – recently exposed the fiction that there is a legally-constituted entity called “Palestine”:

'[Palestine] is not a state… It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfil the normal functions of government…calling it the so-called "State of Palestine" defines exactly what it has been — a position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988 when the ‘Palestinian’ Authority declared itself to be the state of "Palestine". We don’t recognize it as the state of "Palestine". We have consistently across Democratic and Republican administrations opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the United Nations as a state, because it’s not a state.'

Australia’s Head of Mission – Ms Gita Kamath – gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote on admitting “Palestine” at the time of the 2011 UNESCO vote:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora. Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

The Security Council course is still being run in 2019 with the finishing line nowhere in sight and UNESCO’s funding in tatters.

UNESCO’s credibility, integrity and self-created fantasy dream world has imploded.

UNESCO’s seven-year love affair with a non-existent “Palestine” has produced an international humanitarian crisis.

(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article— is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

David Singer: Chickens Coming Home To Roost For Turkey

Below is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  I've added a map, courtesy of this site:

Writes David Singer:

Turkey’s championing of the Palestinian Arabs in their quest for an independent State has come back to bite Turkey with a vengeance – as Kurdish Statehood is once again firmly placed on the political agenda.

Turkey became the first country in the world with an ambassador to “Palestine” – after its envoy in Ramallah, Şakir Özkan Torunlar, presented his Letter of Credence to “State of Palestine” President Mahmoud Abbas on 14 April 2013.

Incredibly this self-declared “State of Palestine”  – admitted as a member State of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 and as a non-State observer to the United Nations on 29 November 2012 with Turkey’s active support – lacks the four following criteria required by the 1933 Montevideo Convention to qualify as a State:

1. a permanent population;
2. a defined territory;
3. a government; and
4. capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Turkey’s swift recognition of this illegally constituted state for the “Palestinians” – a people only created for the first time in 1964 by the PLO Charter – starkly contrasts with Turkey’s consistent refusal to grant its 15 million ancient Kurdish community – part of the largest stateless minority group in the world -– the identical right to their own State in Northern Turkey for the last 90 years.

Tim Arango sums up the current situation:

"The Kurds  – a population of roughly 30 million spread across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria  – have historically been treated as second-class citizens by autocratic governments and have long dreamed of their own state. Their aspirations were thwarted by Western powers after World War One, when new borders were drawn that carved up the Kurdish communities. But slowly, during the upheaval of the Middle East, the Kurds are now reaching for self-determination.

The battle for Kobani last year in Syria, which ended in victory for the Kurds after a month long American-led air campaign, drew Kurdish fighters from around the world and fanned the flames of pan-Kurdish nationalism.

In Iraq, after the Islamic State swept across the north of the country last year and captured Mosul, Kurdish forces took charge of Kirkuk, a city long contested between Kurds and Arabs that sits on a sea of oil and is considered something of a spiritual homeland for the Kurds."

Gains by the pro-Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) in the last Turkish elections at the expense of Turkey’s President Erdogan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party (A.K.P) have put added pressure on Kurdish demands for their own State. Barham Salih – former prime minister of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region – has stated:

“I think this is a milestone for Kurdish people and for Turkish politics. Not long ago, Kurds were officially non-existent, at best identified as mountain Turks. After decades of denial and persecution, the time for the Kurds has arrived.”

Elif Safak – one of Turkey’s most famous novelists – wrote in Time magazine:

“It is one of the biggest ironies of Turkish political history that the Kurds – once belittled by the elites as a ‘backward culture’ – have become the major progressive force in the country.” 

Turkey and the Kurds now appear to be hurtling toward renewing the all-out conflict that plagued Kurdish Statehood demands for decades – following a suicide attack that killed 32 people in the town of Suruc along the Syrian border.

Erdogan – robbed of his parliamentary majority by the Kurds – is in no mood to support Kurdish Statehood – a position he so enthusiastically embraced for the Palestinians.

Turkey seems set to pay a huge price for Erdogan’s hypocritical double standards.

The chickens are indeed coming home to roost.

David Singer: State Of Palestine and Islamic State Highlight International Double Standards

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4675381,00.html

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Siger.

He writes:

UNESCO, the United Nations and, just this week, the Vatican, have recognised that the “State of Palestine” exists – despite the fact that it lacks all four basic requirements laid down in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” 

Reverend Federico Lombardi – the Vatican spokesman – confirmed the Holy See’s stance: 

"Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists"

The Vatican is justifiably concerned to protect Christian communities in the Middle East against further ongoing death, dispersion and destruction of their churches as has occurred to Christian communities in Syria and Iraq during the last twelve months.

Easing the concerns of Christians in the West Bank would have certainly played a part in the Vatican’s decision.

Bethlehem’s Christian population has been reduced from 60 per cent in the 1990’s – prior to coming under Palestinian Authority control in 1995 - to 15 per cent Christian by 2013 -– whilst 1,000 Christians are reported to be leaving every year. However Christian population growth in Israel last year stood at 1.3 per cent.

Risking a rift in its relations with Israel displays poor judgement by the Vatican given these realities. Those 107 member States voting for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 did so in direct contravention of Article II (2) of the UNESCO Constitution which provides:

“… states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization ….”

Voting to admit into UNESCO an entity that is not a lawful state is beyond understanding.

The UN General Assembly compounded UNESCO’s amazing decision when 138 UN member States voted to recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state" on 29 November 2012.

The rule of law was thrown out the window with these UNESCO and UN decisions. The international response to Islamic State has been markedly different since its declaration on 29 June 2014.

In just one year Islamic State has pillaged, plundered, beheaded and murdered its way through Syria and Iraq - now governing the population and controlling state assets in an area larger than Great Britain. Pledges of allegiance have come from many terrorist groups including Boko Haram and Sinai Province.

Islamic State meets all four Montevideo Convention criteria.

Yet British Prime Minister David Cameron urges Islamic State’s existence not be recognised by simply not using its self-declared name – reportedly telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic State. What it is, is an appalling barbarous regime … it is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words.”

 French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has an even whackier view:

“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats’.” 

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has reportedly used the term “death cult” 346 times since last September.

The Pope too seems reluctant to use the term “Islamic State”. President Obama uses the acronym “ISIL” to deny it is Islamic or a State.

“Palestine” – not a State – is recognised as a State. “Islamic State” – a State – is not recognised as a State.

No wonder the world is in such a state of turmoil and confusion.

À Londres, Ils Sont Juifs ...

In the heavily Jewish Golders Green area of London, an avowedly Christian "Solidarity Patrol" shows its sympathy for British Jews in view of reports of heightened antisemitism (hat tip: Rita; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJkQcCU6lpU):

It is to Golders Green that Gorgeous George will soon be heading, to take part in an edition of BBC "Question Time"; his presence has, of course, been condemned by many as unnecessary provocation on Al Beeb's part, while the Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomes it as a chance to discredit George's opinions.

Have a look at this video, a collection of vignettes of viciousness  on the Israel-hating movement's part (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob26PJfq1XE):

 One of the newspaper articles that is shown in the first video above relates to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  He delivered a powerful speech on the occasion of Holocaust Memorial Day:

"Seventy years ago this week, Soviet troops stormed a large complex of Nazi prison camps in south-west Poland. They quickly discovered the apparatus for mechanised mass murder. The camps were called Auschwitz-Birkenau: a byword for the darkest depths of human depravity, and a period of unparalleled evil in human history.

Last Sunday, I travelled to Poland to represent the UK at this year’s liberation ceremony. The event was more poignant than ever, as it’s likely to be the last significant anniversary where survivors are present. It was also more sombre, because it takes place in the aftermath of another violent and disgusting attack on European Jews.

Recently I’ve heard people try to distinguish the antisemitism that propelled the Holocaust from the murders in Paris. They argue the former was born from fascism and ancient European prejudices, while the latter was driven by Islamic extremism and Middle Eastern politics.

This distinction is superficially reassuring. After all, we overcame the Third Reich 70 years ago. And as for those Jew-hating jihadists, well, they hate everybody else too. But there’s a problem: there is no distinction. It’s a delusion.

As I have said before, the irrational hatred of Jews is like cancer. It can be defeated, even crushed, but it can come back. Last year, Europe experienced a relapse, and only the most naïve would dismiss the potential risks that lie ahead.

Cancer begins in just a few malignant cells, but then it spreads, mutates and kills. The journey to the gas chambers began with small steps: newspaper columns, graffiti and broken windows. It ended with the murder of six million Jews and the destruction of European civilisation.

Some will dismiss such talk as hyperbolic paranoia. They’re wrong. The anxieties of French Jews were growing long before Amedy Coulibaly entered the Hyper Cacher supermarket, and increasing numbers were already emigrating to North America, Israel and Britain.

It is well documented that Jewish people in the UK are considerably less anxious about prejudice than elsewhere in Europe. But that is no cause for conceit, because last year we witnessed our own surge of antisemitic incidents.

Jews were spat at in the streets, intimidated and physically attacked. Cemeteries were desecrated, and the walls of Jewish homes daubed with vile and offensive graffiti. In July and August, there were more antisemitic incidents than the entire previous year.

These pernicious crimes have been accompanied by a creeping cultural acceptance of antisemitic attitudes and behaviour. A Jewish film festival was banned on the basis of Israeli policy in Gaza. A branch of Sainsbury’s cleared their shelves of kosher food to appease anti-Israeli protesters. During the Paris attacks, a respected BBC journalist started questioning a Parisian Jew about Israeli policy, as if she somehow bore responsibility.

These acts of antisemitism were almost casual, and their symbolism extremely troubling. The people and organisations involved eventually offered apologies, sometimes partial and begrudging, but I was dismayed by the initial denial and incomprehension that their behaviour was antisemitic.

The history of antisemitism shows the worst atrocities can begin when ordinary people turn a blind eye to small acts of discrimination, and minds drift lazily towards a mainstream, even fashionable, acceptance of prejudice.

Even some left-wing councils have jumped on the bandwagon. Labour-run Leicester considered it acceptable to play student union politics and ban Israeli-manufactured products. The Mayor of Tower Hamlets tried to create his own municipal foreign policy by flying the Palestinian flag. These public bodies should use their position of authority to promote community cohesion – not to grandstand and stir up tensions.

There is no excuse for this behaviour, or discrimination of any kind. Britain is a country where people of all faiths, and all backgrounds, can live peaceful and prosperous lives. British Jews have made and continue to make a huge contribution to national life: in business and commerce, the arts and literature, through volunteering and charities.

Britain without its Jews is not Britain at all, and this Government will remain at the centre of efforts to combat antisemitism. Last month, my department published a report about what we’re doing. That includes paying for extra security at Jewish schools, punishing online hate crime, and tackling anti-Semitism in football.

We are also ensuring all schoolchildren are taught about the Holocaust, so the next generation understands the horrors caused by inaction, and challenges any attempt to dilute the British values of tolerance and mutual respect.

Extremist behaviour has no place in modern Britain. It is a direct challenge to the values that define our nation. These values are very precious to us, and this Government will ensure they are never surrendered at the expense of British Jews. Freedom of religion is a hard-fought British liberty, and it is one that we will robustly defend."

According to this report Israel is even less popular in Britain than Iran.

The video of the magificent speech in Israel's favour given by Baroness Deech in a House of Lords debate on recognising a Palestinian State the other day is posted on this blog's Facebook page (link at the top of my sidebar) and on many other blogs.  Baroness Deech, a distinguished British educator,
is the daughter of Josef Fraenkel,  a renowned Yiddishist and co-author of Theodor Herzl, which appeared in 1943.  She is the lady about whom BDSer and ageing rocker Roger Waters made a grubby little crack drawing attention to her maiden name a couple of years ago.

It's worth savouring her speech in print:

My Lords, with unfortunate timing, this debate is taking place two days after International Holocaust Remembrance Day. In the 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, despite the millions spent on Holocaust education and remembrance, the museums and memorials and the school visits to concentration camps, there is a gap in memory and education that needs to be bridged. The desire and opportunity to murder 6 million people of a different religion whose presence on his territory the murderer resents must not arise again. The message Jews took from the Holocaust was that their nationalism was necessary. It has been a success. Israel is not Saudi Arabia; it is not North Korea, Iran or Pakistan. It is a flourishing and democratic outpost in the desert with an astonishing record. It is a safe haven, an imperative for existence that can be applied to no other country in the world.

Yasser Arafat declared an independent state of Palestine in 1988 and recognition followed from 100 states. The subsequent failure to change anything on the ground demonstrates the truth of the international law on recognition: namely, that statehood has to be founded in fact, not in numbers of recognitions.

As far as this Motion goes, almost every word of it is dubious. There can be no contribution towards a two-state solution because recognition of Palestine, falsely based, will only make the situation more dangerous. There can be no two-state solution unless Palestine recognises Israel, which she has steadfastly refused to do. There is no statehood attaching to Palestine in international law because it does not meet the criteria. A sovereign state of a Muslim Palestine has never existed—not before 1948, and not before 1967. It was Egyptian and Jordanian territory. Ehud Olmert’s offer of a state was rejected in 2009. The intention of many of the players in the region has always been the elimination of a Jewish presence in the area, not the establishment of yet one more Muslim state. The problem with Israel is not that it has displaced anyone; according to its neighbours, the problem is that its population is largely Jewish.

The practical result of a premature state of Palestine would simply be to free up the import of arms into the new state. The aim underlying this move is the takeover of Israel. Why is there no preparation by the Palestinians for statehood? There is no governance structure, no independent administration, no industrialisation and no negotiation of trade agreements with its neighbour, Israel. The state would not be a state in any recognisable form. Its leaders have declared that the current residents, whose status as refugees defies all logic, would remain defined as refugees. They would not be granted citizenship, nor would the state of Palestine open its doors to the Palestinian diaspora—those Palestinians whose miserable lives in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region are worse than the lives of those in Gaza and the West Bank. It has also declared that it would be a Judenrein state, unlike the 1.8 million Arab residents of Israel who have chosen to stay there.

So if a state has no citizens, and will not grant them citizenship in defiance of international law, what would it be for? It would be for a closer jumping-off point for the demolition of the State of Israel in pursuance of the alleged right of return. As other noble Lords have said, Fatah and Hamas want a one-state solution. Why should Israel recognise Palestine if there is no reciprocity but only a step towards elimination in return?

In the climate of extremism that is sweeping Europe, why should a country want to take a step that risks feeding it more? The only purpose is manipulative—to allow Palestinians to pursue claims against Israel at the UN and other international bodies. In the face of what is happening in Europe, what agenda do the proponents serve? Would it not be a good idea to examine the excesses of this position and turn to state building on the ground as an alternative?

Israel’s antagonists often accuse her of apartheid. In the worst times of genuine apartheid in South Africa, Mandela was planning his future independent country’s constitution, educating its leaders, preaching peace, not vengeance, and acting as a statesman. In the early days of Zionism, before statehood, the Jewish residents of what was to be Israel prepared their governance structure, set up the organs of a state, created universities, made the desert bloom, prepared a legal system and a free press, trade unions, hospitals and charities. None of this is present in the Palestinian leadership; nothing is readied. It is not a state under international law, but I have no time to describe that.

The worst element, of course, is that the residents will not be citizens but will be regarded as refugees whose aim is to return to a different state—Israel—rather than establishing citizenship in their own state, and the new state would be wholly dependent on international funds. For it to be recognised now—by the General Assembly, for example—would simply send the message to every other non-state entity in the world, such as the Basque country, Northern Cyprus, the Kurds and even Scotland, to bypass normal laws and claim to be a state. Let there be a two-state solution by all means if the Palestinians will create a homeland, accept the refugees, lay down their arms and be a country of peace.

And this insightful article about media bias against Israel, an article now getting the publicity it deserves, is very much worth reading. 

Palestine: A Picture Paints 1000 Words ...

 

He's good, isn't he, that Elder?  I mean, he's really good.

And remember this?  http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/uk-palestine-embassy-website-wipes.html

Yes, I definitely think he's onto something...

Cautioning The United Nations Regarding Palestinian Statehood

Here's another considered article by David Singer, the Sydney lawyer who is a founder of the International  Analysts Network.  Entitled "Palestine – Testing The World's Patience," it comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

The Palestinian Authority headed by an unelected president – Mahmoud Abbas – and an unelected prime minister – Salam Fayyad – continue to live in a fantasy dream world.

Talks to replace the Fayyad Government with yet another unelected Government comprising the two arch rival Palestinian factions – Hamas and Fatah – continue to founder despite the pomp and fanfare that accompanied the signing of a heads of agreement between them in Cairo on 4 May.

On 29 June Fatah and Hamas were reported to have agreed to delay the formation of the unity government until after the expected United Nations vote on Palestinian Arab statehood in September. The official Saudi Press Agency said PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas relayed the proposal to Hamas through Turkey, which has reportedly sought to resolve obstacles to reconciliation.

This delay comes as no surprise. Turkey is wasting its time trying to remove the insurmountable obstacles to the formation of such a unity government.

Any idea that Hamas would join a government of national unity with Fatah to seek recognition in the United Nations of a second Arab state in just 5% of former Palestine is an illusion.

For Hamas it is 100% of former Palestine or nothing.

Hamas – The Islamic Resistance Movement – makes its sworn objective of creating an Islamic State in all of former Palestine very clear in Article 11 of its Charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Fatah on the other hand seeks to create a secular state in all of former Palestine as is made clear in articles 12 and 13 of its Constitution :

Article 12: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article 13: Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens’ legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) – the love child conceived by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993 – remains captive to the objectives of the PLO – which believes the liberation of former Palestine can be achieved in stages by first regaining a territorial foothold in the West Bank and Gaza as the prelude to a final all out assault on Israel and Jordan.

This is made clear in articles 1 and 9 of the PLO Charter:

Article 1: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

 Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

British Mandate Palestine comprised what is today known as Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza – and the PLO claims all of it.

The PA is nothing more than a negotiating front for the PLO. The PA lacks any real independent authority, political credibility or the ability to conclude a peace treaty with Israel that would be permanently binding on the Palestinian Arabs.

The PA is captive to the aims and ambitions of Hamas and the PLO – which itself is dominated by Fatah and does not include Hamas among its members.

The PA President – Mahmoud Abbas – is totally conflicted as head of both the PLO and Fatah as well.

In the face of this overwhelming commonality of interest between Hamas, Fatah and the PLO to get rid of both the Jews in Israel and the Hashemites in Jordan – one must ask why the United Nations could possibly believe that any approach by the politically neutered PA to recognize a Palestinian Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza could advance the cause of peace and end a conflict that has lasted 130 years.

The Palestinian Arabs have passed up countless opportunities to achieve their own state in the West Bank and Gaza during the last 74 years – and on some occasions in even more territory than that – in:

1937 – when recommended by the Peel Commission

1947 – when recommended by the United Nations

1948-1967 – when such a state could have been created by the stroke of an Arab League pen after all the Jews living there had been driven out

1950 – when the West Bank Arabs instead chose to unify with Jordan

2001 and 2008 – when offers by Israel to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank were rejected by the PA

2005 – when Israel disengaged and evacuated all its citizens and military forces from Gaza

Any United Nations decision to recognize such a state in 2011 would fly in the face of international law – particularly the Montevideo Convention 1933 - and open up the United Nations to demands to recognize similar claims for independence and secession by scores of other groups agitating for self-determination within many of the member states of the United Nations.

The United Nations should make it clear that until the Palestinian Arabs speak as one and declare their intention is not to eliminate two UN member states – Israel and Jordan – any thoughts of revisiting a proposal made by this very organization and rejected 63 years ago will not be entertained again.

The world has bent the knee for far too long trying to do appease the Palestinian Arabs. It is time for the Palestinian Arabs to clean out the stables and get a single unified government which is prepared to sign an unconditional peace treaty declaring its readiness to recognize the sovereignty and independence of Israel and Jordan.

Until this happens the United Nations would be well advised to turn down any PA approach in September.