Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label United Nations Bias against Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations Bias against Israel. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

"A Torrent Of Incitement Against [Israel]": Three-Day Paris UN Hate-Fest Protested

Dr Shimon Samuels,the Simon Wiesenthal Centres's Director for International Relations, has written to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon regarding a just-ended three-day hate-fest at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris, the UN International Meeting on the 'Question of Palestine' subtitled  "The Role of Youth and Women in the Peaceful Resolution of the Question of Palestine".


"We heard tributes to the 'Intifada' and 'the martyrs'. Calls for a 'Third Intifada mobilized electronically in the Facebook image of the Arab Spring', and appeals for global 'BDS' (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel," wrotes Dr Samuels of the proceedings, in which Abdou Salam Diallo, Chairman of the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) made the menacing statement
 "one drop of water on a rock does nothing; continual dripping destroys the rock"
It was not lost on Dr Samuels that this phrase echoes Ayatollah Khomeiny:
"If every follower would drop one spoon of water on Israel, it would drown in the torrent" 
 "These three days were a torrent of incitement to hate against a sovereign member of the United Nations," notes Dr Samuels.
"We heard tributes to the 'Intifada' and 'the martyrs'. Calls for a 'Third Intifada mobilized electronically in the Facebook image of the Arab Spring', and appeals for global 'BDS' (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel....
The Paris meeting begs a question intrinsic to the United Nations: Among the member-states of the organizing committee, among the UN officials involved, among the invited speakers and NGO's, are there those who - apart from targetting Israel - also devote equal time to condemning the terrorism of Hamas and Hizbollah, the violation of women and homophobia across the region, the massacres in Syria, the nuclear designs of Iran or the Turkish occupation of parts of Cyprus and Kurdistan?
If the answer is negative, their obsessive-compulsive fixation upon Israel exposes their vested interest in the perpetuation of the conflict."
Arguing that
"The United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) - in empowering these peace rejectionists - is ipso facto a threat to world peace and should be disbanded"
Dr Samuels, on behalf of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, has requested Ban Ki-Moon to
"Condemn the Paris meeting and launch an investigation into the CEIRPP's activities in violation of the UN Charter."
For the full report see here

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Alan Dershowitz On Israel's Human Rights Record (video)

As the Harvard law professor says, Israel has the best human rights record of any nation faced with comparable threats, but the human rights agenda at the United Nations has been hijacked by countries which "promote human wrongs".


Hat tip: reader Shirlee

Thursday, 1 December 2011

"It is still unclear whether they are inspired by the promise of building a new state, or the goal of destroying an existing one": Ron Prosor To The United Nations

Ron Prosor, the personable and popular (with Israel's friends, at least) diplomat who this year left the post of Israeli Ambassador to the Court of St James to become his country's envoy to the United Nations, has proved his mettle yet again as an outstanding representative of the beleaguered Jewish State.  His speech yesterday at the UN General Assembly on the occasion of the so-called International Day of Solidarity With The Palestinian People inaugurated by that Arab/pro-Arab-hijacked international body in 1977, bears witness to that.

 Declared Mr Prosor:

'A great Jewish sage once wrote, "The truth can hurt like a thorn, at first; but in the end it blossoms like a rose."
His words came to my mind today. His insight could really benefit many in this hall.
It takes a well of truth to water the seeds of peace. Yet, we continue to witness a drought of candour in this body’s discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. On this historic day, real facts in the General Assembly remain few and far between.
 

For any who have been here on November 29th before, today is déjà vu. Some of you may have noticed that some minor changes have been taking place in the Middle East lately, but any changes in this body’s resolutions condemning Israel are very, very rare.
Indeed, it didn’t take a creative writer to craft the language in these resolutions. The exact same text is copied and pasted, year after year – much of it dating back five decades.
 

The account we heard today is one-sided. It is unilateral. It is unjust. And it is unhelpful. It presents a distorted and impartial version of history.  It transforms the cause of Palestinian self-determination into a deliberate attempt to denigrate, defame, and delegitimize the State of Israel.
 

The political dynamics in this body are sadly predictable. Every November, the leaves change color in New York, but the automatic anti-Israel majority never changes its votes.
 

Each and every responsible member of the international community that affixes its seal of approval on this exact same set of resolutions – which are irrelevant at best, and damaging at worst— should do a little soul searching. Is this the message that you want the General Assembly to send to the world.... Let me take a moment to remind this Assembly about what actually occurred on this day 64 years ago – and in the days that followed.
 

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition then British-Mandate Palestine into two states: one Jewish, one Arab. Two states for two peoples.
 

The Jewish population accepted that plan and declared a new state in its ancient homeland. It reflected the Zionist conviction that it was both necessary and possible to live in peace with our neighbors in the land of our forefathers.
 

The Arab inhabitants rejected the plan and launched a war of annihilation against the new Jewish state, joined by the armies of five Arab members of the United Nations.
 

One percent of Israel’s population died during this assault by five armies. Think about that price. It would be the equivalent of 650,000 dying in France today, or 3 million dying in the United States, or 13 million dying in China.
 

As a result of the war, there were Arabs who became refugees. A similar number of Jews, who lived in Arab countries, were forced to flee their homes as well. They, too, became refugees.
The difference between these two distinct populations was – and still is – that Israel absorbed the refugees into our society. Our neighbors did not.
 

Refugee camps in Israel gave birth to thriving towns and cities. Refugee camps in Arab Countries gave birth to more Palestinian refugees.
 

We unlocked our new immigrants’ vast potential. The Arab World knowingly and intentionally kept their Palestinian populations in the second class status of permanent refugees.
 

In Lebanon for many years and still today, the law prohibits Palestinians from owning land – and from working in the public sector or as doctors and lawyers. Palestinians are banned from these professions.
 

In Kuwait, the once significant Palestinian population was forcibly expelled from the country in 1991. Few remain.
 

In Syria, thousands of Palestinians had to flee refugee camps in Latakia last August when President Assad shelled their homes with naval gunboats.
 

In the vast majority of Arab Countries, Palestinians have no rights of citizenship. It is no coincidence that the Arab World’s responsibilities for the “inalienable rights” of these Palestinians never appear in the resolutions before you....

The basic question underlying our conflict for 64 years has not changed. That question is: has the Arab World – and particularly the Palestinians – internalized that Israel is here to stay and will remain the Nation-state of the Jewish People?
 


It is still unclear whether they are inspired by the promise of building a new state, or the goal of destroying an existing one. [My emphasis]

Two months ago, President Abbas stood at the podium in this very hall and tried to erase the unbroken and unbreakable connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.
 

He said the following:
“I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him).”
This was not an oversight. It was not a slip of the tongue. It was yet another deliberate attempt to deny and erase more than 3,000 years of Jewish history. The Arab leaders from those two nations that sought peace have offered a different message.
 

For example, in 1995, King Hussein came to the United States and said (quote): “For our part, we shall continue to work for the new dawn when all the Children of Abraham and their descendants are living together in the birthplace of their three great monotheistic religions.”
In 1977, President Sadat came to Israel’s Knesset and quoted this verse from the Koran: “We believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes and in the books given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their lord.”
 

President Sadat and King Hussein spoke of THREE monotheistic religions, not ONE or TWO.Mr. President,
 

The resolution that gives the 29th of November significance – General Assembly resolution 181 – speaks of the creation of a “Jewish State” no less than 25 times. We still do not hear Palestinian leaders utter the term. 
 

The Palestinian leadership refuses to acknowledge Israel’s character as a Jewish state. You will never hear them say “two states for two peoples”. If you ever hear a Palestinian leader say “two states for two peoples”, please phone me immediately. My office has set up the equivalent of a 9/11 number in the event of such an unprecedented occurrence.
Palestinian leaders call for an independent Palestinian state, but insist that the Palestinian people return to the Jewish state. This is a proposition that no one who believes in the right of Israel to exist could ever accept.The idea that Israel will be flooded with millions of Palestinians is a non-starter. The international community knows it. The Palestinian leadership knows it. But the Palestinian people aren’t hearing it. At this very moment, the gap between their perception and reality remains the major obstacle to peace.
 

Let me repeat that: the so-called right of return is and will remain the major obstacle to peace. It is not settlements. It is not the laundry list of baseless accusations launched against Israel in today’s resolutions.
 

I’ll repeat it again: the so-called right of return is the major obstacle to peace. Everyone knows it.
Yet, all of those who were so vocal today in telling Israel what is has to do for peace – mumbled, stuttered and conveniently lost their voices when it came to telling the Palestinians that the so-called right of return is a non-starter.
 

For decades, this body has rubberstamped nearly every Palestinian whim, no matter how counter-factual or counter-productive. What has this accomplished? The lip service of this body has only done a disservice for peace....

True friends of the Palestinians have a responsibility to tell them the truth.
They will stop promoting the distorted version of history that characterizes this day, and start delivering the real lessons of history that the Palestinian leadership now refuses to heed.
 

These lessons are clear: bilateral negotiations are the only route to two states, for two peoples – living side-by-side in peace and security; negotiations that resolve the outstanding concerns of both sides.
While bypass maneuvers may work for heart surgery and highway construction, they will not bring peace or security to our region.
 

Direct negotiations were the way of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin, the way of Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein. It has been the framework for advancing peace between Israel and the Palestinians for the past two decades.
 

Time and again, we have extended our hand in peace to the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu stood in this very hall last September and declared his commitment to the cause of Palestinian self-determination – and his vision for establishing a Palestinian state, alongside the Jewish State of Israel – two states for two peoples.
 

Yet, today we wait for the Palestinians to give up the false idol of unilateralism – and get back to the real hard work of direct negotiations.  And – as they continue to run away from the negotiating table, the Palestinian leadership continues to move closer into their embrace of Hamas – an internationally recognized terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
 

This development brings to my mind Groucho Marx’s famous line: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them … well, I have others." The Quartet has long applied three principles that Hamas must adopt.  It must renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by prior agreements. At no point has Hamas satisfied these conditions – or indicated any intention to do so.
 

Those who advocate recognizing a Government that includes Hamas are urging a Groucho-Marxist policy in a complex, unstable region. If Hamas is too extreme to accept these principles, they argue, we must tailor our principles to match Hamas's extremism.The bar has been set very low. On these basic requirements for peace, there can be no adjustments. There can be no bargaining. There can be no Holiday Season discounts – in this hall or anywhere else....

Even more than the words spoken in the speeches here today – or the words in the resolutions before you— it is the words not spoken that speak volumes. This Assembly has made clear that it does not stand in solidarity with many people in our region today.
 

In this hall, I hear no solidarity with the one million Israeli men, women and children who live under the constant rain rockets, mortars and missiles from the Gaza Strip.
 

I hear no solidarity with the 16-year old boy who was killed last April when a Hamas anti-Tank Missile struck his school bus. Or the thousands of other Israeli civilians who have been killed and injured.
 

I hear no solidarity with the Israeli children who learn the alphabet at the same time that they learn the names Kassam, Grad, and Katyusha – the rockets that keep them out of school for weeks at a time.
 

I hear no solidarity with the Palestinians who are victims of brutal Hamas rule – with the political opponents who are tortured, the women who are subjugated, or the children who are used as suicide bombers and human shields.  [My emphasis]
 

And – ... today I hear no solidarity with the many people in the Middle East who are being repressed and slaughtered every single day for demanding their freedom. From Syria to Iran to Yemen, these people are no longer content with their leader’s explanations that Israel is to blame for all the problems of the Middle East – a fiction that is advanced through resolutions like those before us today.
Today the People of the Middle East demand real answers for their plight.
 


I also heard no discussion today about the incitement that continues to fill the West Bank and Gaza, where the next generation of Palestinian children is being taught that suicide bombers are heroes, that Jews have no connection to the Holy Land, and that they must seek to annihilate the State of Israel.
 

From cradles to kindergarten classrooms; from the grounds of summer camps to the stands of football stadiums; from the names of public squares to the public pronouncements of Palestinian leaders, these messages are everywhere.
 

Just last month, President Abbas declared that the Palestinian Authority would provide a grant of up to $5,000 to every terrorist released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, Israel’s kidnapped soldier.
These are people like Ibrahim Shammasina, who helped to murder four Israelis, including two teenagers. People like Walid Anajas, who planned bombings in the heart of Jerusalem and Rishon Lezion, which killed 32.
 

People like Wafa-al Bis, who unsuccessfully tried to blow herself up in an Israeli hospital.Washed in the blood of innocents, these terrorists are being held up as role models for the next generation of Palestinian children.
 

Palestinian Authority television broadcast President Abbas’ remarks to these released terrorists last October. He said, “You are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland... Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain.”....

Sustainable peace must take root in homes, schools, and media that teach tolerance and understanding so that it can grow in hearts and minds.
 

It must come from a Palestinian leadership willing to tell its people about the difficult compromises that they will have to make for statehood.
 

It will come through the hard work of state-building, not the old habit of state-bashing.
 

Today none of these truths have been spoken.
 

Today I hear no solidarity with the principles of peace.
 

I know that the truth can be a burden. I know that old habits die-hard. I know that the convenience of the moment sometimes weighs heavy on the interests of the future.
 

Yet, only the truth will set us free. After years of darkness, I call on this Assembly to bring new light to this debate.
 

I call on each and every delegate in this hall to embrace pragmatic solutions, not automatic resolutions; to speak with candor, and not slander; to grapple for a new vision, and not old divisions.
 

I call on this Assembly to finally glean truth from this historic day, nourishing the seeds of peace in our region that can blossom into a brighter future.'

(Hat tip: Challah)
Update: see Michelle Huberman's interesting blog about this speech, specifically in relation to the refugee issue, here

Thursday, 22 September 2011

The Palestine Statehood Bid: Six Essential Truths For The United Nations

From the pen, or more accurately the keyboard, of Sydney-based lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, comes this latest article entitled "Palestine – Telling The UN Some Home Truths," via, as usual, the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

'Israel’s Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – has announced his intention to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week in connection with the proposed application by the PLO for recognition of a Palestinian Arab State along the 1949 armistice lines.

The terms of the proposed resolution remain a closely guarded secret. There still appears to be  disagreement between Palestinian Arab leaders as to its final terms.

However notwithstanding such uncertainty Mr Netanyahu announced at a press conference with visiting Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas, that he will at the United Nations "speak the truth to those who want to hear it".

There are at least six basic truths that need to be conveyed to the delegates of the 193 member states present who are charged with voting on any proposed resolution:
1. Mr Netanyahu needs to repeat the following statement he made to the UN General Assembly on 11 December 1984 :
"Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of     Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949."
This still remains the strategy behind the current PLO application to the UN.

The Palestinian Arabs could have had their State in more than 90% of the territory situated within the 1949 armistice lines had they accepted either of the offers made by Israel in 2001 or 2008. They want 100% to deny Israel the security it needs – as was  recognized by the UN in Resolution 242

This message needs to be repeated – especially for the 34 member States who were not members of the UN when Mr Netanyahu made this speech.
2.  The view often expressed in the UN that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal in international law ignores the fact that close settlement by Jews on West Bank land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes was to be encouraged and is legally sanctioned by the Treaty of Sevres, article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.
Denying this vested legal right by unilaterally passing a resolution that seeks to negate the exercise of that right breaches article 80 of the UN Charter and is a denial of natural justice.
3.   Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are the only legally enforceable resolutions of the United Nations binding on all parties to the Jewish- Arab conflict.
These resolutions call for secure and recognized boundaries to be determined by the parties to the conflict.

This can only be done in negotiations and not imposed unilaterally by any decision of either the General Assembly or the Security Council unless both Resolutions are repealed or amended.

To do otherwise will bring the United Nations into disrepute, cause it to lose its authority and render its future rulings and decisions without force or effect.
4.  The 1947 UN Partition Plan called for the establishment of a Jewish State and an Arab State in the balance of the area of the British Mandate still controlled by Great Britain in 1947 – after 77% of the Mandated territory had been granted independence by Great Britain in 1946 as an exclusively Arab state and was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
The Arab rejection of the UN partition proposal and the failure by the Arabs to create such a State between 1947-1967 must require the General Assembly to stipulate that recognition of any Arab state in 2011 is conditional upon recognition of Israel as the Jewish state in the balance of the land contained in the 1947 Partition Plan.
5.  The PLO Charter – article 2  – declares that Palestine within the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is one indivisible territorial unit.
Until this clause is unequivocally and irrevocably deleted  from the Charter – the UN should not consider any application for recognition made by the PLO.
6.  The Montevideo Convention 1933 prevents any consideration of the current application – since the proposed state does not fulfill the requirements of the Convention setting out the conditions for a State to possess before it can make a declaration of statehood and then seek to be recognized.
The UN should be seeking to enforce international law not subvert it.

The UN has learned from bitter experience in 1947 what can happen when the General Assembly proposes a solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict which one party accepts and  the other party rejects.

Hopefully history will not be repeated in 2011. This will depend to a great degree on the final wording of any resolution. If it is not acceptable to both parties then violence and bloodshed is sure to follow.

The UN really needs to decide whether international law or the law of the jungle is to prevail.

Mr Netanyahu said in his press conference that the General Assembly is not "the place where Israel generally gets a reasonable hearing," but it was nonetheless important to present Israel’s position.

The real question is – will anyone be listening or have they already made up their minds?'

Sunday, 21 August 2011

The UN's Unconscionable Hypocrisy Regarding Israel & A Blood-Curdling Message From A Pulpit (videos)

They're always plying their perfidious anti-Israel trade, the UN members who've hijacked that body for their own ends, such paragons of social justice, compassion, and equality as the Arab states and Iran,singling out Israel for obloquy and censure with the aim of delegitimising it into oblivion, and they'll be up to their usual tricks at the Durban Conference in September:


I don't know the speaker's name or precise location, but his message is loud and clear:


(Hat tip: Roger on Richard Millett's blog)