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: Media Falsely Discredit Trump as He Confronts UN on Jerusalem

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

(At left: a participant in Sydney's so-called "Solidarity Rally with Jerusalem to say no to the United States' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" that took place on Saturday.  Below: a face in the crowd. Photographer: Peter Boyle for Green Left Weekly. Third image: Jews expelled from their homes in Jerusalem by Jordanian troops in 1948: Life magazine.)

Writes David Singer:

The media has discredited President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – falsely claiming the president has reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy. Trump’s decision has pitted America squarely against the United Nations.

The New York Times led the pack declaring:

“President Trump on Wednesday formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reversing nearly seven decades of American foreign policy …” 

Australia’s publicly-funded national broadcaster – the ABC – followed suit with this headline:

“Donald Trump recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital, in reversal of decades of policy” 

News outlets including Reuters, Financial Times, Iraqinews, Gulfnews, and Today parroted this false claim.

America’s policy on Jerusalem is actually laid out in “The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 (Act)” passed by the Senate (93–5) and the House (374–37) on 24 October 1995 – specifically highlighted by Trump when announcing his decision:

“In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city -- and so importantly -- is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.”

The Act unequivocally states:

“SEC. 3. TIMETABLE. 

(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

The Act’s preamble details the following facts critical to Congress’s overwhelming vote: 

1. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

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

 3. The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel´s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

4. The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

5. From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

6. In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

7. Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

8. 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.

9. In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David´s entry.

The morally-bankrupt United Nations has ignored these facts for the last 22 years – choosing instead to pass countless resolutions supporting spurious Arab claims to East Jerusalem that could have been satisfied at any time between 1948 and 1967 following six Arab armies illegally invading Western Palestine and ethnically cleansing East Jerusalem’s entire Jewish population, destroying synagogues and desecrating Jewish cemeteries.

United Nations member States who vote – or abstain from voting – on future resolutions supporting specious artificially-contrived Arab claims in East Jerusalem risk being collectively shamed and internationally castigated.

The media’s latest myth remains unretracted and uncorrected. Trump’s principled decision follows United States policy adopted since 1995.

God bless America.

Will The United Nations Acquiesce In The Ethnic Cleansing of Jews?

The latest hard-hitting article by Sydney lawyer David Singer, a founder-member pf the International Analysts Network, is entitled "Palestine –Will the UN Endorse Ethnic Cleansing?"

As usual, it comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.  (I've added pictures.)

Writes David Singer:


'Two of the many intriguing matters facing the United Nations in dealing with any proposal to seek recognition of a Palestinian Arab State along the 1967 lines are:

1. Who will make such application on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs?
2. What conditions will the United Nations demand to ensure that up to 500,000 Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will not ultimately face arbitrary expulsion as a result of its decision?

Palestinian Authority President and PLO Chairman – Mahmoud Abbas – has stated that the PLO – not the Palestinian Authority – will be making the approach to the UN – telling a press conference:

"Going to the UN does not mean the end of the PLO. It’s the PLO that will submit the application to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state. The PLO will remain the protector of the rights of the Palestinians until the establishment of a  Palestinian state and the complete end of occupation."

Hamas is not a member of the PLO – but both are sworn to eliminating the State of Israel – the former by jihad, the latter by acquiring territory in stages as a prelude to a final assault on the Jewish State.

The PLO has made it abundantly clear that it is not prepared to accept the rule of international law – openly declaring in Article 20 of its Charter:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."

Will United Nations members support such blatant and continuing disregard of international law by the PLO and fail to demand the PLO amend its Charter?

The PLO has also refused to acknowledge the connection of the Jewish people with their ancient biblical and legally sanctioned homeland by stating in Article 20 of its Charter:

"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not     an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Will the United Nations endorse any PLO approach whilst it exhibits Jew-hatred on such a scale?
The "complete end of the occupation" referred to by Abbas – even in the context of any two-state solution – means the ethnic cleansing of all Jews living in the newly recognised Palestinian State by  forcibly expelling them from their homes where tens of thousands have lived for more than thirty years.

Their right to live there has been sanctioned in international law by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Member States of the United Nations cannot close their ears or avert their eyes to what Abbas has made very clear:

"We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it."

Like Hitler – he is being truthful. Will the world be listening and responding this time round?

To make sure there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation Abbas repeated his blunt warning:

"But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it."

Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and East Jerusalem following Jordan’s conquest of both areas in 1948 – until their return after the Six Day War in 1967.

Abbas has made it clear that he wants to return to the 1948 position – by doing as the Jordanians did  – eliminating all signs of Jewish life in East Jerusalem and the West Bank by ethnic cleansing and by destroying synagogues, desecrating holy sites and trashing Jewish cemeteries.

As the United Nations deliberates on a Palestinian State along the 1967 lines – it might do well to remember what happened the last time the Arabs occupied East Jerusalem from 1948-1967:

"After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. The city’s foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an ‘open city’ and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967.

Jews Fleeing Their Homes in the Old City in 1948

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones from the ancient cemetery and used them as paving stones for roads and as construction material in Jordanian     Army camps, including use as latrines. When the area was recaptured by Israel in 1967, graves were found open with the bones scattered. Parts of the cemetery were converted into parking    lots, a filling station, and an asphalt road was built to cut through it…

The Hurva Synagogue, attributed to Rabbi Moses Ben Nahman (Ramban), was the main synagogue in Jerusalem in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (and possibly much earlier), until the Ottomans closed it in 1589 because of Muslim incitement. It was burned by Arabs in 1721 (Hurva = destruction in Hebrew), but again rebuilt by Zionists in the 19th century, becoming the most prominent synagogue on the Jerusalem skyline. For that reason, when it was captured by the Arab Legion during the battle for Old Jerusalem in 1948, they dynamited it to show that they controlled the Jewish Quarter. When the Jews in New Jerusalem saw the Hurva burning, they knew that Jewish life in the Quarter had ended (again)."

Jerusalem Rabbi Under Arrest by Arabs in 1948

The Hurva Synagogoue has now been rebuilt – and Israel is certainly not going to allow it to fall into hands that would seek to destroy it once again.

The United Nations faces yet another moment of truth as it is asked to replace direct negotiations by passing a resolution that does not have the approval of the conflicting parties – as last occurred in 1947.

Is the United Nations  prepared to signal its willingness to endorse the expulsion of Jews from their current homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in flagrant violation of the decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter?

Those in the United Nations who would support such an outcome should hang their heads in shame.'

See also: http://www.aish.com/jw/me/Legal_Problems_with_a_Unilateral_Declaration.html (Hat tip: R. H.)

The United Nations & The Future Of Jerusalem

The latest trenchant article by Sydney lawyer David Singer, a founder-member of the International Analysts' Network, is entitled "Palestine –  Jerusalem Challenges The United Nations," and comes as usual via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

'Jerusalem’s continued existence as an undivided city will remain unaffected by any United Nations (UN)  decision recognising a Palestinian Arab State based on the June 1967 armistice lines. This has been made very clear in a  statement issued on 16 August by the Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations itself – which declares:

"Jerusalem in particular is one of the core issues that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, which underscores the urgent need for the parties to resume serious and substantive talks."

Should the UN member States disregard the Quartet’s warning, the likelihood of Israel agreeing to any subsequent negotiations over Jerusalem – or indeed any future Palestinian Arab state – would almost certainly evaporate.

The Quartet also affirmed:

"that unilateral action by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

This is a clear warning to the Palestinian Authority that its unilateral quest to seek UN recognition of a State would be in breach of – and could well end any further negotiations under – the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap endorsed and fully supported by the Quartet for the last eight years.

International law is a primary concern of the UN. The mandate for its activities in this field emanates from the Charter of the United Nations which, in its Preamble, sets the goal :

"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".

 There are three competing claims relating to Jerusalem that can only be resolved by direct negotiations – not unilaterally determined by the UN – if justice and respect for international law is to have any real meaning.

Jewish Jerusalemites Fleeing Their City in 1948

The three potential claimants are:

1. The Palestinian Arabs  – who have never in recorded history exercised sovereign control in or over any parts of Jerusalem.  They had a window of opportunity to do so between 1948-1967 – but did not make any claim during those 19 years.
2. Jordan – the last Arab occupier in Jerusalem between 1948-1967 – which relinquished all claims in 1988 – but whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel allows for a continuing Jordanian role in the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem.
3. The Jewish people – the only people to have ever adopted Jerusalem as their capital  when King David first established it in about 1000 BC -  and who are legally entitled to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem pursuant to article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

On 30 July 1980 Israel’s Parliament passed a law declaring:

"Complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."

Israel’s declaration was subsequently declared "null and void" by the UN.

Jerusalem also opens up an additional legal minefield for the UN – since Jerusalem was never  included in Security Council Resolution 242.

This was confirmed in a letter published in  the New York Times on 12 March 1980 – written by the former US Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg at the time Resolution 242 was passed – in which he  stated:

"Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank"

 Goldberg also clarified in his letter that President Johnson’s policy at that time did not regard Jerusalem as occupied territory. That position was adopted at a  later date under President Nixon at a time when there had been a change of ambassadors at the United Nations.

"The facts are that I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. Ambassador Yost did in his speech on July 1, 1969 under instructions from President Nixon, and his statement represented a departure from policy I, President Johnson and the Department of State pursued with respect to Jerusalem during the period of my tenure…"

Security Council Resolution 242 calls for

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Even if the UN wants to dispute Goldberg’s claim and insist that Jerusalem was indeed included in Resolution 242 – then negotiations are still required to determine such secure and recognized boundaries – not unilateral declarations or resolutions by the United Nations.

Whilst America’s policy on Jerusalem and that of the Palestinian Arabs may change from time to time – Israel’s position remains unchanged.

Israel maintains that Jerusalem is – and will remain – the eternal and undivided capital of Israel with free access to it – and all three monotheistic religions will enjoy complete freedom of worship.

President Carter’s decision to issue Sadat with a letter stating that America’s position was that East Jerusalem was occupied territory and thus the Fourth Geneva Convention would apply – almost wrecked the 1978 Camp David Accords – causing Moshe Dayan to tell President Carter:

Jerusalem Jews Made Homeless in 1948

`How could the Americans and the Egyptians argue that the Western Wall, the Hebrew University, the Hadassah Hospital, the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus belonged to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? Why was the Jewish Quarter of the Old City regarded as "conquered territory" held by us in contravention of international law? Simply because the Jordanian Arab Legion conquered it in 1948, destroyed its synagogues, killed or took captive the Jewish civilians who lived there? What was holy about the military conquest by the Jordanian army in 1948, and profane about our victory in the 1967 war – a war which was also started with Jordan’s attack on Israel?` ( Professor Shlomo Slonim – The Camp David Accords – A Collection of Articles and Lectures)

Carter recanted and never issued his letter to Sadat. Instead three letters were appended to the Accords stating the respective positions of America, Israel and Egypt.

Dayan’s stirring words to President Carter and Goldberg’s revelations could become very relevant during the September sittings of the United Nations – should any attempt be made -without Israel’s agreement – to unilaterally unravel the unity of Jerusalem which has remained united and undivided since 1967.

The Quartet’s statement is therefore very timely and is to be applauded.  There is no alternative to negotiations over Jerusalem‘s future – no matter how long, difficult and protracted they might be.

Risking the end of any such further negotiations by embarking on a unilateral journey to nowhere may prove once again that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Will the UN rise to the challenge and defend the unity of Jerusalem against the latest attempt to unilaterally divide it again?  That is the pressing decision each of the member States of the UN will be forced to publicly declare should the matter come before the UN in September.'