"The Problems of the Middle East are Numerous, and Yet ..."

"...we spend a vastly disproportionate amount of time on one of them," Nikki Haley tells the UN Security Council in her final, superb address to it regarding Israel and the Palestinian Arabs and prospects for a peace in which both sides prosper.

David Singer: UN-Hamas Day of Infamy Mars Trump-Israel Day of Celebration

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

He writes:

December 6, 2018, marks the day the United Nations General Assembly (“UNGA”) infamously sold its soul to evil by failing to agree on whether a resolution condemning Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza required two-thirds – or simple – majority vote.

December 6, 2018 also happened to be the first anniversary of President Trump’s announcement of America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the intended relocation of America’s Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

December 6, 2018 was also the fourth day of the eight-day Jewish festival of Hanukkah marking the rededication during the second century B.C. of the Second Temple in Jerusalem following the Jews uprising against their Greek-Syrian oppressors.

America had submitted draft resolution A/73/L.42 (“L. 42”)to the UNGA on 29 November 2018:

• Condemning Hamas for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk;
• Demanding that Hamas and other militant actors, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, cease all provocative actions and violent activity, including by using airborne incendiary devices;
• Condemning the use of resources by Hamas in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas, when such resources could be used to address the critical needs of the civilian population;

The UN’s Press Release sums up what occurred when the draft resolution came to a vote on 6 December:

“The representative of Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the situation in the Middle East is directly linked to international peace and security.  He condemned Israeli policies that violate international humanitarian law and the Charter of the United Nations and requested a vote to apply the two‑thirds majority rule for the adoption of draft “L.42”.
The representative of the United States said a simple majority is required for adoption of the resolution.  She called for fairness in the United Nations and said action on the draft was about “doing what is right”.  “The General Assembly has never uttered a word in any resolution about Hamas,” she said.  The decision to adopt the text by a two‑thirds majority is based on a desire to have the resolution fail.  She urged all States to vote against the motion.

The Assembly then voted to apply the two‑thirds majority requirement by a very narrow simple majority margin of 75 in favour, 72 against, with 26 abstentions.

Those favouring a two-thirds majority vote included 44 out of 56 Islamic States – whilst one (Albania) voted against, 5 abstained and 6 did not vote.

Non-Islamic States supporting the Islamic States bloc included: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Japan, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

All 21 member States of the European Union supported America’s simple majority stance.

Others backing America included: Australia, Bosnia, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Singapore, Slovakia, Ukraine and Uruguay.

L 42 was then passed by the UNGA by 87 votes for, 57 against and 33 abstentions – but was declared lost because it had not secured the two-thirds majority required.
The Islamic States had secured a three-vote procedural victory – setting a precedent that is bound to be attempted again.

Hamas and other militant groups remain free to engage in heinous conduct found worthy of UN condemnation by a majority of UN member states.

The foundational basis of the UN – maintaining international peace and security – has been flagrantly circumvented by the UNGA failing to agree on how to run its own meetings.

Such is the depth of total irrelevance to which the UN has sunk.

(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: Abbas Dumps Trump, Embraces United Nations

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

He writes:

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas signed his own suicide note after another blistering attack on
America in the United Nations Security Council on 20 February.
Abbas told the Security Council:

“The United States has contradicted itself and contradicted its own commitments and has violated international law and the relevant resolutions with its decision regarding Jerusalem. So, it has become impossible today for one country or State alone to solve a regional or international conflict without the participation of other international partners. Therefore, to solve the Palestine question, it is essential to establish a multi-lateral international mechanism emanating from an international conference and in line with international law and the relevant resolutions.”

Exiting the meeting immediately after this verbal barrage – Abbas did not hear US Ambassador to
the UN – Nikki Haley – giving him this serve:

“I will decline the advice I was recently given by your top negotiator, Saeb Erekat. I will not shut up. Rather, I will respectfully speak some hard truths. The Palestinian leadership has a choice to make between two different paths. There is the path of absolutist demands, hateful rhetoric, and incitement to violence. That path has led, and will continue to lead, to nothing but hardship for the Palestinian people. Or, there is the path of negotiation and compromise. History has shown that path to be successful for Egypt and Jordan, including the transfer of territory. That path remains open to the Palestinian leadership, if only it is courageous enough to take it.”

Haley was still smarting from Erekat's intemperate "shut up" outburst on 31 January when he 
also described Haley as "impudent" – whilst Abbas’s two hour anti-American diatribe on 14
January and Abbas’s refusal to meet American Vice-President Mike Pence also contributed to
Abbas's public dressing down.

Abbas is perfectly entitled to choose the United Nations path to pursue his agenda seeking to
create a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan which comprises 78% of
former Palestine. However he cannot possibly achieve that result facing a certain US veto in the Security Council.

Haley made Abbas's choices and America's intentions crystal-clear  – warning Abbas:

"You can choose to denounce the United States, reject the U.S. role in peace talks, and pursue punitive measures against Israel in international forums like the UN. I assure you that path will get the Palestinian people exactly nowhere toward the achievement of their aspirations. Or, you can choose to put aside your anger about the location of our embassy, and move forward with us toward a negotiated compromise that holds great potential for improving the lives of the Palestinian people. Putting forward old talking points and entrenched and undeveloped concepts achieves nothing. That approach has been tried many times, and has always failed. After so many decades, we welcome new thinking."

Choosing the United Nations over direct negotiations with Israel will disqualify the PLO from
participating in Trump’s proposed "ultimate deal" to end the Arab-Jewish conflict  – details of which
still remain shrouded in secrecy.

President Trump's "new thinking" could see Jordan and Egypt replacing the PLO in future
negotiations with Israel to determine the allocation of sovereignty between these three States in
Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza – the last remaining 5% of the territory of the Mandate
for Palestine still claimed by both Arabs and Jews. 

Abbas's "new thinking"  – claiming [here too] Palestinian Arabs are descended from the long-extinct
Canaanites – grossly insulted the Security Council's intelligence.

Abbas has committed political suicide, dumping Trump and embracing the United Nations.  Trump's
response will be far-reaching and the consequences dire for those whom Abbas purports to represent.

David Singer: United Nations Must End Hamas and PLO Stranglehold On Power

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

He writes:

The United Nations' effort to create a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – has suffered another death blow following the Palestinian Supreme Court ordering the suspension of local elections in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Gaza Strip scheduled for October 8.

Hamas win, 2006: BBC image

No parliamentary elections have been held since the 2006 – which Hamas won – but which the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) refused to accept.

A bitter internecine struggle saw Hamas end up governing the Gaza Strip and the PLO controlling areas “A” and “B” in Judea and Samaria.

No Palestinian presidential election has been held since PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005.

Hamas boycotted the last Palestinian municipal elections in 2012 – but was due to participate this year.

In the absence of a popularly elected Government exercising complete authoritative and legislative control over the Gazan and West Bank Arab populations – any prospects of reaching a binding agreement with Israel in relation to Gaza and Judea and Samaria remains an impossible pipedream.

Both the PLO and Hamas have used the slogan “End the Occupation” to demand that Israel totally withdraw from Area “C” in Judea and Samaria over which Israel exercises complete administrative and security control under the Oslo Accords.

The United Nations has repeatedly reinforced that slogan by maintaining its flawed position that building in Area “C” by Israel is illegal in international law – completely ignoring that Jews have the legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations very own Charter.

The United Nations has allowed the conflict between Hamas and the PLO to career out of control for the last 10 years – allowing Hamas and the PLO to:

* consolidate their power structures and political dominance within their own separate fiefdoms

* allow corruption and nepotism to become entrenched and

* pursue policies of confrontation with Israel that have proved disastrous for their respective long-suffering populations.

The United Nations has failed to insist that elections be held to enable such stranglehold on power to end and allow the people to have their say on who should govern them – the “self-determination” the United Nations has long been demanding but is being denied by Hamas and the PLO.

Ramzy Baroud – editor of PalestineChronicle.com – summed up the hopelessness of the political stalemate between Hamas and the PLO as long ago as 12 November 2013:

“In an initially pointless exercise that lasted nearly an hour, I flipped between two Palestinian television channels, Al Aqsa TV of Hamas in Gaza and Palestine TV of Fatah in the West Bank. While both purported to represent Palestine and the Palestinians, each seemed to represent some other place and some other people. It was all very disappointing.

Hamas’ world is fixated on their hate of Fatah and other factional personal business. Fatah TV is stuck between several worlds of archaic language of phony revolutions, factional rivalry and unmatched self-adoration. The two narratives are growingly alien and will unlikely ever move beyond their immediate sense of self-gratification and utter absurdity.”

Nothing has changed.

These irreconcilable differences between Fatah – the dominant faction in the PLO – and Hamas – not a member of the PLO – are still omnipresent in 2016.

photo: almanar.com.ib

The United Nations should be demanding that Hamas and the PLO end their decade-long occupation of power by allowing their respective populations the right to vote in internationally supervised elections.

“End the Occupation” would then become a meaningful metaphor rather than a meaningless signpost that continues to lead nowhere.

David Singer: China Can Exploit United Nations' Double Standards on Palestine

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

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/28/asia/china-south-china-sea-disputes-explainer/

  
He writes:

International support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – despite its rejection of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter – could be exploited by China to blunt international action following an unfavourable ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in The Hague.

Having boycotted those proceedings, Chinese President Xi Jinping then immediately dismissed the decision – which denied China had any legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea: 

"China will never accept any claim or action based on those awards” 

His rejection was as peremptory as that of the PLO – which declared in Article 18 of its original 1964 Charter: 

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered fraud.”

This position was revised when the Charter was redrafted in 1968 – Article 20 declaring: 

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

These provisions have been a major contributing factor in preventing a resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 52 years.

The international community has not punished the PLO for its unilateral demolition of these international-law building blocks but to the contrary has granted the PLO diplomatic recognition whilst also welcoming the PLO into the United Nations.

Should China be demonised because it also chooses to ignore a determination in international law that it regards as inimical to its national interest?

Does size matter? Can one forgive small players who wilfully shred international law but demand big players conform to legal decisions not to their liking?

The international community has some serious soul-searching to do. Vietnam may now be ruing its welcoming embrace of the PLO by:

* Establishing ties with the PLO in 1968

* Allowing the PLO to open its resident Representative Office in Vietnam in 1976

* Elevating the PLO's resident Representative Office to the status of Embassy in 1982

For further information see here

Clearly concerned by China’s response to The Hague decision – Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh has declared:

"Vietnam strongly supports the resolution of the disputes ... by peaceful means, including diplomatic and legal processes and refraining from the use or threats to use force, in accordance with international law" 

That response is what one would normally expect – but when you have not demanded the same of the PLO for the last 48 years then such statement amounts to an indefensible double standard.

Other countries vitally affected by the South China Sea ruling include the Philippines – the plaintiff in The Hague proceedings – Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia. They may find their long-standing ties with the PLO similarly embarrassing as they confront an angry China.

China on the other hand can argue that rejecting the South China Sea judgement is consistent with China’s recognition of the law-trashing PLO in 1988 – since International law means nothing to China and the PLO.

The Hague ruling is regarded as legally binding – but there is apparently no mechanism to enforce it.  Boycott Divestment and Sanctions programs against China will have little effect.

Rejecting China’s claim to any historic rights in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the acceptance of Jewish historic rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) – recognised by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter – but erroneously claimed by the UN Security Council to be in violation of international law.

Double standards in the international community have a horrible way of coming back to bite those indulging in such dangerous games.