Palestinian workers put the finishing touches on a chair covered with embroidered blue upholstery featuring a Palestinian flag and the word "Palestine". Palestinian activists would take the chair on an international tour to dramatize the Palestinian Authority's quest for U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Ahead of the General Assembly's likely granting Palestine statehood recognition and full de jure UN membership in September or early October, Israel is preparing its army and arming settlers for disruptive protests.

Law Professor and former PLO legal counsel Francis Boyle explains that a simple two-thirds majority of states present and voting are needed. Abstentions and no-shows don't count. "Palestine has those votes for admission," he says! "The Israelis and the Americans know it."

Aside from Washington's illegal planned veto, if a Security Council resolution is introduced, Netanyahu apparently abandoned plan A, replacing it with a disruptive plan B.

On August 30, Haaretz writer Chaim Levinson headlined, "IDF training Israeli settlers ahead of 'mass disorder' expected in September," saying:

Settlement-by-settlement "red line(s)" were determined for "when soldiers will be ordered to shoot at the feet of Palestinian protesters if the line is crossed."

Arming settlers with tear gas, stun grenades, and perhaps other weapons is also planned, allegedly "as part of the defense operation."

Called Operation Summer Seeds, its "purpose is to ready the army (and settlers) for September and the possibility of confrontations with Palestinians following the expected" General Assembly granting them statehood and full de jure membership.

A document leaked to Haaretz stated a "working assumption" that "a public uprising" will follow Palestinian independence "which will mainly include mass disorder."

In fact, celebratory demonstrations are likely, not disturbances unless Israel and settlers incite them. Apparently, that's what's planned, again blaming victims of Israeli violence to maintain hardline occupation.

This time, however, it will be against a sovereign internationally recognized independent state, able to file a formal State to State complaint against Israeli officials.

In addition, as Boyle explains, it "can ratify the Genocide Convention and sue Israel for Genocide at the World Court, pursuant to" previous advice he gave Arafat and Abbas.

Moreover, it can "get a temporary restraining order" against Israel, requiring either Security Council enforcement approval, or if Washington vetoes it, to the General Assembly under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution overriding it.

In addition, it can use this procedure to halt settlement construction once and for all and perhaps regain lost land.

These prospects frighten Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner. So they're are pulling out all the stops to prevent Palestinian statehood or at least disrupt it if achieved to maintain hardline policies, claiming they're in self-defense.

The Israeli document contends disorder will include "marches toward main junctions, Israeli communities, and education centers; efforts at damaging (Israeli) symbols of government."

"Also, there may be more extreme cases like shooting from within the demonstrations or even terrorist incidents. In all these scenarios, there is readiness to deal with incidents near the fences and the borders of the State of Israel."

In fact, Israel is the only nation without fixed borders, because of its longstanding plan to seize Palestinian land, as well as more from neighboring states for a Greater Israel. It's indeterminate in size depending on how much it can steal.

Israel's army has been holding training sessions near its Shiloh military installation. It's also trained settlement squads at its Lachish base, used as a command training center for that purpose.

In addition, two virtual defense lines for each settlement were established. If Palestinians cross the first one, they'll face settlers using tear gas and other disruptive measures.

If line two is breached, soldiers will use live fire at their legs.

In other words, Israel plans disruptions. Rules of engagement were established to unleash them. A heightened state of readiness exists. Palestinians will be blamed like always. Injuries and perhaps deaths may result.

Instead of recognizing the UN's new member, Israel plans hostile acts short of war, perhaps planned later as more naked aggression.

As a result, Peace Now's Hagit Ofran expressed alarm, saying:

"We hope the army is making clear that nonviolent protests (and celebratory marches are) legitimate, and no settlers (or IDF personnel) should use any violence against unarmed demonstrators."

Rabbis for Human Rights' Arik Ascherman raised "serious questions and problems" with regard to settlers acting illegally, saying:

"We're very concerned that (Israeli forces) will not reduce conflict but increase it."

In fact, more at issue is instigating it as Israel commonly does, blaming its violence on Palestinian to shift responsibility.

Notably in early August, Israeli Foreign Minister/Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman outrageously claimed Palestinians are preparing for "bloodshed the likes of which we've never seen before," so when Israel sheds it they can be blamed.

Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib accurately said Israel's "trying to fuel a fake picture of what will happen in September. These Israeli predictions of violence aren't true."

Palestinian Statehood and De Jure UN Membership Issues

A previous article explained Francis Boyle's work as PLO legal advisor to assure all Palestinians worldwide automatically become citizens of the State of Palestine if granted by the upcoming General Assembly vote.

On August 30, Ma'an News published his assessment and International and Comparative Law Professor John Quigley's concurring, saying:

The Palestinians' "initiative" to be introduced in the General Assembly "is no threat" to their rights, and "will only improve their standing. This is because as a matter of international law, states must ensure that human rights are not being violated."

As a sovereign state, Palestine will be "interacting" with others, "and this is a much stronger position. It can pursue remedies at the diplomatic level in its capacity as a state. It will do favors for other states. It can demand (them) in return. It can also pursue prosecutions of Israeli officials for war crimes," including illegal settlements, applying greater pressure available to sovereign states.

Moreover, "(r)ather than posing a threat to the refugees, (they'll), in fact, be in a much stronger position. Legally, while people might leave states, if the refugees are nationals then the state cannot refuse to allow them to return."

In 1988, the General Assembly accepted the PLO "as the sole representative of the Palestinian people." It's precisely what it's likely to do "in September if asked to accept Palestine as a state."

A Final Comment

The Virtual Jerusalem web site headlined, "Let Your Voice Be Heard," stating:

"Say No to Palestinian Statehood."

The pro-Israeli group accuses the PA of including "terrorist(s)....whose stated mission is 'the elimination of Israel," no matter that saying so is a bald-faced lie.

Nonetheless, it accused Hamas of hundreds of terrorists attacks, calling self-defense against Israeli violence "terrorism," what scoundrels always say.

It falsely said the PA lacks "vital aspects of modern statehood, such as freedom, respect for human rights, and a functioning democracy. Palestinian statehood," it adds, "will make peace negotiations with Israel impossible."

In fact, they've been stillborn for decades because Israel and Washington promote violence, not peace, a notion they find intolerable.

Virtual Jerusalem doesn't even lie well, adding that Palestinian statehood "will be gravely detrimental to Israel's security and the safety of the Israeli people."

"Stand with Israel and make your voice heard," it says. Tell Obama to support Israel against Palestine. Of course, he, like past presidents since Lyndon Johnson, have done it throughout their tenure.

It's time more responsible world leaders recognized rule of law responsibilities by voting to grant Palestinian statehood and full de jure UN membership.

Why? Because it's the right thing to do!

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

Related posts:

• Operation Summer Bloody-Rain, and “We Kill Servers”!
• 202 Palestinians killed since beginning of operation “Summer Rain”
• Is Israels Response Disproportionate?

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Honorable President of the United States Barak Obama
The Honorable Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
The Honorable Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon
The Honorable President of the General Assembly Joseph Deiss
The Honorable Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Sperry
The Honorable Director of UNRWA Chris Guiness
The Honorable President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek
The Honorable High Representative of the E.U. for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton
The Honorable Acting Head of the EU Delegation to the U. N. Pedro Serrano
The Honorable Ambassadors of the U.N. Security Council
The Honorable Ambassadors and Representatives of Palestine

"May the United Nations ever be vigilant and potent to defeat the swallowing up of any nation, at any time, by any means-by armies with banners, by force or by fraud, by tricks or by midnight treachery."
--Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

The Palestinian Authority plans to submit a resolution to the U.N. Security Council to approve and recommend to the U.N. General Assembly the recognition and admission of a Palestinian State that will represent close to 11 million Palestinians made refugees by the west, the U.N., Zionist terrorism (see Report submitted to Dr. Ralph Bunch, U.N. Mediator for Palestine titled: 'A Summary of Zionist terrorism in the Near East-1944-1948" documenting 259 acts of Terrorism against the British, American and Arab populations and the amply documented Israeli crimes against their humanity and land. (Recall the shelved Goldstone Report discredited by Israel and the U.S.)

This September is the moment of truth for the United Nations Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly, despite the threatened U.S. veto.

Members of both the Security Council and General Assembly are presented with a most unique of historical opportunities that rarely resurrect themselves to right a historical wrong and tragedy inflicted upon the Palestinian people living in refugee camps in the most deplorable misery in and out of their native land.

This opportunity can redeem the United Nations in the eyes of billions of people around the world who've lost hope and trust in the organization. It is a glorious opportunity to fulfill the divine and human mandate that all people are equal in the eyes of God and humanity and are endowed from birth to live in liberty, independence, with guaranteed human rights, and free from the subjugation and oppression by any other people or nation.

Does the world have the courage of its conviction, the will, the honesty of thought and compassion of heart for once to defy Israel and its American benefactor and declare its independent vote to support a besieged, brutalized, and occupied people who yearn to join the community of nations as a people living in dignity and honor in a State they call their own?

To the majority of the world nothing less than the very credibility and relevance of the United Nations is at stake regarding the rightful recognition and admission of a Palestinian State into the fold of U.N. membership.

A failure to do so will further inflame a world already unhappy with the minimal role and influence of the United Nations, perceiving it as solely an extended arm of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy. In the Arab and Muslim world undergoing dramatic and rapid changes such a failure will seal any future role of the U.N. in the region and will exponentially inflame animosity against the U.S. and Israel.

Now is not the time for the U.S. and the Security Council to continue the policy of surrendering to Israel's demands and its constant ironic proclamation of an "existential threat" that arises from a stone in a Palestinian child's hand as he faces the most modern American tank in Gaza.

Now is the Audacity for Hope and Courage for a world to make its post-colonial voice heard that the surest way to world peace is a Free Independent Palestine.

A Jew from the depth of Latin America's jungle can immigrate to Israel and automatically become an Israeli citizen, but a Palestinian living in his native land is denied by Israel and the United Nations of being a citizen in his own state.

This is the greatest injustice of our time and the world can no longer afford, nor accept and surrender the fate of millions of Palestinian families to Israel's whims, brutal military occupation, and war crimes such as was committed in Gaza in 2008-2009.

How shocking that for decade's the world has simply acclimated itself to accepting Israel's occupation as a de facto existence for the Palestinians and swallowing in whole any justification Israel presents for its rule over a people in their own land.

While Israel's influential tentacles reach all western governments the most active, moral and just opposition to Israel's policies arise from its own citizens and conscientious Jews around the world, the far majority of whom are not associated with the powerful wealthy minority that constitute the Israel Lobby.

A powerful example of an Israeli's view on the illegality and immorality of Israel's occupation comes from Israel's former Attorney General, Michael Ben-Yair, in his article in Haaretz titled "The War's Seventh Day", March 3, 2002. He wrote:

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."

How shameful for the world that it accepts Israel's mythological narrative that justifies the four year total siege of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, the world's largest open air prison, which the U.N. calls a "humanitarian catastrophe", allowing Israel to prevent even a Flotilla of food and medicines to hungry malnourished children.

No nation but Israel can get away with such war crimes and not be held accountable for its policies. On the contrary in many western governments it is praised for its tolerance, patience, care not to harm civilians by the "most moral army in the world", and democratic values.

Israel and soon the U.N. Security Council will recognize the new State of Southern Sudan to be the 193rd member of the U.N., but the Palestinians are denied that same right because Israel has succeeded in dehumanizing, demonizing, marginalizing them, manipulating the media narrative, and denying their very humanity, even their very existence as Gold Meir proclaimed.

What will the world body decide on the issue of a Palestinian State? Will it continue to succumb to the Israeli-American threats or will the nations of the world bestow upon the Palestinians the same rights, recognition, and privileges every member of the United Nations enjoys.

The real question is not should the Palestinians be admitted to the United Nations, but should be, is Israel a legal member of the United Nations given its defiance of U.N.G.A. Resolution 273 that allowed Israel's conditional admission based on its acceptance of U.N.G.A. Resolutions 181 and 194 and its obligations under the U.N. Charter? The answer is NO. But, this is Israel, it was admitted nevertheless.

Here's just one of the countless U.N.G.A. Resolutions, 38/180 of December 19, 1983, that emphatically answers that question in the negative.

"Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981,
Reaffirming its resolutions 36/226 B of 17 December 1981, ES-9/1 of 5 February 1982 and 37/123 A of 16 December 1982,
Determines once more that Israel's record, policies and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949"

Any other U.N. member state that has repeatedly violated the U.N. Charter and hundreds of U.N. Resolutions would be considered for expulsion, but this is Israel, a nation above the laws of mankind.

Ariel Sharon stated the governing principle of the Jewish only State when it comes to its accountability to International Law. He said (BBC: March 25, 2011)

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial"

Netanyahu's remarks during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2009 bashing the U.N. for not standing up against Iran more accurately applies to the U.N. should it incredulously reject the Palestinian people's right to an independent State of their own

"Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

Perhaps the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee most aptly described the western infatuation with Israel and the hidden brutality it inflicts upon millions of innocent Palestinians.

"Right and wrong are the same in Palestine as anywhere else. What is peculiar about the Palestine conflict is that the world has listened to the party 
that has committed the offence and has turned a deaf ear to the victims."

May God guide you as members of the U.N. Security Council and guide the General Assembly to do right by a population who lost lives and land due to the very actions of the United Nations to legitimize the State of Israel in Palestine.

To a Free Palestine. Amen.

Note from Author:

This article will be sent as a letter to the persons addressed above. Please consider writing the U.N. Security Council as soon as possible urging them to live up to the founding principles of the U.N. and their convictions as governments and peoples that all mankind deserves to live free from subjugation and occupation in an independent nation they call home.

Thank you for caring and supporting the Palestinian people as they struggle to emerge from the most brutal of military occupations.

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• The Audacity to Recognize a Palestinian State is Now
• The Palestinian Authority’s historic mistake – and opportunity
• Today is the 58th anniversary of the Nakba, or the “Catastrophe”

FREEDOM ON THE LINE  USA Needs to Be on the Right Side of History

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Sign this Statehood Petition and urge President Obama to support United Nations recognition of a Palestinian State.

It is urgent and time sensitive because the Palestinians plan to submit their U.N. application for a Palestinian State next month, July, to the U.N. General Assembly for a vote on such recognition this September.

Hence, it is our opportunity as human beings, Americans and international citizens, to overcome the political power of one nation, Israel, upon the United States government forcing it to oppose such a U.N. recognition against a supportive world.

All of us as organizations, activists, solidarity movements, human rights organizations, student movements, religious leaders and organizations, and all who are committed to world peace, equality, human rights, and the freedom and dignity for all of humanity must support this petition.

Western powers supported the creation of Israel by force in Palestine dispossessing millions of its native inhabitants, the Palestinians, who for decade’s became the world’s largest and longest suffering refugees.

Thus, today, those same western powers, especially the United States, must rectify this human tragedy by recognizing the humanity of the Palestinians and their right to a recognized State.

Palestinians have no powerful lobbies, media outlets, or wealth to oppose Israel’s decade’s long rejection of their very existence and right to freedom from occupation.

We will be that lobby.  We will be their voice.

Please read the letter below and…
Sign Petition

The Honorable President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Barack Obama;

We, the undersigned, strongly urge you to reverse your decision to oppose the Palestinian application to the U.N. General Assembly for recognition of a Palestinian State. Regardless of Israel’s rejection of such an action, it is in our own country’s national interest to do so.

According to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Israel was given the right to statehood by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 passed on Nov. 29, 1949. That resolution called for TWO states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, with Jerusalem as an international city under U.N. control.

It is thus clear that under Resolution 181 Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own.

They also are entitled to their civil and human rights, and Americans should support their peaceful effort to govern themselves. Eleven million Palestinians are living as refugees within and out of their homeland, having endured two expulsions from their land, originally in 1948 and again in 1967.

Not only does their expulsion from their homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank continue today, but for four years 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza have been besieged by Israel, causing a humanitarian catastrophe as documented by the United Nations and human rights organizations.

Mr. President, as you are most aware, both the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Security Council have passed a multitude of resolutions (except those vetoed by the U.S.) condemning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 have called upon Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders, including from East Jerusalem.

On July 9, 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that:

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law.”

With the possible exception of apartheid South Africa, no nation in modern history has been so condemned by United Nations resolutions, the International Court of Justice, all human rights organizations, and the majority of world governments as has Israel.

On many occasions only the U.S. stood with Israel as it violated International law and U.N. resolutions—even Security Council Resolutions we supported.

President Obama, you have declared that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the “vital interest” of the United States.

According to a Zogby International Poll published on March 25, 2011, 81 percent of Americans share your view that Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine puts U.S. interests in this region, so vital to our economy, at risk.

Mr. President, prominent American and Israeli figures including Nobel laureates, Knesset members, politicians, diplomats, academicians, and former defense department staff have expressed their strong support for U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. They placed ads including their letters to you and European Union leaders that ran in Israel, Europe, and the U.S.

In Tel Aviv this past April 5, some 5,000 people participated in a march that was organized under the title “Netanyahu said no —We say yes to a Palestinian state.”

Sir, your veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution recommending that the General Assembly recognize a Palestinian state will further solidify the Arab and Muslim view that our policy in the region is hypocritical and reeks of double standards given our total support of Israel against Palestinian rights, as reiterated in the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board Report of September 2004 submitted to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Is jeopardizing our national interests and standing in the entire Arab and Muslim world—indeed, throughout the world—worth our counterproductive support of one nation, Israel, whose interests often clash with American national interests?

The creation of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 border is the best guarantor of Israel’s security and protector of our national interests in the region.  A Palestinian state will pave the way to a final resolution of the century-old conflict and effectively reduce Muslim animosity to the United States.

Mr. President, this is your opportunity to build the strongest bridge with the Muslim world and establish a courageous principled precedent that America’s national interests supersede any foreign and domestic political considerations.

We, the undersigned, urge you to strongly support the U.N.’s recognition of a Palestinian state.  As the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin proclaimed on the White House lawn in 1993:  “Enough is Enough.”

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• LA Times: Why Does The (NY) Times Recognize Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’?
• Will the Palestinian Authority declare an independent state… or collapse?
• One-State, Two-State and the American Task Force on Palestine – By Antoine Raffoul

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib

He must be asking himself – fearfully - why he has so far escaped the purge while his bosom-buddies Hosni and Zine are sent packing in disgrace.

Some say Abbas isn't a bad guy, he just lost his way. Actually there's a long crime-sheet against him, too tiresome to catalogue in detail here.

A founding member of Arafat's Fatah faction, he won the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority in 2005 in a dodgy and deeply lopsided contest – let's not dignify it with the word 'election' – in which Israel seriously interfered to obstruct other candidates. He has overstayed his term by two years and is widely regarded as having no legitimacy and no popular mandate, yet he's still propped up by the US and Israel and their hangers-on.

In 2007 he dissolved the Hamas-led unity government and appointed Salam Fayyad prime minister, a move that was almost certainly illegal under Palestinian Basic Law and designed to ensure the disunity and weakness that Israel so badly wanted to see.

He has been further undone by the Wikileaks revelations that the Israeli government "consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas".

A true Palestinian patriot surely would not have kept silent about an evil plan to commit war crimes against his fellow countrymen!

It seems he also asked Israel to tighten the blockade of his countrymen in Gaza, even inviting the racist entity to re-occupy the crossing zone between Gaza and Egypt.

It looked suspiciously like he was trying to bury the Goldstone report when he withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the UN Human Rights Council to have it sent to the General Assembly for possible action. Such a vote would have been a first step toward war crimes tribunals, and it is reported that he was warned by US officials that this would complicate efforts to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks – by then hopelessly discredited anyway.

Abbas's security squads, funded by the US, have been rampaging around the West Bank doing the Israeli Occupation Force's dirty work, thuggishly suppressing all signs of resistance and rounding up Hamas members. And the PA has now abolished free expression by banning Palestinians from demonstrating in support of the Egyptians and the uprising in Tunisia.

Abbas phoned Mubarak to affirm his "solidarity" with him in the face of growing popular unrest and demands for him to quit. This was despite Mubarak having collaborated with Israel to help the rogue regime maintain its cruel and suffocating blockade of Gaza. Abbas also phoned the Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine bin Ali before he was ousted.

When he took up the post of president, Abbas would have sworn the following oath...

I swear to God almighty to be faithful to the Homeland and to its sacred places, and to the people and its national heritage, and to respect the Constitutional system and the law, and to safeguard the interests of the Palestinian people completely, as God is my witness.

May God zap him with a thunderbolt! He rode roughshod over the Basic Law, hijacked the presidency and turned the peace pantomime into a bloody farce. On his watch disunity became the name of the game while diplomatic skills were jettisoned, or more likely never mastered.

As for the national heritage and sacred places the loon's negotiators were ready to hand them to the enemy on a platter.

In times gone by, a high ranking loser would recognise when the game was up and do the decent thing. He would retire to his study and close the door. The butler would bring a glass of best brandy and a loaded revolver on a silver tray, and discreetly withdraw. After a few moments' reflection and penning a farewell note, the gentleman would blow his brains out and save everyone an awful lot of trouble.

The Palestinians had better have a credible Plan B in place when they hear the bang.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Wikileaks shocker: Did Abbas know in advance about the devastating blitz on his countrymen in Gaza?
• Will Abbas Sell Out On Palestinian Right Of Return?
• Abbas is a Man in Exile, Even Among His Own

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The United Nations celebrated its 65th birthday (1945 to 2010) on 24 October 2010. At 65 the world body has lasted 27 years longer than its predecessor, the League of Nations (1919 to 1946). Will the UN go another 65 years? To help answer that question a quick look at what did in the League of Nations is in order.

The League of Nations was certainly not a perfect organization, infected as it was with the colonialist notions of its European founders. We can see that aspect of the organization in its mandate system which served as a cover for imperialism. But ultimately the mandate system is not what brought the League low. The fatal flaw was its inability to achieve its primary goal of preventing war by transcending the power of nationalism and compelling all states to end their quarrels through negotiation or arbitration. What success the League did have in this effort was restricted to a category of relatively weak states. For instance, it successfully brought an end to disputes between Columbia and Peru, Greece and Yugoslavia, Finland and Sweden, and even, in 1921, Poland and a very weak Germany. However, when disputes involved aggressive 'great' powers, as they did in the 1930s, the League failed utterly. It was ultimately destroyed by its inability to project authority and influence, as well as punishment, on countries like belligerent Italy and resurgent Nazi Germany. As Mussolini observed while, with impunity, using poison gas on the Ethiopians, 'the League is very good when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out.' He thought of Italy as an eagle.

As the League was founded in response to the First World War, so the United Nations was founded as a response to the Second World War. Where once there was the horror of the trenches, now there was the horror of the Holocaust. Where once there was mustard gas, now there was something much worse, nuclear weaponry. Thus the prevention of war still formed the central and urgent mission of the United Nations. This time around it should have been easier for the new world body. Where the First World War spurred on imperialism, carving up the Ottoman Empire and introducing the facade of mandates, the Second World saw the dismantlement of empires and, finally, the fulfillment of Woodrow Wilson's promise of self-determination for most of the non-European world. Most, but not everywhere. For at the end of World War II, as the United Nations Charter was ratified and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed, the members of the United Nations were coerced into committing a fatal mistake. Under heavy pressure from the United States, the General Assembly gave its blessing to an arrangement whereby the sin of European and American antisemitism was to be paid for by the Palestinians, a people who had nothing at all to do with Europe's death camps or America's death dealing immigration policy. The United Nations blessed the creation of Israel. By doing so it went a long way to assuring its own demise.

It is this background that makes so important, and depressing, the statement made before the General Assembly by Richard Falk on 20 October 2010. Falk is ending his tenure as Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Palestine. Here are some of the points he made in his address:

1. Throughout his tenure the Government of Israel has been consistently uncooperative, even to the point of refusing him entrance into Israel and the Occupied Territories.

2. The United Nations itself has failed to respond strongly to this challenge to its authority thereby encouraging the view that the world body has not the political will to uphold international law and the principles of its Charter when it comes to the ally of a Great Power.

3. The response of the international community has also been 'disappointing.'

4. Falk concludes as follows, 'The United Nations will be judged now and in the future by whether if contributes, at long last, to the... realization of the Palestinian right of self-determination, and thereby brings a just peace to both [Israeli and Palestinian] peoples.'

Dr. Saeb Erakat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, also spoke about this dilemma in his remarks on the UN's 65^th birthday. He observed that 'Israel has undermined the efficacy of and derogated the UN system, the very authority through which it was created.' He then went on to list some of the sources of international law in which Palestinian rights are grounded. These include UN General Assembly resolutions, UN Security Council resolutions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of which Israel has been allowed to violate.

Both Erakat and Falk know that there is virtually no chance that the United Nations can or will even try to force Israel to abide by international law. Whatever its Charter might say, its decision making structure is designed to prevent any challenge to the great powers that have permanent seats on the Security Council. The United States is the great power patron of Israel and has, and will continue, to block efforts to sanction its ally. Thus, like the League of Nations, the UN can deal only with sparrows and but not eagles. It can go after the leaders of Sudan, Serbia and Rwanda, but not those of the United States for its crimes in Iraq, Not China for its crimes in Tibet, not Russia for its crimes in Chechnya, and not Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians or its near fatal corruption of an ancient world religion. It would seem that Israel flies with Mussolini's eagles.

It is unlikely that the UN will end its days abruptly as did the League of Nations. While Israel does encourage war and mayhem in the Middle East, liking nothing better than to push the United States into a war with Iran, it is unlikely to spark World War III. Thus, it is probable that the United Nations' fate is to go out with a whimper and not a bang. It will linger on for many decades to come, a tool of the great powers to be used to shoot at sparrows when appropriate. Ironically, this means the final legacy of the United Nations will be the opposite of its original ideal. Ideally meant to keep the peace and hold all nations to the rule of law, it will stand emasculated as an symbol of the ultimate supremacy of power in the world.

Power has been supreme for a very long time. In the 5^th century BC the city state of Athens (alleged birthplace of Western democracy) was fighting the Peloponnesian War. Its naval forces came to the neutral city of Melos and demanded its surrender. The historian Thucydides recounts the ensuing debate in which the Athenians told the Melosians'... we both alike know that in the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.' In our modern day such Machiavellian honesty has fallen out of favor. We need to manage our ruthlessness so as to keep our consciences clear. And that is what the United Nations is for. It will run after the sparrows so that the eagles can feel they have some modicum of justice to point to as they 'exact what they can' from those they do treat unjustly. The United Nations has become a cover for great power hypocrisy.

Such is the way of international politics. Do we have to put up with this evil? The answer is no we do not. But we cannot look to any of the great powers for justice, fairness, equity or the like, for theirs is the world of Realpolitik and raison d'etat. Hope, such as it is, lies with civil society. The fortunes of justice, fairness, equity are a function of the ability of citizens worldwide to organize themselves for a specific cause, and the great precedent here is the struggle that brought down apartheid South Africa. This strategy, born of mass communications and the ethical potential of individual consciences, knows no national boundaries and thus has enormous potential. It is presently focused on the condemnable behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. If, in the next quarter century (for it is likely to take that long), the power of mobilized civil society can bring justice to the Palestinians it will create the possibility for a more humane world in practice and not just in theory. It is an intoxicating prospect. And it is one that has a chance of realization.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• Sami Jamil Jadallah – May Your Children Have the Same Fate of Gaza Children!
• Preparing For The End Game: United Nations Membership For Palestine
• The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine

By Maggie Sager * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

In the newest development concerning peace negotiations between Israel and the PA, Netanyahu has offered to partially extend the fake settlement freeze in exchange for recognition of Israel's Jewish character. In a startling spectacle of rationality, the PA has rejected the offer in kind. BBC reports:

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said Mr. Netanyahu was "playing games" with his offer, and that there was no connection between settlements and the national character of Israel.

"I don't see a relevance between his obligations under international law and him trying to define the nature of Israel," he added. "I hope he will stop playing these games and will start the peace process by stopping settlements."

He's right. Settlement activity in the West Bank is illegal under international law regardless of Israel's "Jewishness". Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu forgot this:

Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law. -International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

Or operative paragraph one of UNSC Resolution 242, in which the Security Council unanimously:

...Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of...the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict...

Or UNSC Resolution 446, which affirmed in explicit terms the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 242 (three abstentions) as did UNSC Resolution 452 (one abstention) UNSC Resolution 465 (unanimous), and UNSC Resolution 471 (one abstention)?

Or the portion of UNSC Resolution 252, passed with two abstentions, in which the Security Council:

...Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem...

Or UNSC Resolution 267, unanimously adopted, which affirmed the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 252, as did UNSC Resolution 298 (one abstention), UNSC Resoluition 476 (one abstention) and UNSC Resolution 478 (one abstention)?

Maybe Bibi forgot that, unlike the General Assembly, resolutions passed by the Security Council are indeed binding?

Maybe he forgot that in 1993 the UNSC approved a report by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law, and thus applied even if the other party was not a High Contracting Party (as is the case in Palestine)?

Did he simply imagine that at the end of each of these resolutions is the caveat "if and only if Israel is recognized as a Jewish state," thus exempting Israel from its legal obligations?

Or perhaps Erekat is right, and Bibi really is just playing games. Setting aside the composition of Israel's demand of recognition as a Jewish state (which is ridiculous in and of itself), the mere act of setting preconditions for compliance with international law attests to Netanyahu's apparently limitless arrogance. He honestly thinks he can shift the blame for the disintegration of peace talks by throwing bones to the PA, which already affirmed Israel's right to exist (sans the racist classification) in 1993. He clearly believes that through slight of hand he can simultaneously eviscerate the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, and strengthen the codification of Arab subjugation in Israel all in exchange for what exactly? "An additional suspension of building for a limited period of time," says Bibi. Will this be the same kind of "suspension" that still allowed for unhindered construction in East Jerusalem, for the razing of Palestinian villages and confiscation of private Palestinian property, and for continued work on current projects which would most likely include the 3,000 that began as soon as the last "suspension" ended?

Let's just hope this doesn't constitute the kind of gesture Obama promised to prostitute US taxpayers in order to coax out of the Israeli government.

* Maggie Sager is currently a student at Mills College in Oakland, California. You can find her work at Resisting Occupation.

Related posts:

• Mitchell hoping for a quick-fix fake peace?
• Alan Hart – Deception has always been the name of Zionism’s game
• Hypocrisy Defined: Another Round of Peace Talks

"International law is not an empty promise" - except for Palestinians

By Phyllis Bennis* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Copyright © Steve Bell

Obama did say that Israel's partial settlement moratorium "should" be extended, but carefully went on to urge that the talks "press on until completed" with no linkage between the two goals. Not to mention that what he calls a "moratorium" has consistently allowed continued building throughout Arab East Jerusalem, continued construction on homes already approved or begun, and work on huge infrastructure projects throughout the settlements.

Obama pretty much ignored any substantive role for the United Nations in the "peace process," but he lectured the General Assembly, noting that "many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians." (He didn't, apparently, include himself in that category.) From those friends, he demanded "tangible steps towards normalization" with Israel, ignoring the fundamental basis of the Arab Peace Initiative that makes clear normalization comes after, not before, an end to Israel's occupation.

And he condemned the "slaughter of innocent Israelis," but said not one word about Israel's 2008-09 assault, which used U.S. arms to kill 1,400 Gazans--more than 900 of them civilians and more than 300 of them children. Let alone any mention of the nine killed (including a U.S. citizen) and 50+ injured in the Israeli assault on the Turkish ship in the international humanitarian flotilla a few months ago.

The speech made clear that support for the moment, the endless "peace process" is, for Washington, a perfectly appropriate alternative to holding Israel accountable for any violations of human rights or international law. The Goldstone Report, UN and other efforts to hold Israel accountable for the illegalities inherent in its occupation and apartheid policies, or even the extreme violations like the Gaza war or the flotilla assault, must be sidelined or squashed entirely - because they could undermine the peace talks, whether or not those peace talks have any hope of succeeding. It is the exact opposite position as that taken by Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Rice regarding Darfur. Rice was one of the strongest voices insisting on full implementation of the International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir regardless of the dangers it posed to the fragile Sudanese ceasefire because accountability must come first, insisting that justice comes before peace.

But not, apparently, when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

Obama made a vitally important point when he said that "international law is not an empty promise." Unfortunately he said that only in regard to imposing sanctions on Iran. After that, when he began to speak of Palestine and Israel, the phrase "international law" was never seen again.

In all his discussions of the peace talks and their importance, and even in his description of the arguments of "the cynics," Obama never acknowledged the most important reason why this round of talks will almost certainly fail to bring about a just, comprehensive and lasting peace: because they are not based on international law and the UN Charter and resolutions. The president said that the cynics' view is that Israelis and Palestinians don't trust each other, that both parties are divided internally, that "the gaps between the parties are too great." But he never acknowledged that "the parties" do not come to the table as equals, that this is not a border dispute between Peru and Ecuador. These are talks between an Occupying Power, which happens to be the 23rd wealthiest country in the world and by far the strongest military and nuclear weapons power in the region, backed by the strongest and most powerful country on the globe, facing an impoverished and dispossessed occupied population. When talks are based on accepting that inequality as a given, when the arbiter of the talks is the main backer of the stronger party, and when international law is ignored, the talks cannot succeed.

So far, the Obama administration seems to be saying that "no change" is the only change we can believe in when it comes to U.S. policy on Israel-Palestine.

* Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. She is the author of "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power"

(Huffington Post)

Related posts:

• Haitham Sabbah – Obama Peace Plan
• US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace [Must read]
• America’s Faltering Search for Peace in the Middle East: Openings for Others? [Must read]

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Iran’s president Ahmadinejad was at the United Nations on September 21, 2010 to address the Millennium Development Goals Summit. What he had to say was, as usual, a mixed bag of worthwhile insights and questionable assertions. We will get to some of them in a moment. But first something odd. As soon as the Iranian president took the podium and began speaking the audio feeds supporting the UN translators started to have "technical" problems. It is a sign of the suspicious world we live in that few astute observers are ready to believe that explanation without further proof. On the othaer hand, very few media outlets even commented on the glitch. Al-Jazeera, however, did prosaically refer to the incident as "Ahmadinejad lost in translation."

According to a written transcript of his speech, and apropos of the subject of the summit, the Iranian president stated that the global decision making bodies such as the UN Security Council, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the like are unjustly monopolized by aggressive and hegemonic great powers. And, if you really want to know why poverty persists in the modern world you have to take a long and hard look at the avaricious economic policies of those same powers. Actually, he has a point on both scores. It would be easy to produce the evidence for these assertions but much harder to get anyone of authority to listen. Thus, the hall in which he was making his address (sans translation) was nearly empty and he got very little media coverage. Ahmadinejad might very well complain that he was "talking to the wall." This time, at least, the problem is with the wall and not the speaker.

There are other claims, all substantially true, that the Iranian president may soon be making for the one hundredth time (he speaks to the General Assembly on Thursday the 23^rd). He will probably tell the world body all or some of the following:

1. That Iran has no nuclear weapons program and there is no hard evidence to the contrary.
2. That his country is pursuing the development of a peaceful nuclear energy program which is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
3. That on September 6, 2010 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified, yet again, that no declared nuclear material in Iran has been diverted for military use.
4. That the total amount of Iran’s enriched nuclear stockpile is for domestic energy and medical isotope programs.
5. That all of this is safeguarded by the IAEA.
6. And, finally, that any recently observed "lack of full cooperation" on Iran’s part is a product of persistent U.S. and European hectoring about the alleged insufficiency of the fairly good cooperation they have got. In other words, the West has created a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard. If you continuously question a people’s character, don’t expect them to fully cooperate with you.

Despite a policy of insisting that if Iran wants to "come back into the international community" its government must prove a negative, there was this week a glimmer of reason coming out of Washington. President Obama publically stated that "we don’t think that a war between Israel and Iran, or military options, would be the ideal way to solve this problem." Given the American media distortions on the topic of a "nuclear Iran," President Obama ought to repeat this obvious, common sense fact every day of the week indefinitely.

Getting back to Amadinejad, I think it is fair to say that the man does head a civilian controlled government that can be quite ruthless and any claims that his regime does not target peaceful protesters are false. On the other hand, it is equally as accurate to say that he is not the crazy person the Zionists and their allies make him out to be. For instance, he repeated his assertion that he is not anti-Semitic, although he certainly is anti-Zionist. Unfortunately, he does question the extent of the Holocaust and for various historical and political reasons that is enough to earn him the anti-Semitic label here in the West. But, while he is factually wrong about the Holocaust, his disavowal of anti-Semitism is believable for two reasons: one is that attacking the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, which is what the Iranian president does, is not the same as attacking Jews. Zionists may claim it is but they too are factually wrong. There are an increasing number of Jews worldwide who see Zionism as just a racist political ideology and absolutely not a stand-in for their Jewishness. The second point is the relatively prosperous and stable position of the 25,000 Iranian Jews. If Ahmadinejad was such a flaming anti-Semite, these people would not be in as good a shape as they are.

The political hype in the U.S. over Iran is, in good part, a combined product of Zionist and neo-conservative political pressure, media irresponsibility, and periodic indiscretion on the part of the Iranian president-the latter unfortunately feeding the former. And, we can rely on Israel and its supporters to keep calling for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program as some sort of litmus test for world peace. Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, told Fox News recently that "history will judge the [Obama] administration...on whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not." It is a red herring, Ehud. Go home, make a truly just peace with the Palestinians, and you will grow old safely and die in bed.

Sensibly, President Obama seems to be backing away from all this hype. He knows that it represents the same formula worldview used against Iraq in the run up to the invasion of that country. He probably got pressured to replay it by Congressional supporters of Israel and Ron Emmanuel. It is a dangerous game to play, even for the sake of a president’s domestic politics. The Iraq invasion resulted in the death of over one million people. Who wants to do that again? Well, it appears that the Zionists and the neo-cons do!

Let us hope that the Democrats do well in this November’s elections. If they do, we may see an Obama more insistent on real peace policies when it comes to places like Iran and Israel. Then he can call in the opposition (including his Democratic "blue dogs") and tell them that, if they want to reduce the world’s population, it would be easier and cheaper and quite a bit saner, to promote contraception rather than bloody war.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power, Part 2 – Rahm Emanuel does it for him
• Alan Hart – President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power: Part 1
• Iran’s President Ahmadinejad should desist from harmful rhetoric

By Amjad Atallah and Bassma Kodmani* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Even as the direct negotiations between the PLO and Israeli government are about to resume, thought needs to be given to the possibility that talks will fail and that an agreement will not be reached within the announced 12‐month timeframe. This paper considers the option of a Security Council recommendation and endorsement of a General Assembly (GA) decision to accept Palestine as a member state at that time. It is an option that has been alternatively raised, discarded, and raised again by Palestinians in the event bilateral negotiations do not succeed.

Such an approach presents important advantages not only to Palestinians but also to the international community as a whole. The United States and European states fully back the Fayyad government’s efforts to build the attributes of a state and have endorsed the timeline set by the PA for the establishment of an independent state by the fall of 2011; United Nations membership is consistent with that goal. More broadly, such membership, as described here, could soon become the sole remaining viable strategy to achieve that objective and, more importantly, to salvage the two‐state solution in a way that addresses all sides’ legitimate concerns.

Describing the approach

Over two decades ago, Palestinians declared a state on the 1967 borders. In 1988, the PNC ‐‐ the PLO’s legislative branch ‐‐ voted to accept a two‐ state solution, eschewing its original goal of a secular democratic state in all of historic Palestine. Although that state was recognized by much of the Muslim, Arab world and by countries of the Global South, the recognition remained symbolic. The State of Palestine enjoyed none of the actual trappings of sovereignty and the PLO exercised no control over any part of Palestine at the time. As Saeb Erakat, a leading Palestinian negotiator, has noted, there is no reason to repeat that exercise.

Instead, the goal this time would be to obtain United Nations membership for that state along with a Security Council resolution in which it assumes responsibility for finalizing the terms of a two‐state deal. Simultaneously, Palestinians would invite those nations which have yet to recognize Palestine as a state to do so, including the member states of the EU and the United States. In other words, Palestinians would gain functional recognition of their state in exchange for handing over to the UN Security Council the authority to determine the specific resolution of all final status issues.

The scenario could play out as follows. First, the PLO and Israel engage in direct negotiations with U.S. facilitation. If after a few months it became apparent that these talks could not produce an agreement because of the difference between the positions of the two sides, the UN Security Council (at Palestinian and European urging) would take hold of the file. It would give itself until September 2011 to pass a resolution recommending to the GA that Palestine be granted UN membership and to come up with solutions to all permanent status issues, including the borders of Palestine. The PLO and Israel would be asked to submit to the Security Council their respective positions at their closest point in negotiations on all final status issues. The U.S. would also present to the UN Security Council the positions which it reached in its capacity as mediator. The Security Council could mandate one or several arbiters to present proposals that would bridge the gaps between the two sides.

At the moment of membership, the Palestinian government would begin to exercise sovereign responsibilities in areas under its control and would be allowed to enter into treaties with other states. As part of this effort, the PLO should request the Security Council to authorize the creation and deployment of a multi‐national force to the Palestinian state upon its recognition to ensure the safety and security of both Israel and Palestine. The PLO would also pledge to maintain political neutrality in all disputes between Israel and any other state and to maintain only a police and coast guard if the multi‐national force were deployed. Should disagreements remain between the states of Israel and Palestine that arbitration has been unsuccessful in resolving, those disagreements can then be submitted to the International Court of Justice.

Why Go Down This Road?

In the past, failure of negotiations has tended to be followed by frustration and mutual recrimination, leading to violence (post Camp David) or prolonged paralysis (post Annapolis). The intervention of the Security Council would minimize risks of confrontation while moving the process forward toward its resolution.

For Palestinians, the only acceptable outcome today is that of a comprehensive solution to the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict that entails creation of an internationally‐ recognized state; other proposals periodically mooted (such as an interim solution or a state within provisional borders) would be viewed as illegitimate by the Palestinian body politic. UN membership coupled with a framework to resolve all outstanding issues thus meets a core Palestinian demand. Acceptance by the General Assembly of a state within the 1967 borders with minimal, specified land swaps, is also a means of addressing the issue of continued settlement construction. For it would make clear to Israel that settlement expansion is in direct contradiction of international law and international consensus and will not have an impact on the final resolution.

A decision by the General Assembly to admit Palestine and recognition by Member States would also begin to address the question of the West Bank/Gaza division and halt the drifting away of Gaza into a separate entity, an option that is dangerously gaining support in the absence of progress toward a two‐state solution. As a further means of reversing the Palestinian divide, the PLO should pledge to conduct internationally‐supervised elections in a sovereign Palestinian state within several months of implementation of the Security Council’s resolution and the international community should pledge to respect its results. This would provide all Palestinian parties a chance to contest elections in less abnormal conditions than occurred under occupation; would give an incentive to Hamas not to undermine the process; and would give Fatah the ability to run with a record of having helped to achieve Palestinian independence.

For Europeans, who have long been simultaneously proud and frustrated at being the largest providers of support for Palestinian institutions and society without enjoying commensurate political clout, this option offers the prospect of a genuine role. Pressuring Israel is problematic for most European politicians and is not believed to be helpful by a majority of European governments. By contrast, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state through a UN process should fall within their comfort zone and would entrust them with an important role in providing the option with credibility and seeing it through. European states wishing to play a constructive part in peacemaking as a means of advancing their national interests would have an opportunity to do so without simply waiting in the back room with their checkbooks open. This approach also could prevent a scenario under which Europe supports the establishment of all the attributes of statehood yet must stop short of recognizing a state should it be unilaterally declared by the PLO. Indeed, some anxiety is already building in European political circles over the risk of repeating the political failure of 2006 when the EU did everything to support the organization of democratic elections in Palestine only to turn its back on the outcome in the end.

The U.S. might balk at being divested of its heretofore virtual monopoly over the negotiations, yet this option would present the administration with a real prospect of resolving the conflict, a goal it has described as a vital national security interest. Nor, by virtue of its central role in the Security Council, would the U.S. lose its preeminence.

Of course, the U.S. and major European powers would need to be persuaded of the benefits of such an option not only to Palestinians, but to Israel as well. In this respect, giving the Security Council the authority to conclude the terms of an agreement would guarantee protection of core Israeli interests; the United States could not only exercise its veto against any document it deemed unsatisfactory but also inevitably would have a dominant role in putting together the agreement. For Israel, the incentive would be to achieve legitimacy and an end to the conflict sanctioned by the international community as a whole – anyone who rejected the outcome and refused to recognize Israel would thereafter be on the wrong side of the Security Council. In this sense, the option expands on the Arab Peace Initiative’s promise of Arab world acceptance and recognition. By the same token, of course, Israeli rejection of the UN Security Council Resolution would turn it into an international outcast, providing a measure of deterrence against an Israeli rejection and a further reason for it to agree.

Conclusion

Should the just‐announced direct talks fail, the Security Council option provides all who are interested in concluding an agreement with a realistic, promising fallback other than renewed Israeli‐Palestinian or Israeli‐Arab confrontation. Ultimately, such an effort would require significant diplomatic maneuvering and initiative by a number of players, notably the PLO and Western countries seeking to achieve a two‐state solution. The greater the level of coordination among parties, and the earlier it takes place, the greater the chances of success. Early mobilization around a role for the UN Security Council would help build momentum and the mere discussion of it might help the U.S. administration. Sounding the alarm bell about the urgency of a negotiated settlement has little impact without some form of leverage over the parties. The UN Security Council in the horizon provides precisely this kind of leverage.

* Amjad Atallah is the Co‐Director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and an editor for the Middle East Channel at ForeignPolicy.com. He was an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in peace negotiations with Israel and the United States on the issues of international borders, security, and constitutional issues from 2000 to 2003 and was also responsible for liaising with US government officials in Washington, D.C. on these issues.

Bassma Kodmani is the Executive Director of the Arab Reform Initiative, a consortium of Arab policy research centers working in partnership with Western think tanks, and coordinator of the European Experts Group on the Israeli‐ Palestinianconflict. Prior to that, she was in charge of the Ford Foundationʹs program on peacebuilding in the Middle East which initiated and supported collaborative projects and Track 2 meetings between Israelis and Palestinians.

Source: US/Middle East Project

Related posts:

• Palestinians on the United Nations
• Surprise: United States & Israel among least peaceful nations!
• Mohamed Khodr – How Zionists Occupy Two Nations: America and Palestine

By William A. Cook* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Eliahu Epstein letter to President Harry S. Truman, May 14, 1948

As Israel attempts today to gloss over the reality of its birth 62 years ago with a sweeping public relations campaign extolling the miraculous "resurrection" of ancient Zion in contemporary times, a new nation seeking only peace with its neighbors, it might be enlightening and valuable to examine the truth.

On May 14, 1948 President Harry S. Truman received a letter from the Jewish Agency for Palestine announcing the impending proclamation of the independent republic of Israel (Harry S. Truman Library, document filed August 22, 1949).[i] That date marks not only the beginning of the State of Israel but, sub missa voce, the assumption by the State of Israel of the calculated, systematic and determined ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of the land of Palestine that had been the business of "The Consultancy" and its agents before May 14, as identified by Dr. Ilan Pappe in his monumental The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.[ii]

The letter notes that the republic has been established within "frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law." The letter was signed by Eliahu Epstein, Agent, Provisional Government of Israel.

The letter is notable not for what it announces, but for what it does not reveal. Truth requires revelation of all the facts, not concealment by omission of that which would prejudice an understanding. During the six months between the adoption of UN Resolution 181 and the date of this letter, and in subsequent months, the prospective state of Israel launched a massive military incursion into territory designated by that same Resolution for the Palestinian people, creating in its wake "three quarters of a million Palestinian refugees," the destruction of "hundreds of entire villages ... not only depopulated but obliterated ...and houses blown up or bulldozed" (Walid Khalidi, All That Remains, xv).[iii] Khalidi's massive study focuses on 418 villages, once the homes of Palestinians, 292 completely destroyed, 90 others "largely destroyed," the remainder re-inhabited by Jews called Israeli settlers.

In blunt terms, the Jewish Agency for Palestine lied to the American President that it had established a provisional government that "has been charged to assume the rights and duties ... for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel ... and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law."

The Agency's deception made no reference either to the President or the international community that it had created the "Catastrophe," or as the Palestinians termed it, the Nakba, the days of infamy that created what has become the largest Diaspora of refugees in the world and a time of remembrance for those killed in a series of massacres, estimated at 24 by Benny Morris, Israel's preeminent Historian of that period. Indeed, the Agency had acted against international law in invading Palestinian land as designated by the very Resolution that had given them the right to a state of Israel even as it lied without remorse to the international community that it would live in accordance with their laws.

This letter, coupled with an earlier one to the President, dated May 10, 1948, will serve as a microcosm of political deceit characteristic of the Zionist led forces that controlled the nascent state of Israel. This second letter from The Nation Associates, notified the President that

Tomorrow morning the Washington Post will carry, in the form of a full-age (sic) advertisement, the text of an open letter to you requesting the implementation of the November 29 resolution on Palestine...I have been requested to send you the enclosed text of this open letter by the signators ...It is our hope that in the week which remains before the end of the British Mandate, action will be taken by you to insure the recognition of the Jewish state as a means of maintaining the prestige of this country, the authority of the United Nations, and peace in the Middle East (Signed by Freda Kirchwey, President; document available at the Truman Library).[iv]

The Nation Associates supported the establishment of the State of Israel and used its publishing arm to further that goal. The "Open Letter" referred to above argued against the moves by "the British and our own State Department" to "sabotage" the partition resolution despite the President's determined effort to support Israel. Indeed, the Associates went so far as to publish "The British Record on Partition" published in The Nation, America's Leading Liberal Weekly, on May 8, 1948 detailing their selected reading of "British Military Intelligence Sources." This document was simultaneously submitted to the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Open letter published in the Washington Post amounted to a synopsis of this larger document including its primary argument that "there was no reason why the Jewish state could not be set up (if the Arabs resisted partition) and the Arab area turned over to the Trusteeship Council." Note that this argument is being made even as the Jewish Agency and its affiliates have driven hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and villages and massacred untold thousands in the area designated for the Palestinians recommended to be turned over to the Trusteeship Council.

The open letter cited an amendment to the resolution inserted by Truman's representative, Herschel Johnson, "the Security Council should determine as a threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 29 of the Charter,any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution." Yet no mention is made here of the invasion by the Jewish forces of the towns and villages in the area designated for the Palestinians. Rather, the Associates allege that it is the British Mandate government that has supported the Arab League against Israel since 1945, "under the direction of Foreign Minister Bevin, {who} (has) resisted every American proposal for a decent settlement of the Palestinian question." "This was true," the letter continues, "in 1946 when he refused to accept the proposal of the Anglo-American Committee and your own, for the admission into Palestine of 100,000 Jews." What is left unsaid by the Associates is the British promise to the Arabs in the Balfour Declaration that they would maintain a strict ratio of Jews entering Palestine to the indigenous population, the second of the Balfour Declaration promises never referenced as the companion piece to the establishment of a home for the Jews in Palestine.[v]

So now we see the strategy of the Zionists as they manipulate the President: (a) advance publication of a major document detailing British subterfuge in eroding the possibility of establishing a Jewish state sent to the United Nations, thereby placing blame for the deterioration of conditions in Palestine on the British; (b) a subsequent letter to the President informing him that a public "open letter" will be published in the Washington Post detailing subversion of the Jewish people, placing him in the unenviable position of not aiding the "victims" of this subversion or carrying through with recognition of the Jewish state "as a means of maintaining the prestige of this country"; (c) and, finally, another letter, this from the Jewish Agency for Palestine, on the 14^th, seeking his recognition by "welcoming Israel into the community of nations" with no reference to the breaching of international law by the very Agency seeking his support.

Control and manipulation of the events coming out of Palestine has been and continues to be the modus operandi of the Zionist leaders of the state of Israel. The above letters to President Truman offer insight into this manipulation. Moreover, Truman was acting on behalf of the American people in recognizing the State of Israel on the 15^th of May 1948. What the American people knew was the suffering of the Jews under Hitler and the apparent logic of the United Nations partition plan to provide a state for the two peoples residing in Palestine. What they did not know was the Zionist entity that had different goals and the will to deceive the citizens of America to achieve them. But the American people were not alone in being deceived. More importantly is the deception kept from the British people about these "disappeared years," as Robert Fisk terms them. What's missing is the perspective of the Palestinians and the British Mandate government.

The United Kingdom had mandatory authority from the League of Nations to govern the area with the establishment of the Palestine Mandate in 1922, an action that imposed a western colonial and national mindset on an area familiar with tribal and imperial authority. Prior to the official implementation of the Mandate, the British Government had enunciated a "declaration" concerning the desirability of His Majesty's Government in the "establishment of a national home for the Jewish people," called the Balfour Declaration.

Discussions that resulted in the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarify the intention of its wording. The use of "national home" was used intentionally instead of "state." Additionally, the first draft of the declaration referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people." In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing all of Palestine to the Jews only.[vi]

Between 1939 and 1947, the mandate Government found it more and more difficult to maintain its position as the responsible governing force servicing the Arab population and the growing Jewish population, determining by 1947 that these two populations could not coexist. As a result, the British Government placed the resolution of the problem in the hands of the United Nations. That in turn resulted in a partition plan of the land of Palestine, proposed in November of 1947 to the General Assembly, to be implemented in May of 1948, sixty two years ago this May.

British authority in Palestine continued under the United Nations until the implementation of the Partition Plan in May 1948. Consequently, the mandate government had to abide by the Charter of the UN and its Conventions. Ironically, as the Zionist forces, estimated by the Jewish Agency personnel in documents seized by the Mandate Police at 20 to 60 thousand (see top secret file of Sir Richard C. Catling, The Plight of the Palestinians), continued their massacres of Palestinians into 1948, the UN debated the adoption of a Convention defining "genocide" based on Nuremberg principles, a definition approved that same year.

In 1944 the term "genocide" appeared in Raphael Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe created out of the conditions that allowed for the Nazi action against those suffering in their concentration camps. Therefore once the State of Israel was created by the Jewish leaders of the area by declaration May 14, 1948, and, subsequently, was recognized for membership in the UN in 1949, it was expected to abide by the UN Conventions. The United Nations does not appropriate to itself the authority to create states. The United Nations only authorizes itself to recognize states for membership, states that are formed or proclaimed by the people of said state.[vii]

What should be obvious now, after the carefully researched and scholarly work of Dr. Ilan Pappe in his Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and the equally well-researched work of Dr. Benny Morris in his Righteous Victims, both based on recently released evidence from the Israeli archives and those of the Israel Defense Forces Archives, complemented now with the materials preserved by Sir Richard C. Catling, to be made available in The Plight of the Palestinians from Palgrave Macmillan in June, is the truth about the creation of the state of Israel: acceptance of UN Resolution 181 by the Jewish Agency Provisional Government as the designated Jewish state was not done with intent to abide by the goal of the UN General Assembly, to provide a state for two peoples in the land of Palestine, but rather to use it as a means of subterfuge to gain eventual control of all the land and cleanse that land of its indigenous people to whatever extent possible. Put bluntly, what was true then is true today; the current government in Israel continues the practices of past Israeli governments, cleanse the land of its rightful inhabitants to make that land part of the Jewish state. This is what is termed, "slow motion genocide," not, one would hope, a civilized policy to be extolled either by the Israelis or the international community.

This essay is a modification of the opening chapter of William A. Cook latest book, "The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction", to be issued by Palgrave Macmillan in June.

* William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of The Rape Of Palestine: Hope Destroyed, Justice Denied, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy and The Chronicles Of Nefaria. He can be reached at: wcook@laverne.edu.
www.drwilliamacook.com

NOTES:

[i] Eptstein, Eliahu. (1948). Agent, Provisional Government of Israel. Letter to President Harry S. Truman. May 14, 1948. Filed August 22, 1949. Truman Library. www.trumanlibrary.org/whistelstop/study_collections/Israel/large/documents/index. 12/15/2008.

[ii] Pappe, Ilan. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld: Oxford.

[iii] Khalidi, Walid. (1992). All That Remains. Institute for Palestinian Studies: Washington, D.C. xv.

[iv] Kirchwey, Freda. (1948). President, The Nation Associates. Letter to President Harry S. Truman. May 10, 1948. Filed May 11, 1948. Truman Library.

[v] Prior, Michael. (1999) Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry. London: Rutledge.

[vi] Stein, Leonard. (1961). The Balfour Declaration. New York: Simon and Shuster, 470.

[vii] Harb, Jim. (2009). "The UN did not create Israel."

www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/what-theun-did-not-create-israel.html. 6-11-2009.

Related posts:

• A Nation of Golems
• Alan Hart – Deception has always been the name of Zionism’s game
• William A. Cook – Walled in by Myth and Deceit

By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

For readers who may not be intimately familiar with English terminology, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which contradictory terms are combined to form an expressive phrase or epithet such as cruel kindness and falsely true. (It's derived from the Greek word oxymoros meaning pointedly foolish).

For my contribution to the De-legitimizing Israel series, I'm going to confine myself to one question and answer.

The question is: How can you de-legitimize something (in this case the Zionist state) when it is NOT legitimate?

Leaving aside the fairy story of God's promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who "returned" in answer to Zionism's call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state's assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly's partition plan resolution of 1947.

The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British don't possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.

Zionism's assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal - meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine - after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away - was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ..... Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.

As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah's intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was "the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force."

The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball's chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel's right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Related posts:

• The Choice for Israel – Civil war for peace or the end of Zionism?
• US concern about Israel’s illegal settlements is 42 years too late
• So When Are You Going to Make War on Israel, Mr. Brown?

Petition in support of call by United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'escoto Brockmann for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/IJAN_Brockmann_BDS/?e

During the 57th Plenary Meeting on the Question of Palestine, President of the General Assembly Miguel D'escoto Brockmann broke a diplomatic taboo by describing Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as similar to those of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa.

Brockmann also urged the United Nations to use the term ‘apartheid’ without fear, and recommended that the United Nations

"....should consider following the lead of a new generation of civil society, who are calling for a similar non-violent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel to end its violations."

Unsurprisingly, Brockmann has been branded as an antisemite by apologists for Israel.

We are appalled by the recurrent use of baseless accusations of antisemitism; they silence calls for compassion and humanity in the name of the Palestinian people. The use of such accusations to defend massive violence against civilians offends all people of conscience. The false invocation of the slur of antisemitism positions Israel, with great political and military advantage, as a victim, while desecrating Jewish histories and trivializing the real experiences and outcomes of antisemitism.

Likening Israel's policies to apartheid is not antisemitic. It is common sense. Israel's policies have been widely described in these terms by, among others, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Jamal Zahalka, Azmi Bishara, Gideon Levy, John Dugard, Omar Barghouti, Danny Rubinstein, Amira Haas, Shulamit Aloni, Meron Benvenisti, and Ami Ayalon.

Calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel is not antisemitism. It is the recognition that only such a campaign can lay the ground for a long-lasting peace based on justice and reconciliation. In the words of Nelson Mandela,

"The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East..."

As Israel continues to ignore the growing outrage over the blockade of Gaza, and as Israel repeatedly breaks the cease-fire, blocks humanitarian aid and prevents journalists from covering the catastrophic impact of its actions, we the undersigned express our support for President Brockmann and urge the United Nations and all member states to adopt his recommendation without delay.

Related posts:

• National Union of Journalists in UK votes to boycott Israeli goods and calls for sanctions
• …more boycott
• The discussion of a boycott of Israel has gone global