Nations of World Want Peace - Against Jerusalem being the Capital of Israel


PART ONE OF THIS ARTICLE traced the history of Palestine from the 1917 Balfour Declaration (which declared to the world Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine) up to the 1947-48 Israeli War that followed the withdrawal of British troops and cessation of British responsibility for the governance of Palestine, which was transferred to the United Nations (UN). It was then that Zionist forces occupied areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank that were designated by the UN as belonging to the Palestinians. Based upon this original designation of the West Bank to the Palestinians, the Palestinians, like the Israelis, had hopes of forming a future state in areas the international community with full US backing had ceded to them.

Anticipating the (47-48) evacuation of British forces and transfer of governance from the UK to the UN, the UN  drafted a two state solution, one Israeli and the other Arab (Christian and Muslim).

According to the 1947 UN Resolution 184:

“Independent Arab and JewishStates and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the (British) armed forces of the mandatory Power (UK) has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.”


“The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.”

The idea of two states was firmly established in directives given to the UN Commision charged with overseeing the transition from British control to the establishment of independent Israel and Arab states in Palestine:

“The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the (UN) Commission. The constitutions of the States shall…include inter alia provisions for:

(a) Establishing in each State a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation, and an executive body responsible to the legislature;

(b) Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

(c) Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

(d) Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

(e) Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

Fighting broke out almost immediately following the UN partition into Arab and an Israeli zones. Jewish nationalists backed by International Zionist Organizations, British support, and modern weaponry simply out gunned their poorly equipped and under-trained peasant opponents (remember this was 1947-48). Zionists forces caused over 700,000 Arab Christian and Muslim refugees to flee lands that were ceded to them in Palestine and seek what they thought would be temporary shelters in refugee camps established in Jordan and elsewhere. Seventy years later, descendents of original refugees are still living in Lebanon and some can still be found living in Jordanian refugee camps. They are living as refugees because Israeli leaders refuse to honor their right of return as required by International Law, although the idea is contested.

The history of Israeli-Arab relations in Palestine has been one of continual land confiscation on the part of the former to the ongoing determinant of the latter. Thus, two decades following the 1948 imbroglio Israel claimed both the Golan Heights and additional land in the West Bank.

The UN In resolution after resolution (the latest being Resolution 2334) has repeatedly referred to these illegally held lands as “occupied territory” or territory illegally occupied by an invading army, much like the illegal land grab perpetrated by President Andrew Jackson who simply ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling that private property in Georgia legally belonging to the Cherokee Indians. Jackson wanted their land and therefore ordered federal troops to force them off of it and onto reservations in the Oklahoma Territory. The American Indians, however cruelly they were treated, did not have to suffer the additional humiliation of having walls built around their reservations enhanced by lethally armed soldiers to check their coming and going.  In Palestine offense has followed offense; Palestinian civilians have been forced to flee their homes in fear for their lives and then never permitted to return as required by International law.

This ongoing series of violations has been summed up in UN Resolution 2334 thereby

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction”,

l

“Reiterating its (UN) vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”,

l

“Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to

(i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and

(ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground”,

l

1. “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”;

l

2. “Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard”;

l

3. “Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations”;

l

4. “Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution”;

l

5. “Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967″;

l

6. “Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.”

Israel has consistently refused to abide by the norms of international law; it has not ceased from illegally claiming Palestinian lands and homes in the “occupied” West Bank and elsewhere –  this seems to be the root cause of hostilities within its borders today.

“The refusal to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass” (Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth Of Israel).

Consequently, over the years (1955-2013) Israel has managed to bear the brunt of nearly seventy UN condemnations including violation of human rights, illegal confiscations, deportations. illegal settlements, refusal to abide by the original 1949 UN Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Some of these resolutions are listed below.  For a full list, visit If  Americans Knew.

l

Israeli Condemnations by Resolution

Resolution 106: “condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
Resolution 111: “condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”
Resolution 171: “determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
Resolution 237: “urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”
Resolution 248: “condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”
Resolution 250: “calls on’ Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”
Resolution 256: “condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”
Resolution 262: “condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”
Resolution 265: “condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”
Resolution 270: “condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”
Resolution 280: “condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
Resolution 298: “deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”
Resolution 316: “condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
Resolution 332: “condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
Resolution 337: “condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”
Resolution 425: “calls on’ Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
Resolution 446: “determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
Resolution 452: “calls on’ Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”
Resolution 476: “reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
Resolution 497: “decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith”
Resolution 592: “strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”
Resolution 605: “strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 904: “strongly condemns’ the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”
Resolution 1405: “emphasizes’ the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population”
Resolution 1435: “demands’ that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”

l

There seems to be a clear problem with Israeli occupation, a problem recognized by virtually the entire world. Israel has been abbbbbnce with UN resolutions because Israel has had the backing of the United States, one of five nations that sits on the UN Security Council thereby wielding veto power over any action decided upon by the rest of the world represented in the UN General Assembly. The US has used its veto power 43 times to shield Israel from International Justice.

Since the inception of Russia, the US has used its veto power more than any other nation. According to the Huffington Post, “a little perspective is required here”:
“Since 1970, China has used its veto power eight times, and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has used its veto power 13 times. However, the United States has used its veto power 83 times…. Forty-two of these US vetoes were to protect Israel from criticism for illegal activities, including suspected war crimes. To this day, Israel occupies and colonizes a large swath of southwestern Syria in violation of a series of UN Security Council resolutions, which the United States has successfully blocked from enforcing.”
This hegemonic veto verity, however, seems to be nearing an end as more and more nations are taking up the banner of opposition to unilateral decisions made by the US in defiance of the rest of the world. The opposition to what is perceived as totalitarian strong arm tactics by the United States has come into clear perspective with the recent US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in violation of all UN mandates and resolutions regarding Jerusalem since the UN’s inception nearly seventy years ago.
l
According to The Atlantic (a Boston based monthly moderate magazine), the United States has undertaken to promote, defend and sustain global liberalism by adopting a worldview based upon a “hybrid” of  Vladimir Lenin’s analyses: The United States is engaged in promoting International Liberalism as Lenin promoted International Communism. According to The Atlantic “Washington’s ambition to create a U.S. dominated world order”  or what they also refer to as a “global liberal economic regime”
 “…cannot be maintained simply by an internationalized economic elite’s desire for it to exist; it can be maintained only by American power.”
That is a proposition that the rest of the world is increasingly questioning and that President Trump has exacerbated with his Jerusalem pivot. All the other nations voted 139 – 7 against the idea.
l
In response to this negative vote, the American President decided to show the rest of the world some US “realpolitik” – that is persuasion by force, bribes and intimidation. Normally, such political moves are made behind closed doors and then covered in the press by a veil of democracy and respect for human rights. But President Trump is not known for being “politically correct”, not even on the world stage. In another foreign policy blunder, he has decided to show rest of the world how the US does business: When things do not go its way, the world leader in democracy and individual rights, rather than accepting majority rule, acts like a totalitarian dictator when others exercise their legal right to disagree.
President Trump needs to learn rather quickly that he is making the US look like a hypocrite.  Third world nations are rapidly maturing, rising to the reality that they too have rights and liberties. Supported by other more advanced nations tired of liberal hegemony, they increasingly resent being bullied.  All over the globe voices are echoing in cadence; they are regurgitating their resentment to the force-feeding of economic, cultural and political liberalism that has become economically, politically and culturally nauseating and therefore being burped up before being expelled from their malnourished national bodies.  Liberalism has long hid behind a veil of democracy. Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, US and UK plutocrats have expanded their word-wide reach behind the shiboleth of  “universal education” and “making the world safe for democracy“…..
l
Something, however, has gone wrong; the IMF- World Bank liberal diet that has been fed to under-developed nations is beginning to turn in their stomachs.  In response, the not so benign face of democracy is beginning to show.  Following the lead of her boss, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, is setting her face like flint in defiance. She and President Trump are acting as if the UN is telling them what to do, when in fact it is the US that has told the UN what to do ever since its inception, up to and including the recent Jerusalem donnybrook.
l

l
Clearly the UN cannot dictate its wishes to the US, the US has a veto over anything the rest of the world might decide. Unlike the US Constitution that provides a Constitutional remedy that empowers Congress to override a presidential veto, the General Assembly of Nations has no such legal power to override a US veto.
l
The US and Great Britain have used their economic influence and veto power to rule the UN for decades.  They advocate liberal democracy world-wide, profess that democracy is and must be the wave of the future etc, and then hypocritically proceed to act like tyrants when it comes to getting their way at the UN. A veto is apparently not enough; President Trump and Ambassador Haley had to throw in threats of economic pain by threatening to “take names” of countries that dared to vote in favor of a UN General Assembly Resolution that rejected US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
l

It is not necessary to threaten underdeveloped nations with economic sanctions; the US can simply veto any Resolution recommended by the UN General Assembly, as it did in opposition to the overwhelming Resolution against the US decision  to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The economic threat is an unnecessary additional measure such as that used by a liberal bully when he kicks his clearly defeated victim to further make an already proven point: Support me against your will or I will do more to harm you.

l

Haley is not upset with a the status of Jerusalem (the US got its usual way in the UN by means of veto); she is upset because the rest of the world dared to stand up in an unusual display of defiance; it refused to be bought out, would not bow or turn a blind eye to manifest and continued injustices in Israel and beyond.  Economic threats are not only inducements; they are NOW punishments – US liberals and neo-liberals are acting like victims battered by the UN, when in fact, the they have almost ALWAYS gotten their way at the UN.
l
What is new today is that the real victims, third world Christian and other developing nations, such as Hungary in Central Europe, and many others are tired of being bullied, beaten so badly that they are now standing up, coming out of the closet of victimization and challenging the liberal agenda: no mas, to abortion and homosexulaity; no mas to population control; they are saying in Nigeria and other African and Middle Eastern nations: no mas to usury and financial exploitation; they are saying in Latin America and Asia: no mas to your carrot and stick diplomacy, to your neoliberal economic and moral policies intended to impose secular materialism in our countries contrary to our deepest values, beliefs and sentiments; no mas, no mas.
l
l