Connect with us

RSS

The United Nations Is Against Peace

Delegates react to the results during the United Nations General Assembly vote on a draft resolution that would recognize the Palestinians as qualified to become a full UN member, in New York City, US, May 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.

Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.

The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.

In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.

The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”

The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.

Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.

Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.

The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.

Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.

At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.

The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:

On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.

The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.

The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.

The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.

After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.

Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.

The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.

The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.

Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 344
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 19
Continue Reading

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 0
Continue Reading

RSS

IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies

i24 News – The IDF released on Tuesday the investigation into the murder of six abductees at the end of August: Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi,

Goldberg-Polin, Alexander Lubnov, Almog Sarusi, and Sergeant Ori Danino.

According to the findings of the investigation, when the IDF operation began in the area of the tunnel, Major General Nitzan Alon did not believe abductees would be in the area. As the operation continued, the military assessment said the probability was even lower.

The abductee who was extricated, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, was found alone, as neither he nor additional terrorists taken from the area provided indications to the additional abductees.

In the absence of new information, the operation continued in the area, the investigation said. Only then did the forces locate the bodies of the six abductees. In addition, forensic findings were found indicating that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had been there. It remains unclear whether he gave the order to murder the abductees himself. No signs of struggle during the murder were found in autopsies.

IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagri visited the tunnel and described the harsh conditions in which the six abductees endured. “They were heroes who were cold-bloodedly murdered by terrorists who build tunnels under children’s rooms,” he said. “We will hunt them down and know exactly who they are, we will find the one who murdered them. The teams here collect all the evidence from the scene.”

“We didn’t know the exact location of the hostages in the tunnel. They were killed before we could reach them. We are investigating the incident of their names being leaked prior to their rescue. This is a very serious event that is harmful to the families and the security of the forces on the ground.”

The post IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 20
Continue Reading

RSS

The United Nations Is Against Peace

Delegates react to the results during the United Nations General Assembly vote on a draft resolution that would recognize the Palestinians as qualified to become a full UN member, in New York City, US, May 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

The UN decision on May 10, 2024, to upgrade the status of the Palestinian state is not surprising. It is a direct continuation of previous UN decisions, most notably that of November 29, 2012, which granted the Palestinian Authority the status of non-member observer state.

Since the 1970s, there has been an almost automatic majority for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. This majority includes Muslim countries and countries that define themselves as part of the “Global South,” such as African countries and some South American countries, all of which are known for their invariably critical approach towards Israel.

The UN’s recognition of the Palestinian Authority grants the Palestinians an independent state without a negotiated peace process or clearly defined and agreed upon borders between it and Israel. This is precisely the situation the PLO has been striving for since 1974. The establishment of a Palestinian state without peace with Israel is a sure recipe for instability and perpetual war in the Middle East, and those negative consequences are being deliberately fomented by the UN.

In June 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization approved a ten-point plan known as the Phased Plan. The plan was presented at the time as a considerable moderation of the PLO, which at the time was considered Israel’s most bitter enemy. The 1970s were full of bloody terrorist incidents committed by Palestinian organizations, including airplane hijackings. The leading terrorist organizations at that time were the Fatah organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) organization headed by George Habash, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) organization headed since its inception by Nayef Hawatmeh.

The reason why the PLO’s ten-point plan was considered a political advancement was that for the first time since the adoption of the revised Palestinian treaty of 1968, the activists of the Palestinian organizations seemed to have agreed to an incomplete “liberation” of Palestine. A careful reading of the plan, however, shows that its goal remained the destruction of the entire State of Israel – “from the river to the sea.”

The second section of the plan says: “The PLO will fight by all means, primarily the armed struggle, to liberate the Palestinian land and establish an independent national government over any part of the Palestinian territory that will be liberated.” This clause was allegedly fulfilled – not through armed struggle but mainly through diplomacy via the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.

Another section of the phased plan defines the establishment of self-government on part of the territory as only one step on the way to the total “liberation” of the entire land of Palestine. According to the phased plan, the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip was a temporary solution that was never meant to stop the war between the two national movements. The phased plan was designed to promote a continuation of the fight for the other “rights” the Palestinians demand, such as the complete “liberation” of, and purported right of return to, the entire land of Israel.

Despite lengthy negotiations between Israel and the PLO on the permanent agreement, the parties were unable to reach a satisfactory settlement. The most intense attempts were in July 2000 at Camp David with the mediation of President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 with the mediation of President George Bush, Jr.

The Palestinian state that was supposed to be established was meant to include most of the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip (over 90% of the territory); provide safe passage between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria; and make agreed-upon special arrangements regarding Jerusalem and the refugees. Almost all the details were settled, but Israel asked for something the PLO was not willing to give. Israel requested that in exchange for a comprehensive agreement, representatives of the PLO, as the recognized representatives of the Palestinian people, would sign a document stating “the end of claims between Israel and the Palestinians” – i.e., a contractual obligation to make peace with Israel. No Palestinian representative has ever been willing to sign such a document because peace with Israel has never been their goal.

Because of this, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been stuck for decades, with neither side possessing the ability to reach a binding permanent settlement. The Palestinians cannot force Israel to withdraw militarily from the territories of Judea and Samaria without a political agreement, and Israel cannot force a political agreement on the Palestinians that would include recognition of Israel and a final end to the national-religious conflict between the parties.

At this stage, the Palestinians turned to the United Nations to try to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to that of a sovereign independent state. The Palestinian attempt to establish a state unilaterally was not new. On October 1, 1948, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip announced the establishment of the All-Palestine Government. The president of the independent state of Palestine, which declared its sovereignty in all of Mandatory Palestine, was Nazi sympathizer and virulent antisemite Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini; the prime minister was Ahmed Hilmi Abd al-Baqi. This government lasted for about a decade, ruling the Gaza Strip under Egyptian auspices. After its dissolution by the Egyptians, Prime Minister Hilmi continued to serve as Palestine’s representative in the Arab League until his death in 1963.

The Palestinians flatly denied the existence of the State of Israel. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence states:

On the basis of the Palestinian people’s natural and historical right to freedom and independence, a sacred right for which he shed blood and made sacrifices, and for which he fought against the imperial forces and the Zionists who conspired against him, we, the members of the Palestinian National Council who gathered in Gaza, the city of Hashim (the Prophet’s grandfather), declare this today… October 1, 1948, on the independence of Palestine as a whole within its borders: in northern Lebanon and Syria, in eastern Syria and across the Jordan, in the western Mediterranean and in southern Egypt. This independence is full independence and within its framework a free, democratic and sovereign state will be established, and its citizens will enjoy freedom.

The next time the Palestinians declared a state was on November 15, 1988, at the conference of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. In the declaration of Palestinian independence drafted by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it was stated, among other things, that the declaration was based on Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. The Palestinians recognized the right of the countries of the region to live in peace, but conspicuously did not mention Israel. In addition, they declared the continuation of the struggle until the end of the “occupation,” without clarifying whether the term referred to the territories of 1967 or beyond.

The announcement led the UN to invite Yasser Arafat to address the UN General Assembly (UN General Assembly Resolution 43/177). Unsurprisingly, 104 countries voted in favor of the resolution recognizing the Palestinian state unilaterally declared by Yasser Arafat. Only two countries voted against this recognition – the US and Israel.

The Palestinians understood that in order to have a basis for this type of decision, some sort of fact on the ground was required. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s gave them political-autonomous status for the first time in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords were defined from the beginning as temporary interim agreements that were intended to lead to a permanent settlement of the two political entities living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.

After the peace talks with Israel at Camp David 2000, the Palestinians ignited a bloody intifada. After the failure of the negotiations in Annapolis in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Palestinians realized they had exhausted all the Israeli concessions they could obtain via regular negotiations. This was the reason for their appeal to the UN Assembly and their request to upgrade their status to a state on November 29, 2012.

Their request was approved due to the automatic majority that exists in anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. For the first time, a UN observer body that does not have either effective control over territory or defined borders was granted the status of a state (in this case, that of an observer state). One hundred thirty-eight countries voted in favor this time, with nine opposed and the rest abstaining. This step was directly contrary to the principles of negotiations the parties had signed in the Oslo Accords.

The vote on May 10, 2024 was the most recent step in the Palestinian journey towards an independent state without a binding border agreement with Israel. The vote was intended to grant the Palestinians various rights reserved for sovereign states recognized by the UN, even though the Palestinian Authority is still defined as an observer state. This time, 143 countries voted in favor, with nine voting against and the rest abstaining.

The role of the UN is supposedly to maintain peace and world order. Upgrading the status of the Palestinian Authority to a state despite its having neither effective control over territory nor clear borders – and in the process empowering a political entity whose majority population openly supports a terrorist organization, Hamas, that rapes women and murders children – will not add to world peace and stability, but will only deepen the war between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor will it create an incentive for the moderate elements in Palestinian society to strive for true peace with Israel.

Dr. (Lt. Col.) Shaul Bartal is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post The United Nations Is Against Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 0
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 19
Continue Reading

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 0
Continue Reading

RSS

IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies

i24 News – The IDF released on Tuesday the investigation into the murder of six abductees at the end of August: Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi,

Goldberg-Polin, Alexander Lubnov, Almog Sarusi, and Sergeant Ori Danino.

According to the findings of the investigation, when the IDF operation began in the area of the tunnel, Major General Nitzan Alon did not believe abductees would be in the area. As the operation continued, the military assessment said the probability was even lower.

The abductee who was extricated, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, was found alone, as neither he nor additional terrorists taken from the area provided indications to the additional abductees.

In the absence of new information, the operation continued in the area, the investigation said. Only then did the forces locate the bodies of the six abductees. In addition, forensic findings were found indicating that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had been there. It remains unclear whether he gave the order to murder the abductees himself. No signs of struggle during the murder were found in autopsies.

IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagri visited the tunnel and described the harsh conditions in which the six abductees endured. “They were heroes who were cold-bloodedly murdered by terrorists who build tunnels under children’s rooms,” he said. “We will hunt them down and know exactly who they are, we will find the one who murdered them. The teams here collect all the evidence from the scene.”

“We didn’t know the exact location of the hostages in the tunnel. They were killed before we could reach them. We are investigating the incident of their names being leaked prior to their rescue. This is a very serious event that is harmful to the families and the security of the forces on the ground.”

The post IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 20
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News