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.
RSS
‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine
Nerdeen Kiswani, founder of WithinOurLifetime (WOL), leading a pro-Hamas demonstration in New York City on August 14, 2024. Photo: Michael Nigro via Reuters Connect
Nerdeen Kiswani, the founder of the radical anti-Israel organization Within Our Lifetime, has come out strongly against Ukraine in its defensive war with Russia, derisively labeling the country a “Western-backed project” that is comparable to Israel.
“Sorry, but Ukraine is nothing like Palestine,” Kiswani posted on X/Twitter on Friday. “Palestine is a people fighting against settler colonialism. If anything, Ukraine is more like Israel — a Western-backed project propped up for geopolitical interests & sustained by empire.”
She went on to argue that “people need to stop forcing comparisons between Ukraine and Palestine. They are not the same struggle, not the same history, and not the same reality. These false parallels only distort the truth and erase the unique brutality of zionist [sic] settler colonialism.”
Adding that she “actually feel[s] bad for” the Ukrainian people, Kiswani argued that “their leadership, especially [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, sold them out, propped up Azov Nazis, and let the West use Ukraine as a pawn.”
Kiswani’s comments came on the same day that US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance got into a heated argument in front of the media at the White House. During the in-person meeting, Trump and Vance called on Kyiv to express greater gratitude for US support and move in good faith toward ceasefire with Russia, despite a lack of clear security guarantees from Washington.
The leading anti-Israel activist’s social media posts also came before Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Zelensky, who is Jewish, a “pure Nazi” and a “traitor to the Jewish people.”
Kiswani also objected in her comments to what she sees as Ukraine’s pro-Israel stance, writing, “I’m not saying Ukraine is just like Israel, but highlighting ridiculous comparisons to Palestine. But if you don’t like that tell it to Zelensky who praised Israel and called it an inspiration for Ukraine. He even said Ukraine should become a ‘big Israel.’”
She added that Ukraine is “using Zionist tactics in its war strategy.”
Kiswani went on to point out that the “Palestinian resistance” is not aligned with Ukraine.
“Funny how people with red triangles in their bios [are] coming at me for this when the Palestinian resistance has rejected alignment with Ukraine, which is backed by the same imperial powers arming Israel. Solidarity should be rooted in reality, not projection,” she wrote on Sunday in a follow-up to her original thread.
The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
Kiswani and her group Within Our Lifetime (WOL) have been at the forefront of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas activism since Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, a massacre that started the war in Gaza.
On Oct. 8, 2023, one day after the biggest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, WOL organized a protest to celebrate the prior day’s attack, which it described as an effort to “defend the heroic Palestinian resistance.” Kiswani notably refused to condemn Hamas and the Oct. 7 massacre following the atrocities.
Then, in Apil 2024, Kiswani refused to condemn the chant “Death to America” and organized a mass demonstration to block the “arteries of capitalism” by staging a blockade of commercial shipping ports across the world in protest of Western support for the Jewish state. That same month, she was banned from Columbia University’s campus in New York City after leading chants calling for an “intifada,” or violent uprising.
The following month, Kiswani led a demonstration in Brooklyn, New York in which she lambasted the local police department, claimed then-US President Joe Biden will soon die, and called for the destruction of Israel.
That proceeded the activist saying she does not want Zionists “anywhere” in the world while speaking in defense of a person who called for “Zionists” to leave a crowded subway car in New York City.
WOL, which planned a protest last year to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre, was also behind demonstrations at the Nova Music Festival exhibit, which commemorated the more than 300 civilians slaughtered by Hamas while at a music festival.
The latter protest prompted widespread condemnation, including from Biden and even progressive members of the US Congress who are outspoken against Israel.
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), for example, posted on social media that the “callousness, dehumanization, and targeting of Jews on display at last night’s protest outside the Nova Festival exhibit was atrocious antisemitism – plain and simple.”
The post ‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) defended Israel’s decision to pause aid deliveries into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, pointing out that the United States did not provide humanitarian assistance to Nazi Germany during World War II.
“We didn’t provide aid to Nazi Germany during World War II. The idea is preposterous. Why should Israel be forced to provide aid to Hamas-run Gaza?” Cotton posted on X/Twitter on Sunday night.
The White House also expressed support for Israel’s decision.
“Israel has negotiated in good faith since the beginning of this administration to ensure the release of hostages held captive by Hamas terrorists,” National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement. “We will support their decision on next steps given Hamas had indicated it’s no longer interested in a negotiated ceasefire.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced earlier in the day that Israel would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement came after his government presented the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas with a proposal for a six-week extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, claiming that the Jewish state has violated the terms of the original agreement.
The Netanyahu government reportedly believes that pausing aid transfers into Gaza will pressure Hamas into accepting the ceasefire extension. Hamas, which started the Gaza war when it killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, dismissed Israel’s decision on Sunday as “cheap blackmail.”
“Unfortunately, Hamas rejected the proposal. As the first phase of the framework has ended, we have halted the entry of trucks into Gaza,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said in a statement.
Israel’s decision to block aid deliveries into Gaza was met with widespread backlash, with some observers accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocidal acts” and violating “international law.”
However, others have pointed out that over the past few months, Gaza has experienced a surge of humanitarian aid.
“In the last six weeks, Israel has flooded Hamas Gaza with 25,000 trucks of aid,” noted former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy. “The enemy territory whose government is committed to permanent jihad against Israel is amply stocked for months.”
Cotton, the chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has staunchly defended Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza. In October 2024, Cotton wrote a letter to then-US President Joe Biden, condemning his administration for threatening an “arms embargo” against Israel.
In December 2024, Cotton introduced legislation to mandate the US federal government refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — terminology preferred by Israel. Cotton has also lambasted the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for allegedly diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid into the hands of the Hamas terrorist group.
The post ‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal
Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri
In what may be perhaps the most significant single strategic move since the start of the war in Gaza, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced this weekend that, “the entry of all goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will be halted.”
Contrary to claims of “war crimes” and “starving civilians,” this new approach to Gaza is not only completely consistent with international law — but is likely to save civilian lives on all sides and bring the war to a close far more quickly than any other approach.
The massacre of October 7, 2023, saw the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The internationally-designated Hamas terror organization, along with Palestinian civilians and UN staff, invaded Israel, killed over 1,200, took 251 hostage, committed mass torture and mass rape, and brought about 16 months of war.
As I wrote the other day, Israel and Hamas completed “Phase 1” of a three stage ceasefire agreement, which resulted in the release of some of the Israeli hostages. However, the parties have so far failed to negotiate the terms of “Phase 2.” US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, presented a framework for continuing negotiations, which Israel accepted but Hamas rejected.
In response, Israel made this weekend’s announcement, and closed Gaza to aid deliveries.
Israel maintains a legal weapons blockade on Gaza, which is governed by the Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, and the San Remo Convention. Under these agreements, a legal blockade is permitted as a defense against armed attack. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which began in 2007, fits this requirement, as it is a response to Hamas’s ongoing rocket barrages on Israeli civilians.
Under these same international rules, the blockading party may not intentionally starve civilians as a tool of warfare. This effectively means that the blockading power is required to transfer humanitarian aid into the blockaded area — a requirement that Israel has fulfilled at a massive scale.
However, the aid that enters into Gaza is typically not transferred to civilians. To the contrary, Hamas, habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take the aid for themselves.
This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times.
Hamas uses stolen aid supplies to fuel its rockets, equip its troops, and sells some of what’s left to civilians as a way of raising funds for its war effort. Indeed, many of the resources Hamas used on October 7, and in the months since, were taken from aid supplies, including the tunnels where Israeli hostages are currently held, which were built with cement funded by America’s USAID agency.
In effect, Israel has been fighting a war of survival while also funding both sides: a strategy doomed to fail. This kind of national suicide is absolutely not required by international law.
To the contrary, Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV specifically states that a power is not required to allow the passage of humanitarian aid unless it is satisfied that the aid will not be diverted to enemy combatants. Therefore, not only is Israel not required to transfer aid under the present circumstances, but pressuring Israel to do so is, in itself, a war crime.
International law is structured this way for good reason: funding both sides of a conflict only serves to prolong hostilities and thus increase completely avoidable harm to civilian populations on all sides.
In this case, aid to Gaza ends up almost exclusively in the hands of an internationally -designated terror organization that is also an enemy combatant. The international community has had 18 years since the beginning of the blockade in 2007, and 16 months since the October 7 massacre, to find a solution to this particular war crime, yet has both failed and refused to do so. The consequence has been to prolong the current war, the captivity of the Israeli hostages, and also war’s deleterious impact on the lives of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
For the moment, this war crime of compelling Israel to provide aid to enemy combatants, in violation of Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV, has come to an end. This can only result in a quicker defeat of Hamas, and a quicker end to the current war. Such a result will, in turn, provide immeasurable benefits to Israelis, to Palestinians, and to the entire world at large.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.
RSS
‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine
Nerdeen Kiswani, founder of WithinOurLifetime (WOL), leading a pro-Hamas demonstration in New York City on August 14, 2024. Photo: Michael Nigro via Reuters Connect
Nerdeen Kiswani, the founder of the radical anti-Israel organization Within Our Lifetime, has come out strongly against Ukraine in its defensive war with Russia, derisively labeling the country a “Western-backed project” that is comparable to Israel.
“Sorry, but Ukraine is nothing like Palestine,” Kiswani posted on X/Twitter on Friday. “Palestine is a people fighting against settler colonialism. If anything, Ukraine is more like Israel — a Western-backed project propped up for geopolitical interests & sustained by empire.”
She went on to argue that “people need to stop forcing comparisons between Ukraine and Palestine. They are not the same struggle, not the same history, and not the same reality. These false parallels only distort the truth and erase the unique brutality of zionist [sic] settler colonialism.”
Adding that she “actually feel[s] bad for” the Ukrainian people, Kiswani argued that “their leadership, especially [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, sold them out, propped up Azov Nazis, and let the West use Ukraine as a pawn.”
Kiswani’s comments came on the same day that US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance got into a heated argument in front of the media at the White House. During the in-person meeting, Trump and Vance called on Kyiv to express greater gratitude for US support and move in good faith toward ceasefire with Russia, despite a lack of clear security guarantees from Washington.
The leading anti-Israel activist’s social media posts also came before Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Zelensky, who is Jewish, a “pure Nazi” and a “traitor to the Jewish people.”
Kiswani also objected in her comments to what she sees as Ukraine’s pro-Israel stance, writing, “I’m not saying Ukraine is just like Israel, but highlighting ridiculous comparisons to Palestine. But if you don’t like that tell it to Zelensky who praised Israel and called it an inspiration for Ukraine. He even said Ukraine should become a ‘big Israel.’”
She added that Ukraine is “using Zionist tactics in its war strategy.”
Kiswani went on to point out that the “Palestinian resistance” is not aligned with Ukraine.
“Funny how people with red triangles in their bios [are] coming at me for this when the Palestinian resistance has rejected alignment with Ukraine, which is backed by the same imperial powers arming Israel. Solidarity should be rooted in reality, not projection,” she wrote on Sunday in a follow-up to her original thread.
The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
Kiswani and her group Within Our Lifetime (WOL) have been at the forefront of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas activism since Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, a massacre that started the war in Gaza.
On Oct. 8, 2023, one day after the biggest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, WOL organized a protest to celebrate the prior day’s attack, which it described as an effort to “defend the heroic Palestinian resistance.” Kiswani notably refused to condemn Hamas and the Oct. 7 massacre following the atrocities.
Then, in Apil 2024, Kiswani refused to condemn the chant “Death to America” and organized a mass demonstration to block the “arteries of capitalism” by staging a blockade of commercial shipping ports across the world in protest of Western support for the Jewish state. That same month, she was banned from Columbia University’s campus in New York City after leading chants calling for an “intifada,” or violent uprising.
The following month, Kiswani led a demonstration in Brooklyn, New York in which she lambasted the local police department, claimed then-US President Joe Biden will soon die, and called for the destruction of Israel.
That proceeded the activist saying she does not want Zionists “anywhere” in the world while speaking in defense of a person who called for “Zionists” to leave a crowded subway car in New York City.
WOL, which planned a protest last year to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre, was also behind demonstrations at the Nova Music Festival exhibit, which commemorated the more than 300 civilians slaughtered by Hamas while at a music festival.
The latter protest prompted widespread condemnation, including from Biden and even progressive members of the US Congress who are outspoken against Israel.
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), for example, posted on social media that the “callousness, dehumanization, and targeting of Jews on display at last night’s protest outside the Nova Festival exhibit was atrocious antisemitism – plain and simple.”
The post ‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) defended Israel’s decision to pause aid deliveries into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, pointing out that the United States did not provide humanitarian assistance to Nazi Germany during World War II.
“We didn’t provide aid to Nazi Germany during World War II. The idea is preposterous. Why should Israel be forced to provide aid to Hamas-run Gaza?” Cotton posted on X/Twitter on Sunday night.
The White House also expressed support for Israel’s decision.
“Israel has negotiated in good faith since the beginning of this administration to ensure the release of hostages held captive by Hamas terrorists,” National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement. “We will support their decision on next steps given Hamas had indicated it’s no longer interested in a negotiated ceasefire.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced earlier in the day that Israel would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement came after his government presented the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas with a proposal for a six-week extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, claiming that the Jewish state has violated the terms of the original agreement.
The Netanyahu government reportedly believes that pausing aid transfers into Gaza will pressure Hamas into accepting the ceasefire extension. Hamas, which started the Gaza war when it killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, dismissed Israel’s decision on Sunday as “cheap blackmail.”
“Unfortunately, Hamas rejected the proposal. As the first phase of the framework has ended, we have halted the entry of trucks into Gaza,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said in a statement.
Israel’s decision to block aid deliveries into Gaza was met with widespread backlash, with some observers accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocidal acts” and violating “international law.”
However, others have pointed out that over the past few months, Gaza has experienced a surge of humanitarian aid.
“In the last six weeks, Israel has flooded Hamas Gaza with 25,000 trucks of aid,” noted former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy. “The enemy territory whose government is committed to permanent jihad against Israel is amply stocked for months.”
Cotton, the chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has staunchly defended Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza. In October 2024, Cotton wrote a letter to then-US President Joe Biden, condemning his administration for threatening an “arms embargo” against Israel.
In December 2024, Cotton introduced legislation to mandate the US federal government refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — terminology preferred by Israel. Cotton has also lambasted the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for allegedly diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid into the hands of the Hamas terrorist group.
The post ‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal
Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri
In what may be perhaps the most significant single strategic move since the start of the war in Gaza, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced this weekend that, “the entry of all goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will be halted.”
Contrary to claims of “war crimes” and “starving civilians,” this new approach to Gaza is not only completely consistent with international law — but is likely to save civilian lives on all sides and bring the war to a close far more quickly than any other approach.
The massacre of October 7, 2023, saw the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The internationally-designated Hamas terror organization, along with Palestinian civilians and UN staff, invaded Israel, killed over 1,200, took 251 hostage, committed mass torture and mass rape, and brought about 16 months of war.
As I wrote the other day, Israel and Hamas completed “Phase 1” of a three stage ceasefire agreement, which resulted in the release of some of the Israeli hostages. However, the parties have so far failed to negotiate the terms of “Phase 2.” US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, presented a framework for continuing negotiations, which Israel accepted but Hamas rejected.
In response, Israel made this weekend’s announcement, and closed Gaza to aid deliveries.
Israel maintains a legal weapons blockade on Gaza, which is governed by the Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, and the San Remo Convention. Under these agreements, a legal blockade is permitted as a defense against armed attack. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which began in 2007, fits this requirement, as it is a response to Hamas’s ongoing rocket barrages on Israeli civilians.
Under these same international rules, the blockading party may not intentionally starve civilians as a tool of warfare. This effectively means that the blockading power is required to transfer humanitarian aid into the blockaded area — a requirement that Israel has fulfilled at a massive scale.
However, the aid that enters into Gaza is typically not transferred to civilians. To the contrary, Hamas, habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take the aid for themselves.
This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times.
Hamas uses stolen aid supplies to fuel its rockets, equip its troops, and sells some of what’s left to civilians as a way of raising funds for its war effort. Indeed, many of the resources Hamas used on October 7, and in the months since, were taken from aid supplies, including the tunnels where Israeli hostages are currently held, which were built with cement funded by America’s USAID agency.
In effect, Israel has been fighting a war of survival while also funding both sides: a strategy doomed to fail. This kind of national suicide is absolutely not required by international law.
To the contrary, Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV specifically states that a power is not required to allow the passage of humanitarian aid unless it is satisfied that the aid will not be diverted to enemy combatants. Therefore, not only is Israel not required to transfer aid under the present circumstances, but pressuring Israel to do so is, in itself, a war crime.
International law is structured this way for good reason: funding both sides of a conflict only serves to prolong hostilities and thus increase completely avoidable harm to civilian populations on all sides.
In this case, aid to Gaza ends up almost exclusively in the hands of an internationally -designated terror organization that is also an enemy combatant. The international community has had 18 years since the beginning of the blockade in 2007, and 16 months since the October 7 massacre, to find a solution to this particular war crime, yet has both failed and refused to do so. The consequence has been to prolong the current war, the captivity of the Israeli hostages, and also war’s deleterious impact on the lives of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
For the moment, this war crime of compelling Israel to provide aid to enemy combatants, in violation of Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV, has come to an end. This can only result in a quicker defeat of Hamas, and a quicker end to the current war. Such a result will, in turn, provide immeasurable benefits to Israelis, to Palestinians, and to the entire world at large.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login