Israel gets thrown to the lions in latest UN resolution on Palestine

Barbara Amiel on John Baird’s ‘extraordinary’ speech to the UN

by Barbara Amiel

Mohamad Torokman/Reuters

It is a source of great historical anguish, in the United Nations, that the dreaded and odious Israel was formed as a result of a UN resolution. Accordingly it’s necessary to establish that the UN was then under the domination of the U.S., the U.S. under the domination of Harry Truman, and Harry Truman under the domination of American Jews. I wish I had assembled those thoughts but they were William F. Buckley’s in his 1974 book United Nations Journal: A Delegate’s Odyssey, after his year as a U.S. delegate. I would not call Buckley a natural Judeo-phile but he had a strong moral sensibility and saw through cant and hypocrisy.

He would have recognized the farce at the UN last week and approved of the principled position Canada’s government took. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is not really, whatever one’s taste, a classic pin-up. But stay my beating heart. His speech to the UN on the proposal to advance Palestinian status (substituting negotiation with Israel for a love-in with the UN’s non-aligned bloc) began: “Canada opposes this resolution in the strongest terms . . .

I expected thunder and a shaft of light from the heavens. No one in the UN ever opposes anything in “the strongest terms” apart from numbing condemnations of Israel’s brutal, racist ethnic cleansing and occupation, beside which the brutal, racist ethnic cleansing of Africa and murderous wars of the Arab world fall mild as soft summer rains. 

True, Baird’s speech went downhill as he carefully referenced resolution after resolution—181, 194, 242, 338, 1397, 1515, 1850 plus articles—but you know the Canadian way, all the “i’s” dotted. Still, it was extraordinary. There really are politicians who swim against the tide because they think it morally right.

Meanwhile, the CBC was happily announcing that 87 per cent of Canadians opposed Canada’s No vote on the resolution to make the Palestinian Authority a non-member observer state of the UN. “Let us know what you think by Twitter or email,” said Peter Mansbridge, whom I forgive since this must be CBC policy. “Think” is the wrong word to use for 140-character hip-shooting.

Admittance to the UN club is rather like Aeroplan: collect status miles, or in this case, voting blocs to get into the next tier. To win, the Palestinians got the so-called “non-aligned movement” bloc of 120 votes which overlaps with the African Union (54 members) and the Arab League (22 members), all aligned by their dislike of the U.S. and Israel. This was topped up by the European Union bloc who voted for or abstained, apart from the No vote of Czech Republic—not coincidentally the least anti-Semitic country in Hitler’s occupied Europe. The EU vote was largely strategic voting: you’re a wannabe Security Council member? Okay. Vote against Israel and you’ll get the non-aligned movement vote.

One could cavil and say why believe the CBC’s 87 per cent unscientific poll, but I do. Should Kiribati have membership at the UN? Poll Canadians and I’ll bet 87 per cent say “yes,” not knowing it’s had membership since 1999 and is about to become the first state with “submerged” status (its islands are going underwater due to the rising Pacific Ocean). This does make one wonder if Kiribati, population 104,000 and swimming, should have the same clout as Canada? And is it fair that Taiwan, population 23 million, which according to The Economist overtook Japan in GDP per capita in 2010, got heaved from the UN in 1971 at the behest of the Chinese Communists and is reduced to trying to enter UN organizations as a “fishing entity”? That 87 per cent doesn’t represent informed public opinion so much as vagaries blowin’ in the wind.

What’s blowing is a distinct lack of sympathy for the world’s only Jewish state inconveniently situated amidst a witches’ brew of Arab states: Syria (Iran’s proxy), Lebanon (home of the terrorist Hezbollah organization), Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood) and Palestine, divided between rule by terrorist group Hamas and “President” Mahmoud Abbas, whose actual term as president ran out in 2009. He is also known as Abu Mazen, PLO supporter of the Munich Olympics massacre and schooled in the Soviet Union’s Peoples’ Friendship University where his thesis was “The connection between the Nazis and the leaders of the Zionist movement.” Well, we all get heady when young. It’s a toss-up which Arab state dislikes the Palestinians more: Jordan, which expelled the PLO in 1970 and massacred them; or Egypt, who till recently spent its efforts trying to keep Gaza’s Palestinians out. If Israel disappeared, the Middle East would continue in much the same mess. This requires understanding of the Arab and Islamic world’s divisions, which can be summed up by saying that Sunnis and Shias plus sects such as the Syrian Alawites kill each other and apostates all over the Muslim world with a savagery incomprehensible to the Western mind so Western minds do not focus on it.

Israel can freeze settlements and give back land but unless all adults march into the sea sans lifebelts–perhaps sending their children to become janissaries–nothing will satisfy the Palestinians who steadfastly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. What Abbas did in his UN speech was endorse Resolution 194, which provides for two states but allows the right of return to Israel of Arab “refugees,” a demographic bomb to eliminate a Jewish Israel. Abbas—an uncharismatic figure if ever there was one—couldn’t bring himself to actually say two states for two peoples let alone mention that smelly word “Jewish.” It’s easy enough to endorse a state called Israel, but when your intent is to make it the Islamic Republic of Israel (or possibly the Islamic State of the Children of Abraham, given the unction about Judaism and Islam being descended from Abraham) you enter the UN’s Roman Colosseum and throw Jews to unaligned lions. The outcome is nothing to cheer about, unless you are a jackal, waiting for scraps.




Browse

Israel gets thrown to the lions in latest UN resolution on Palestine

  1. Why is an article that attempts to expose the one-sidedness of the UN vote so decidedly one-sided in it’s blindness to the views of a majority of the very Canadians that Mr. Baird was expected to represent in his role at the UN?

  2. The world and the UN stood against the mad dog and war criminal nutty yahoooo who revels in killing women and children. The crazy baird ranted nonsense leaving canada sound like a barking dog with rabies just before being shot.

    • its interesting that the UN will rant and rave when Israel does something that the UN disagrees with; but when the leader of Hamas recently reiterated death to Israel and all Jews, as this is the only way Palestine can exist, one could only hear the crickets from the UN, not a peep. that is disgusting and requires Canada as a nation to say to the UN screw you, we’re out…

  3. Dear All

    May I respectfully draw your attention to the following please.

    * The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at the following
    URL: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCHA_IsrSettlementPolicies.pdf.

    * The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine (bilaterally recognised by
    132 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia,
    Indonesia, Thailand and Iceland).

    * Palestine is officially a STATE and 138 nations including the most populous (India and China) as well as Russia recognised Palestine.

    * Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the
    ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN
    and EU) with respect to the “separation barrier”. This
    “wall” is 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall.

    * UNESCO’s recognition of Palestine last year was supported by France,
    Spain, Ireland, Belgium. Norway, Greece and other European nations. Please also
    see UNSC Resolution 478 concerning Jerusalem. The 4th Geneva
    Convention is applicable to all the Palestinian Territories.

    * International law and UN Resolutions (over which there are over 150) are
    ignored by Israel.

    Yours sincerely

    Anthony Aloysious

    *** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20
    August 1980 – BINDING

    The Security Council, recalling its resolution 476
    (1980); reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is
    inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in
    the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the
    Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security; noting
    that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its
    determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the
    relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full
    implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by
    Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the
    “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant
    Security Council resolutions;

    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

    *** Resolution 694 (1991) – BINDING

    Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on

    24 May 1991

    The Security Council,

    Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),

    Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in
    violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and
    acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the
    detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the
    Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,

    1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four
    Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,
    which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since
    1967, including Jerusalem;

    2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power,
    refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories
    and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;

    3. Decides to keep the situation under review.

    *** Resolution 672 (1990) – BINDING

    Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on

    12 October 1990

    The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),

    Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli
    conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an
    active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for
    all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political
    rights of the Palestinian people,

    Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General
    relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed
    to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,

    1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the
    Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty
    Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people,
    including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;

    2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli
    security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;

    3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its
    legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention,
    which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

    4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to
    send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a
    report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and
    conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United
    Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.

    24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

    “I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn
    three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli
    government in my statement on 5 April to remove – not legalise – outposts
    across the West Bank”.

    Furthermore, I would like to refer you to specific serious concerns raised by the International Court of Justice (2004) – with relevance to the ‘security barrier’ – which was
    viewed with alarm by the international community. Incidentally the reference to
    the illegality of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was also
    reinforced when the International Court of Justice also found the following
    (indeed the EU supported the UN vote pertaining to the ‘security barrier’):

    * That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the
    restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the
    Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also
    constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that
    taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property
    owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907
    and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    * The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court
    stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that
    international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory,
    along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier
    violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court
    mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of
    privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to
    an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in
    Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social
    and Cultural rights.

    • You cannot occupy something that NEVER existed! There is no Palestine in history. It is a made up name given by the British. Arabs have NEVER been in power in the area of Israel.
      The UN is a mockery.

      • The people who’s families come from that area and have been there for thousands of years (many of which were kicked off their land and forced from their homes when Israel was created) and refer to themselves as Palestinians would highly disagree with your denial of their existence.

        • There is no denying their presence. But there is NO such thing as Palestine within the history of the region until the British named it
          such. You cant deny history. You can revise it….but that doesn’t make it true. Never been in Arab hands…..do your research and prove me wrong….

          • So, you presumably you favour a one-state solution, with all Palestinians in the occupied territories being made full citizens of Israel?

          • Then you agree there is no Israel too.

      • Where did the “State” of Israel come from?

        • It was created by the British.

      • going with that line of thought Israel ceased to exist with the destruction of the tempal by the Romans… and was established by the UN by the US and Great Briton. Peace will never exist unitll we can be objective and hold both parites responsible and acountable for Human right violations… and maybe admit to our own mistakes

      • Sir, Palestine is real, and what is stolen should return back to their owners.

  4. What would be required for Israel to show that they are serious about actually giving back some of the land they have stolen would be to actually give back some of the land they have stolen.

    I constantly wonder what the end game is for Ms. Amiel. Is she with Lieberman who openly proposes to march all the non-Jews into the river Jordan?

    Does she hope that Israel can survive? I do. But an Israel within the 1967 borders, not beyond, because that’s the only Israel that can survive. Greater Israel will ultimately find itself alone with no allies, in a sea of enemies of its own making.

  5. Based on Lady Black of Crossharbour’s well-established track record, I can confidently predict the tone and content of this article without even looking at it. I’m going to read it now to see if I was correct…

    • She’s nothing, if not consistent(ly wrong).

  6. Canada voted with Obama, and has voted with Obama on almost every issue on Israel since he was elected President.

    How can that be wrong? Isn’t Obama always right?

    • Except when he isn’t.

    • Indeed. I think “right” and “far right” are the only choices when it comes to US Presidents.

    • Canada voted in favor of Israel turning a blind eye on Human right violations because Harper likes them.

      • serious, human rights violations by Israel – its amazing they have been as patient as they have. pick up a book and do a bit of reading about human rights violations by Hamas, PLO, and Hezbolla, holy crap are you spaced. if anyone killed our children, shot missiles at our homes, I would be the first in line to kill those Bast****. That’s only what they have done to Israel, to think what they do to their own people.

  7. Lord Byng, Israel within the 1967 borders was attacked by invading Arab countries in 1948, 1956 and 1967. What assurances can you give that it will not happen again? The goal in 1948, 1956 and 1967 was the elimination of Israel. That goal is the same today but more difficult because of more defensible borders. Until thevArabs and Palestinians recognize the right of Jews to a State of their own, what the UN does or the Jew Haters say will have no effect on the facts on the ground. Never again really means never again.

    • The religiously and ideologically conspiring Zionist colonizers (having rejected other lands) began colonizing Palestine with the explicit goal of forcefully driving out
      the existing people to create a racially separate and religiously based “Jewish” State.

      Who dispossessed whom? You are finding fault with those who have been dispossessed of their land and holdings, placed in ‘refugee’/concentration camps, and forced out of the ‘occupied territories’.

      That those being dispossed took up arms against the occupiers should be of no surprise – however, the occupiers brutal reaction via the Irgun and Haganah terrorist activities reflected the blow back from the occupied peoples.

      This war of occupation is not about the Jewish and Arab peoples. This is about an extreme fundamentalist, religious ideology with a manical political objective that used terrorists objects to occupy an land already occupied.

      The world seems to be delving into the history of this war of occupation a little more deeply. It would be preferable if the Zionists decided to negotiate more honestly.

      • negotiate honestly, perhaps when Hamas and other stop firing missiles at Israel, or perhaps when Hamas and Hezbolla accept the fact the Israel exists and recognizes then as a Nation and quits calling for the death of all Jews. Perhaps then they could live next to each other peacefully. Egypt did, Jordan did, and for almost 40 years peace between then has existed. It can be done…

  8. If predictability were a virtue, then Ms Amiel could speak with authority. At least she did not pretend that the last war was between equals like the Calgary Herald editors claimed.

    Nor did she blow the bullshit and hypocrisy fuses like Barbara Yaffe (nationally syndicated columnist with PostMedia) did with this stinker

    And so, there indeed are two sides to this, as to nearly all, stories. It’s just that the Israeli one is being ignored.

    Counterpoint: Bibi and His Three Stooges

  9. I don’t understand what is the point you are trying to make?!!!

    If someone came to your house claimed he is the owner and kicked you out on the street with just your cloth own, what is your reaction? he took your car, your money, your job and killed family member and then said that you are the aggressor and he is the victim . I can’t believe that some people for political or religion believes will dismiss any common sense.

  10. How low can Canada fall on the international scene? What a great company we are in – Palau,
    Nauru, wow.

    Mrs. Amiel is blaming
    the whole world that they are so stupid and they do not understand Israel.

    Whole world voted for Palestine, because everybody had
    enough of this brutal occupation.

    It is all about the land, the land and nothing else. No spin
    by Mrs. Amiel or any other organization is going to change the fact that
    Israel is an occupier, and Palestinians are victims of this occupation.

    What did Palestinians gained from the time of the Oslo
    Accord. Nothing, only loss of land, oppression and humiliation.

    Israel is taking more and more land from the West Bank,
    negotiates more, takes more land and so on.

    Israel will never give anything back, until is forced to do
    that. The only chance was when Rabin was trying to negotiate in a good faith.
    He got a bullet from Yigal Amir, who openly stated that he acted on the basis
    of the edict issued by 5 rabbis who sanctioned his action (din(m) rodef).

    This is the pinnacle of the travesty on the part of Mrs.
    Amiel. Her article is as worth as much
    as the former export material from Nauru.

    Israel is an occupier stealing Palestinian land, and should
    be seen as such, not as a victim.

    Next step – International Court of Justice.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *