UNGA action must now replace divisive Russia-Ukraine talkfest

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has given credence to the oft-used statement that “Truth is always the first casualty of war”.

Addressing the media after the UN General Assembly (UNGA) had resolved by 141 votes to 5 to demand that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally” withdraw its military forces from Ukraine - Guterres stated:

“The General Assembly has spoken.  

As Secretary-General, it is my duty to stand by this resolution and be guided by its call.

The message of the General Assembly is loud and clear:

End hostilities in Ukraine — now.

Silence the guns — now.

Open the door to dialogue and diplomacy — now.

The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine must be respected in line with the UN Charter.

We don’t have a moment to lose.  

The brutal effects of the conflict are plain to see.

But as bad as the situation is for the people in Ukraine right now, it threatens to get much, much worse.

The ticking clock is a time bomb ... 

... Today’s resolution reflects a central truth.  

The world wants an end to the tremendous human suffering in Ukraine.  

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson supported Guterres with this equally-misleading fatuous statement:

“Rarely has the contrast between right and wrong been so stark, 141 countries voted to condemn Putin.”

The General Assembly’s message was not that loud and clear - or as stark – as a closer analysis of the recorded votes reveals (See diagram): 

Notably:

• The world’s two most populated countries – China and India – representing 36.1% of the world’s population - abstained from voting. 
• 12 countries failed to vote.
• 35 countries abstained from voting.
• Those 47 countries abstaining or not voting represent 54.72% of the world’s population and 24.35% of the 193 member states in the United Nations.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. - Linda Thomas-Greenfield - said before the vote:

“We believe this is a simple vote, Vote yes if you believe U.N. member states, including your own, have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. Vote yes if you believe Russia should be held to account for his [Putin’s] actions. Vote yes if you believe in upholding the U.N. Charter and everything this institution stands for.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s message obviously failed to resonate with those 47 abstaining or non-voting countries. 

Despite this embarrassingly-divisive vote – the UNGA can still act to protect and uphold the principles of the UN Charter by utilising that 141-5 majority to humiliate and isolate Russia whilst simultaneously supporting Ukraine in its struggle to regain its territorial sovereignty and independence.

That majority vote – if repeated – could see a range of UNGA bodies immediately established and funded by all 193 member States - including:

• A Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People:

To institute a programme that will enable the Ukrainian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty without external interference; to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced.

• A United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency: To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees.
• A Special Rapporteur to assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly and work with governments and civil society to foster international cooperation.
• A Special Committee to investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories
• A United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict to report quarterly to the Secretary General, the General Assembly and the Security Council

The UN General Assembly and its Secretary-General now need to stop talking and start acting – or see their relevance and credibility sink from sight.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

---

Britain backs Jordan and Israel to end the Arab-Jewish conflict

[Published 7 November 2017]


Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October — ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November — the Foreign Secretary stated:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.”

The Royal Commission had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

”... to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented;”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties— the “Arabs” and the “Jews” — not three.

The “two-state solution” - one Jewish, one Arab — first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) — had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate — one Jewish, one Arab —remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews — concluding that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established - the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Transjordan — renamed Jordan in 1950 - comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” is shown on this map:

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition - but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:

1. the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

2. Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naive and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate - currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine - need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue.

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 — Jordan and Israel — still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.

Palestine: Netanyahu sends clear message to Trump, Putin, May and UN

[Published 16 March 2017]


Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has had a busy week meeting with UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson in Jerusalem, President Vladimir Putin in Moscow and then back to Jerusalem for a five hour meeting with President Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations — Jason Greenblatt.

The framework for these meetings was set by Netanyahu — who told Johnson:

“It’s evident that we agree on most things, but not on all things. And one of the things, I think the source of it when you analyze a problem, get to its roots and reason that we haven’t had peace for a hundred years is not the settlements, but the persistent refusal to recognize a nation-state for the Jewish people in any boundary. I think if you want to solve a problem, go to the core of the problem, and that is something I look forward to discussing with you further.”

Netanyahu’s claim is substantiated by the following facts:

1.Settlements were not the problem when the first two-state solution was proposed by article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

That solution - which envisaged allocating the Arabs 78% of Mandatory Palestine [Transjordan] and the Jews the remaining 22% - was rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

Iran - one of the 51 States then unanimously endorsing the Jewish people’s legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine — now seeks to destroy the Jewish State in 2017.

2. Settlements were not the problem in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended partition of the territory of the Mandate into one Jewish State and one Arab State —again rejected by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews.

3. Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until Great Britain granted it independence on 22 March 1946. 78% of the Mandate territory was thus irrevocably transformed into an exclusive Arabs-only State contrary to article 5 of the Mandate.

4. The United Nations recommendation to partition the remaining 22 % of the Mandate territory into one Arab State and one Jewish State in November 1947 was again rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Jews — culminating in Western Palestine being invaded in May 1948 by six Arab armies and the forcible eviction of all Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

5. Settlements were not the problem between 1948 and 1967 when another Arab State could have been created with the stroke of an Arab League pen in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza whilst not one Jew lived there.

6. Offers by Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008 to another Arab State being created in Gaza and the West Bank were rejected by the Arabs.

7. In December 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334 declared that the Jewish Quarter and Kotel in East Jerusalem, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem were “occupied Palestinian territory”.

UK and Russia shamefully failed to veto this Resolution.

8. Gaza is ruled by Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization governs Areas A and B of the West Bank. Both have held onto power without holding elections since 2006. Both refuse to recognize a Jewish nation-state in any boundaries.

Johnson told Netanyahu:
“I first visited [Israel] when I was — as I never tire of telling you — when I was 18.”

Netanyahu should never tire of telling world leaders that the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict will not be resolved until the Arabs recognise the right of the Jewish people to their own independent State.