UN discrimination against Jews traps Unilever and J Street

 

The United Nations (UN) false designation of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem as the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” (OPT) has seen the sorry spectacle this week of:

• A multinational corporation — Unilever PIC (Unilever) — discriminating against the sale of ice cream to Jews who live in those areas by its wholly owned subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s and
• A Jewish organisation — J Street — defending Unilever’s decision.

The term “Occupied Palestinian Territories” ignores the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that saw every Jew living in those territories prior to 1948 being:

• driven out and expelled from their homes and businesses by the invading army of Transjordan and
• prevented from returning to resume life there until the conclusion of the Six Day War in 1967.

Moreover this loaded anti-Jewish term papers over the destruction, damage and vandalizing of Jewish synagogues, cemeteries and properties during the 19 years those areas remained Judenrein.

Had the UN any intellectual honesty in presenting a fair and balanced account of what happened between 1948 and 1967 — it would be calling these territories the “Re-occupied Disputed Territories”. Its continuing failure to do so indicates the disturbing anti-Jewish bias that permeates the United Nations and its agencies.

Ben & Jerry’s’ press release headlined “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (below) has clearly influenced Unilever’s decision to justify its policy of discriminating against Jews living there — whilst being more than happy to continue selling its ice cream to those Jew-haters who:

• Forcibly evicted and expelled all the Jews living there between 1948 and 1967
• Murder and maim Jews living there now on an ongoing basis and are financially rewarded for doing so.

Strange values indeed for a multinational organisation to embrace — values that are leading Unilever into growing commercial challenges internationally by those decent enough to not share Unilever’s perverse values.

Even more disturbing and reprehensible is this J Street defence of Unilever’s anti-Jewish discrimination policy:

J Street gets it very wrong in relying on false and misleading decades-old UN propaganda when making the following claims:

• The battleground is not the “Israeli-Palestinian debate” — it is the “Jewish-Arab conflict” - begun 100 years ago with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Treaty of Sevres and still unresolved - when there were no “Israelis” or “Palestinians” — only “Arabs” and “Jews”.
• The “Palestinian people” was not defined until 1964 — a racist and apartheid Arabs-only definition that excludes all non-Arabs and Jews who lived in Palestine after 1917.
• The “rights and freedom of the Palestinian People” specifically excluded any claim by its sole spokesman — the Palestine Liberation Organisation - to sovereignty in “the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” - or the right to establish a separate State there — in addition to Jordan — which occupies 78% of former Palestine.
• “Illegal settlements” are “legal” under article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Words do count.

J Street’s readiness to defend Unilever’s decision is appalling. No self-respecting Jewish organisation espousing “our Jewish values” should ever defend decisions discriminating against Jews.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN — Yehuda Blum – confronted the UN General Assembly and trashed its treatment of the Jewish-Arab conflict on November 16, 1978:

“The history of international conflicts, and particularly those with complex historical origins, can only be properly written by objective historians who enjoy complete academic freedom. The practice of writing and rewriting history according to the transient interests of a political body is of course characteristic of certain regimes. It is regrettable that the United Nations has now been drawn into that pattern.”

Unilever and J Street have seemingly swallowed the UN’s pernicious rewriting of history to justify discrimination against Jews because of where they live.

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.

Trump seems set to see Netanyahu as Israel’s next Prime Minister

[Published 11 September 2019]

President Trump seems set to see Bibi Netanyahu re-elected as Israel’s next Prime Minister in the upcoming elections to be held on 17 September — the second this year following an indecisive vote in April that left no-one able to form Government.

Early voting by eligible Israeli diplomats and emissaries around the world has seen a drop in their turnout from 76% in April to 69% in September.

If general voters follow the diplomats’ lead next week:

1. The voter turnout of 67.97% in April 2019 will be further reduced.

2. Netanyahu’s Likud party will increase its proportion of the vote — 26.46% in April 2019 — up from 23.4% in 2015 — to an even higher figure.

Likud increased its numbers from 985408 in 2015 to 1140370 in April 2019 — whilst Yisrael Beiteinu’s numbers decreased from 214906 in 2015 to 173004 in April 2019. Blue and White contested the April elections for the first time.

Likud voters, buoyed by the post-April statements detailed in 1, 2 and 3 below, will most likely vote again, whilst Blue and White and Yisrael Beiteinu voters, unhappy with their leaders’ post-April statements detailed in 4 and 5 below, are more likely to stay home.

Any increase in general voter turnout this time beyond 67.97% would defy the diplomatic downturn, but should still see parties on the Right securing more of those new votes than parties on the Left.

Statements made since April by Trump’s Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, President Trump himself, Likud’s Netanyahu, Yisrael Beiteinu’s Lieberman and Blue and White’s Gantz support this conclusion.

1. Ambassador Friedman indicated that some degree of annexation of the West Bank would be legitimate.

“Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank,”

2. More new voters — conscious of their own families’ personal safety — would vote Right — than those opposing any annexation — who would vote Left.

3. Trump endorsed Netanyahu as a ”a great guy”

4. Netanyahu, speaking in Elkana, located in Samaria, pledged:

“With God’s help we will extend Jewish sovereignty to all the settlements as part of the (biblical) Land of Israel, as part of the State of Israel. “This is our land…“We will build another Elkana and another Elkana and another Elkana. We will not uproot anyone here,”

In a first-ever public address from Hebron by a sitting Israeli prime minister - Netanyahu vowed:

”To cite the late Menachem Begin and the late Yigal Allon: ‘Hebron will not be devoid of Jews.’ It will not be Judenrein [ed: Jew free]. And I say on the 90th anniversary of the disturbances [ed: when 67 Jews were murdered] — we are not foreigners in Hebron, we will stay here forever.”

These patriotic declarations should attract more Right-supportive than Left-opposing new voters.

5. Lieberman promised to amend the law to make ultra-orthodox youths do compulsory military training.

United Torah Judaism MK Yakov Asher has declared this the best possible get-out-the-vote campaign the ultra-Orthodox parties could wish for.

New ultra-orthodox voters turning out to spare children in their ultra-orthodox community undertaking this military obligation would likely exceed new secular voters who think this is a reform long overdue.

6. Trump’s judgment has been challenged by Gantz stating he would have admitted US Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib into Israel.

Gantz’s decision would not resonate with a majority of new voters — who would consider any disagreement with Trump could jeopardize Trump’s amazing support of Israel during his Presidency.

Trump and Netanyahu appear destined to continue their very special relationship after the votes have been counted.

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. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Palestine - Hands Up Those Who Hate Jews

[Published 5 December 2012]


The Jew-hating genie has been spectacularly unleashed onto the world stage once again following the decision by 138 of the 193 member states of the United Nations General Assembly to accord non-member observer State status to the non-existent state of Palestine.

That vote also ominously endorsed another paragraph contained in the Resolution reaffirming

” the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;”

Such majority consensus supporting the view that all of this territory - not just some part of it - should comprise the State of Palestine - is destined to cause untold suffering among Jews, Arabs and other States caught up in the ensuing turmoil and conflict that is set to follow the passing of this insidious resolution - unless it is quickly reversed.

There are several reasons to justify this gloomy prediction.

Firstly - these 138 States were effectively signing the eviction notices for 600000 Jews who have been legally living in these areas for up to 40 years pursuant to the rights conferred on the Jewish People under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Jews had been living in these same areas for many decades and in some cases centuries until they were driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

Jews had returned there to settle after the Six Day War in 1967 - ending 19 years of uninterrupted occupation by Jordan and Egypt.

8000 Jews moved or were forcibly removed from Gaza in 2005 in a fruitless effort to advance the peace process.

Now all Jews in these territories will once again have to voluntarily pack up and get out or be forcibly removed by the Government of Palestine.

Palestinian President and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has made this “Judenrein” (Jew-free) objective and its successful implementation very clear - telling reporters in Ramallah on 25 December 2010:

“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,”

Supporting the current Resolution without seeking a specific retraction has effectively given Abbas the green light to pursue his racist policy.

Secondly - there is no mention in the Resolution of the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self- determination and independence in their own State - and for good reason - since President Abbas is not prepared to countenance a Jewish State alongside the State of Palestine.

He has made this position manifestly clear on many occasions.

On 1 December 2007 he declared:

“Historically there are two states, Israel and Palestine. Israel is inhabited by Jews and others. We are willing to recognize that and nothing else.”

His view was supported by his Prime Minister - Salam Fayad - who said in an interview at the time with Al-Arabiya TV, that:

“Israel can call itself whatever it wants, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state.”

On 28 August 2011 during a speech to Islamic clerics in Ramallah Abbas defiantly stated:

“The international community cannot force us to recognize the nature of the Israeli state. Do not force us to recognize a Jewish state. We will not accept it.”

His statement provoked Israel’s Foreign Minister Liebermann to declare:

“Countries around the world must make it clear to Abbas that the only way the Palestinians will be able to have a state is by stopping their attempt to destroy the only Jewish state in the world,”

Those countries around the world had their opportunity force Abbas to recognise the Jewish State before casting their votes - yet failed to do so.

Thirdly - this infamous Resolution negates the decision of the very same General Assembly in 1947 recommending the creation of one Arab State and one Jewish State in Palestine.

Indeed the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish State has been one of the principal stumbling blocks to the successful conclusion of negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

The majority vote has - deliberately or unwittingly - given oxygen to those who continue to deny the right of the Jews to have their own State - 65 years after the United Nations had first recommended it.

Fourthly - this Resolution makes a mockery of the United Nations Charter which aims:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

How any member State can believe these objectives can be advanced by supporting a resolution that will result in:

1. Jews being denied any right to live in the State of Palestine as equal citizens in that State and

2.The Jewish People being denied the right to independence and self-determination in their own State alongside the State of Palestine

- is totally beyond comprehension.

The passing of this Resolution is bound to set in train acts of aggression and breaches of the peace as the State of Palestine and its supporters - armed with the text of this Resolution - flex their collective muscles to undo decisions and actions undertaken pursuant to:

1. the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920,

2. the Mandate for Palestine in 1922,

3. The granting of independence to Transjordan by Great Britain in 1946

4. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter

5. The United Nations decision to partition Palestine in 1947

6. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

7. The Oslo Accords1993

8. The Bush Road Map 2004

Abbas says he now wants to resume negotiations with Israel after his unilateral and ill-advised foray into the United Nations.

What is there to negotiate about but the terms on which those 600000 Jews must leave the State of Palestine and their possible relocation to a State where the Jewish people has no right to independence and self determination.

That is the political and diplomatic nightmare that 138 countries have foisted on the world.

Hopefully those 55 nations that failed to swallow this poisoned pill will take steps to have the General Assembly negate this Resolution - as happened when a Resolution equating Zionism with Racism was rescinded.

The sooner this latest Resolution endorsing policies of hatred against Jews is reversed - the better.