UNESCO Must Choose - "Palestine" Or The World

[Published 17 February 2012]


The Obama administration formally announced its intention this week to ask Congress to waive a ban on American funding of 22% of UNESCO’s budget following UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as its 195th member state on 31 October 2011.

The announcement did not come in a White House press release from President Obama.

Rather it was surreptitiously tucked away in an innocuous footnote to the budget that the White House presented to Congress - which contained the following statement:

“The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO,”

The State Department has squirreled away nearly $79 million into its 2013 budget in the hope that Congress will grant a legal waiver allowing such American funding to UNESCO to be restored.

That this is a forlorn hope was signalled by Rep.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen - the Chairperson of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee - who stated:

“Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make,”

American funding of UNESCO was cut off automatically under U.S. legislation dating back to the 1990s, which mandated the spending freeze for any UN agency granting full membership to Palestine before the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This law recognized that any such unilateral decisions would work against - rather than assist - any such agreement ever being concluded.

This loss of American funding will result in a black hole of $260 million in UNESCO’s budget to 2013.

UNESCO’s Director General - Ms Irina Bokova - has already signalled she is looking at achieving an overall cut of 29% in UNESCO programs for 2012 -2013 - which will adversely impact on UNESCO’s proposed global programs for the benefit of scores of millions of people over the next two years

Ms Bokova intends to reveal where she will be making her proposed cuts at the next meeting of UNESCO’s Executive Board commencing on 27 February.

Desperate to replace this lost American funding Ms Bokova has been accepting “donations” from some countries such as Turkey, Gabon and Timor Leste - which are conditional on being spent in those countries or neighbouring States - irrespective of where they rank in UNESCO’s scheme of priorities.

This will lead to even greater curtailment or abandonment of other programs - as UNESCO’s decision making power is subordinated to the demands of these individual states.

The US State Department needs to rethink its view that only an explicit waiver of the law can now free up American funding to avert the humanitarian crisis staring UNESCO in the face.

There is an alternative option that has been with UNESCO for almost three months - an alternative which UNESCO has refused to even discuss.

It involves UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the following two legal issues relating to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO in breach of UNESCO’s own constitution:

1. What are the requirements that qualify an applicant to be admitted as a member state of UNESCO under its Constitution and were these requirements satisfied in the case of “Palestine”?

2. What were the number of votes required under the Constitution to admit “Palestine” as a member state of UNESCO?

The cost to UNESCO of having these issues determined by the International Court would be $100000 in my estimate.

UNESCO’s continuing refusal to even discuss the merits of the legal arguments advanced in questioning the legality of its decision to admit Palestine - indicates that UNESCO has no answer to the detailed submission given to it.

Even if UNESCO sought to rebut that submission - then there still is a need for those two competing viewpoints to be judicially resolved.

In failing to approach the Court - UNESCO is clearly signalling that it is more interested in protecting its decision on “Palestine” from judicial review - rather than finding a possible legal way out of such decision - thus enabling it to regain the lost American funding and so allow its existing global programs to be maintained.

Continuing to play a narrow political game at the expense of a vast all-embracing global humanitarian game can only have serious repercussions for UNESCO’s continued existence and relevance in the future.

If UNESCO is so confident of its legal position then spending $100000 to have that opinion set in stone will be money well spent and will result in the Court clarifying and defining the meaning of the Constitution when future applications for membership are made.

Ironically it is not a waiver of the law that the State Department should be futilely spending its time and effort trying to achieve. Rather it should be whispering in UNESCO’s ear the virtues of subjecting its decision to the law to try and get a favorable ruling that would immediately release the withheld American funds.

That of course would mean the demise of Palestine’s membership of UNESCO. Would that be so bad - if in fact it was found to have been granted in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution?

UNESCO is apparently not yet ready to face up to such a prospect. Until it does - people around the world will continue to suffer.

Palestine - An Arab West Bank Is A Lost Cause

[Published 10 June 2011]


The 44th Anniversary of the Six Day War occurred this week on 5 June 1967.

It is therefore opportune to recall some of the significant events that led to Jordan’s loss of the West Bank in that War ending 19 years of uninterrupted occupation - and to understand why all of the West Bank - or its equivalent area - will never again return to Arab control.

I am indebted to the Six Day War Comprehensive Timeline for much of the material that follows. This website should be required reading for all who wish to understand why international pressure to return all of the West Bank to the Arabs must fail.

Jordan’s path down the road to its disastrous loss of the West Bank began on 30 May 1967 - 6 days before the start of the Six Day War. This was the fatal day that Jordan signed a five year mutual defence treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian General.

Jordan’s King Hussein had been caught up in the Arab euphoria and vitriol emanating from Egypt’s President Nasser who had declared on 28 May 1967:

“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948”.

Such was the mood of Jordan’s population that Jordan’s Army Commander-in-Chief General Sharif Zaid Ben Shaker warned in a press conference that :

“If Jordan does not join the war a civil war will erupt in Jordan”.

The West Bank had been unified with Transjordan in 1950 and the country renamed Jordan after unanimous ratification by a Parliament comprised equally of representatives from the West Bank and Transjordan. No demand was made in the next 17 years for the creation of a separate Palestinian Arab State - even though all the Jews living there had been driven out by six invading Arab armies in 1948.

On 31 May 1967 President Aref of Iraq declared:

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map”

Al Akhbar - Cairo’s daily newspaper correctly summed up Jordan’s involvement on the same day:

“Under the terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, coordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two at Qalqilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only 12 kilometres wide”.

What was true in 1967 remains as valid in 2011. Israel’s vulnerable waistline of only 12 kilometers would return again with all of the West Bank under Arab control.

On 5 June Israel made its pre-emptive strike against Egypt. That same morning, Israel sent a message to Jordan’s leader King Hussein via the US State Department, the UN and the British Foreign Office, saying that, despite the outbreak of war, it would not attack the West Bank if Jordan maintained quiet on that front.

Jordan ignored Israel’s appeal to avoid conflict and launched immediate multiple attacks on Israel:

1. civilian suburbs of Tel-Aviv were shelled by artillery;
2. Israel’s largest military airfield, Ramat David, was shelled;
3. Jordanian warplanes attacked the central Israeli towns of Netanya and Kfar Sava;
4. thousands of mortar shells rained down on West Jerusalem hitting civilian locations indiscriminately, including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church;
5. Israel’s parliament building (the Knesset) and the Prime Minister’s office, each in Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem, were targeted;
6. 20 Israelis died in these attacks; 1000 were wounded. 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged.

All this happened before Israel reacted militarily against Jordan, or moved at all into the West Bank.

The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242 on 22 November 1967 recognizing that secure and recognized boundaries needed to be drawn between Israel and its neighbours to ensure the Arabs would not be tempted to again try and cut Israel in two in the future as the first step in any attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

Egypt and Jordan eventually came to realise the folly of their action. Both entered into peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994 respectively. Syria refused to join them. But the current upheaval in Egypt, Jordan and Syria now put the continued operation of these two treaties at real risk.

Jordan withdrew all its claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1988. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was created in 1993 as a result of the Oslo Accords - stepping into the void left by Jordan.

The PA has since then sought to undo the 1950 reunification and substitute the creation of a Palestinian Arab State in all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza for the first time in recorded history

The PA is now threatening to approach the United Nations in September to achieve this outcome. The UN’S abject surrender to an Egyptian diktat was the catalyst that led to the Six Day War.

UN Secretary General U Thant had of his own volition agreed to Nasser’s demand that the United Nations Emergency Force be withdrawn on 18 May 1967 - just seven hours after Egyptian ambassador Kony had informed U Thant:

“Egypt has decided to terminate the presence of the United Nations Emergency Force from the territory of the United Arab Republic and Gaza Strip. Therefore I request that the necessary steps be taken for the withdrawal of the Force as soon as possible.”

Britain made its position very clear when its Foreign Secretary George Brown stated:

“UNEF was established with the full concurrence of the United Nations…any decision to withdraw the force should be taken in the United Nations after full consultation with all the countries involved – it should not be taken as the result of some unilateral decision.”

It is unthinkable and immoral that Jordan’s heinous conduct should be rewarded by the United Nations now ignoring Security Council Resolution 242 and returning Israel to the vulnerable 1967 armistice lines.

That the UN might seek to do so in clear contravention of its own resolution and international law - specifically the Montevideo Convention 1933 - would certainly not surprise. Treachery knows no bounds when it comes to double standards by the UN in dealing with Israel.

Jordan paid a high price for joining in an alliance with Egypt and Syria - the loss of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Those pre-June 1967 halcyon days are not going to return in 2011 - either for Jordan or the PA.

More on Jordan Really Was Palestine

[Published 20 March 2014]

My right word

Yisrael Medad


In previous posts (here; and also here), I noted that actually the United States opposed Jordan's independnce and acceptance into the UN when first proposed by Great Britain.

One main reason, central to understanduing the concept of the Mandate for Palestine's territorial conceptualization, is that TransJordan was part of "Palestine" and due to the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, Jordan couldn't not exist without having a resolution nof the Jewish national home which was intertwined.

I found now new material from this book

which contains this article:

with further details to my previous posts (and another one) on the opposition to the independence recogntition of Jordan based on the 1924 Anglo-American Convention that confirmed the original status of TransJordan as territory within the Mandate of Palestine area and which was to be part of the historic Jewish homeland.

As argued, until Israel was created, Jordan could not be considered a state.

The information of the political battle behind the scenes:

And there's something here

Letter, dated July 15, 1946, from Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson to President Harry S. Truman, recommending that the United States vote in favor of admitting Trans-Jordan into the United Nations, and an attached memo detailing the United States State Department's position on the question of admitting Trans-Jordan to the United Nations. From the Confidential File.

Palestine - Jordan Gets Jittery Again

[Published 3 March 2014]

Jordan has become increasingly jittery after US Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework agreement for peace missed meeting the second deadline for its release on 21 February - having initially been promised by the end of January.

Now US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has let slip at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Board of Governors in Jerusalem on 24 February that the US hopes to present the framework agreement before the end of April.

Abdullah is now in the identical position he found himself on 11 October 2006 - when he told the Khaleej Times:

“I really think that by the first half of 2007 we might wake up to reality and realise that the two-state solution is no longer attainable. I think we are really running out of time . Physically on the ground and geographically, I think there is less and less of a West Bank and Jerusalem to talk about.”

He then warned:

“We want to go back to the 1967 borders. We are talking about that today. Are we going to talk about that tomorrow though? This is the danger.”

Abdullah recognised then that compromise would inevitably involve Israel retaining part of the West Bank - notwithstanding the PLO demanding it all.

With a negotiated two-state solution likely to fall by the wayside despite Kerry’s desperate efforts to keep it alive - Abdullah is clearly aware that with less of the West Bank to talk about in 2014 than in 2006 - the PLO might attempt to overthrow Abdullah - as it unsuccessfully tried to do in 1970 with Abdullah’s father - King Hussein .

Whilst Abdullah warned this week that “Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine” - the PLO Charter - and history - ominously state otherwise.

Jordan needs a seat at that negotiating table - immediately.

To read the full article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61506

Why the Peace Talks Are Making Jordan Panic

[Published 25 February 2014]

ALGEMEINER - Jerold Auerbach


King Abdullah of Jordan is displaying discernible signs of panic over the future of his kingdom. Dismissing any notion that it might become an “alternative homeland” for Palestinians, he recently declared to high Jordanian officials:

“Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine and nothing but that, not in the past or the future.”

According to Arutz Sheva (February 24), the Jordanian state news agency Petra reported that in a meeting with his parliamentary leaders the king warned of

“talk about the so-called alternative homeland” for Palestinians. “This, God willing, will be the last time we talk about this subject.”

There is, apparently, increasing apprehension in Amman lest Secretary of State Kerry’s proposed framework agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority might implicate Jordan. The king is worried that Jordan would be required to accept even more West Bank Palestinians than it already has (now comprising a majority of the population). He is hopeful that any peace agreement will include the transfer of Palestinians from Jordan to the new Palestinian state.

The first indication of concern was back in 2007 with the revocation of Jordanian citizenship of thousands of Palestinians, who were declared to be “stateless refugees.” (Imagine the international outcry if Israel acted similarly toward its own Palestinian citizens.) Further revealing of their precarious status in the Hashemite kingdom, some 340,000 Palestinians are still confined in Jordanian refugee camps.

The king has reason to be worried lest Jordan might become the State of Palestine. History reveals why. Back in 1920, when the League of Nations Mandate to govern Palestine was bestowed upon Great Britain, it cited “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were granted the right of settlement throughout “Palestine,” comprising the land east and west of the Jordan River.

Great Britain, however, retained the right to “postpone” or “withhold” Jewish settlement east of the Jordan. Two years later, with the creation of Transjordan by the British to reward Prince Abdullah of Arabia for his wartime cooperation, Jewish settlement was restricted to the land – all of it – west of the Jordan. That right has never been rescinded. It includes Hebron no less than Tel Aviv.

So it is that Jordanian Palestinians are already at home, east of the Jordan River, which comprises two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine. Surely the resistance of Hashemite monarchs, backed by Bedouin tribes, should not be permitted by the international community to impede Palestinian statehood within the borders of their own national home according to international law.

You can read the full article here:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/02/25/is-jordan-palestine/

King Abdullah: Jordan is Jordan, and Palestine is Palestine

[Published 24 February 2014]

AUTHOR; ELAD BENARI

Jordan’s King Abdullah II rejected on Sunday the notion that his country was an "alternative homeland" for Palestinian Arabs, the state news agency Petra reports.

“Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine and nothing but that, not the in the past or the future," King Abdullah was quoted as having said in a meeting with the Prime Minister, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the Lower House.

"We know how this issue has been surfacing since 15 years, or even more, where things start in the spring by the same group, who tense the Jordanian society, and by the summer, people feel scared; a thing that makes me reassure them by a speech or a press interview, but this year, unfortunately, the talk about the so-called alternative homeland stated early," he said.

“There are more important issues to focus on, especially with regards to political and economic reform. What we should do is to work as a team until we work out our internal issues," added the King.

"This, God's willing, will be the last time we talk about this subject, and I have said it more than once, but what is required now is everyone's support in this issue," he noted, according to Petra.

There have been many calls on Jordan to accept the so-called “Palestinian refugees”, considering that the areas liberated by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War were under Jordanian control.

The Hashemite Kingdom, however, has rejected these calls.

King Abdullah’s latest remarks come amid growing concern in Jordan over U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposed framework agreement and what will be its effect on Jordan.

Read the full article

Alternative homeland for Palestinians 'illusion': Jordan King

[published 24 February 2014]

AUTHOR: Ibrahim Qobaylat

AMMAN - King Abdullah II of Jordan on Sunday described as "illusion" talk about an "alternative homeland" for the Palestinians.

"Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine and nothing but that, not the in the past or the future," he said during a meeting with a host of officials, including Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour, according to a statement issued by the Jordanian Royal Court.

US-brokered peace talks between the two sides had resumed last July after a three-year hiatus.

Last month, US Secretary of State John Kerry presented both sides with a proposed framework for an eventual peace agreement that addresses "final status issues" – namely, borders, security, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

The proposed framework has raised worries in Jordan about reaching a Palestinian-Israeli deal at the expense of Jordan.

King Abdullah said Jordan is familiar with all the details of the US-sponsored peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.
"We will not accept anything that tampers with the future of our people and our homeland," he said.

Palestinian-Israeli talks hit a snag following the self-proclaimed Jewish state`s recent announcement that it had planned to build a host of new Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian negotiators insist that Israeli settlement construction must stop before a comprehensive final-status agreement can be reached.

Sunday, February 23, 2014
Copyright © 2014 Anadolu Agency

Palestine - Kerry Oblivious To Demise Of Palestinian Authority

[Published 23 February 2014]

US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US State Department continue to cling to the illusion that the Palestinian Authority still exists – despite PLO insistence that it does not following this Decree on 3 January 2013:

Decree No. 1 for the year 2013

On the use of the name of the State of Palestine and its emblem on letterheads, seals and related official documents
President of the State of Palestine

Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization

Based on the Statute of the Palestine Liberation Organization

And after reviewing the Fundamental Law of 2003, as amended

Based on the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations No. GA 11317, deciding to upgrade the status of Palestine to the status of observer state in the United Nations Organization.

Based on the recommendations of the Palestinian Committee in charge of the steps to be taken in this regard, and based on the powers vested in us, and in conformity with the public interest,

We decided the following:

Article (1)
Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads of the Palestinian National Authority official and national institutions shall be amended by replacing the name ‘Palestinian National Authority’ whenever it appears by the name ‘State of Palestine’ and by adopting the emblem of the State of Palestine. The relevant authorities shall be in charge of monitoring the implementation of this Decree, taking into account the requirements of use.

Article (2)
Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads in the embassies of the State of Palestine and its missions abroad shall be amended by keeping the name ‘State of Palestine’ and emblem only and the name of ‘mission’ afterwards. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall be in charge of implementing these amendments. Dealing with States who do not recognize the State of Palestine shall also be taken into consideration.

Article (3)
No amendment shall be made to the name and emblem in official documents, seals, letterheads and signs of the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Article (4)
All competent authorities, each in their respective area, shall implement the provisions of this Decree starting from its date. This Decree shall be notified to those it may concern and shall be published in the Official Gazette.

Mahmoud Abbas
President of the State of Palestine
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization
– Translated from Maan News.

Kerry and the State Department’s inability to appreciate this major change in PLO policy became very apparent following Kerry’s visit to Paris last week to meet “President of the State of Palestine” and “Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO”


The State Department web site described Kerry’s visit in these terms:

“In Paris, Secretary Kerry will meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas to discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in Abu Dhabi – where Kerry was meeting United Arab Emirate officials:
“Secretary Kerry will meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas in Paris, France on Wednesday to discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis,”

Lebanon’s Daily Star – obviously embarrassed to report such Kerry and State Department nonsense – went so far as to deliberately hide Psaki’s reference to the Palestinian Authority:

“State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed the meeting, saying they would “discuss the ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis”.

Wily long time PLO negotiator – Saeb Erekat – was however prepared to let Kerry wander along his path of blissful ignorance with these amazing remarks reported in Xinhua:

“A Palestinian official warned on Monday that the failure of the current Palestinian-Israeli peace talks will lead to the collapse of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
“The failure of negotiations means that things will go back to zero point,” chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erikat told the official Voice of Palestine radio.
“This may lead Israel to reoccupy the Palestinian territories and thus the PNA will collapse,” he said, adding that the PNA will approach the international organizations including the International Criminal Court (ICC) to sue the state of Israel if the talks do not succeed.
It is the first time a Palestinian official warns of a possible collapse of the PNA if the US-backed negotiations fail.”

Marie Harf – Deputy State Department Spokesman – in her daily press briefing on 19 February –still thought Kerry was meeting with the Palestinian Authority Chairman – the party to negotiations with Israel under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap:

“Today, Secretary Kerry is in Paris, where he has had meetings with French Foreign Minister Fabius and Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. Later tonight, he’s scheduled to meet with Palestinian Authority President Abbas.”

Kerry’s Public Schedule maintained the fiction for 20 February:

“2:00 p.m. LOCAL Secretary Kerry meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in Paris, France.”

This picture, this picture and this picture on the State Department website – recording photo-ops with “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas” – clearly indicate that Kerry is unaware that:

1. The Palestinian Authority no longer exists
2. The State of Palestine exists on the soil of Palestine
3. The Palestinian Arabs are no longer stateless or homeless
4. Negotiations under Oslo and the Roadmap have become meaningless

Kerry and the State Department will have a lot of explaining to do if his framework agreement fails to take these crucial PLO changes into account.

“Kerry cops caning” would make an excellent headline.