UN General Assembly Majority Greenlight Russia’s Rape of Ukraine

 

The UN General Assembly completely lost its moral compass when it voted on April 7th for Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council - with only 93 of its 193 member Nations voting to do so. The voting records (see images below) show that within the space of just 14 days:

• 47 Nations - voting on March 24th (the first resolution) to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - failed to vote to boot Russia from the Human Rights Council on 7 April (the second resolution) 

Those 47 Nations had embraced the first resolution’s principled position:

“Recognizing that the military offensive of the Russian Federation inside the sovereign territory of Ukraine and its humanitarian consequences are on a scale that the international community has not seen in Europe in decades, Reiterating the call of the Secretary-General to the Russian Federation to stop its military offensive, as well as his call to establish a ceasefire and to return to the path of dialogue and negotiations, Recalling its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders”

14 days later these 47 Nations were unable to follow through and administer even the mildest of rebukes on Russia for blatantly ignoring this clarion call.

• 5 Nations supporting Russia in opposing the first resolution had increased to 24 after voting on the second resolution.
• 38 fence-sitting Nations abstaining on the first resolution had seen their numbers jump to 58 after voting on the second resolution.
• 10 Nations who refused to vote at all on the first resolution saw their numbers increase to 18 after voting on the second resolution

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his bloated massive bureaucracy attempted to cover up this shameful day of infamy in the UN’s history. The UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases deceptively reported:

“The Assembly adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 24 against, with 58 abstentions, signaling [sic] the international community’s strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions towards a neighbouring State.”

“Strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions?” : When only 93 of the 193 member states voted to do so? 

UN News published an even more misleading report:

“The resolution received a two-thirds majority of those voting, minus abstentions, in the 193-member Assembly, with 93 nations voting in favour and 24 against.   Fifty-eight abstained from the process.  Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, were among those who voted against.  Those abstaining, included India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.” 

Who in the UN Secretariat decided to:

• Name and shame just 7 nations that voted against Russia’s removal - but failed to name the other 17?
• Out 17 nations that abstained - but not the other 41 nations that joined them?
• Not name any of the 18 nations that failed to vote or abstain: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, San-Tomé-Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zambia?
• Not point out that 6 of the 15-member UN Human Rights Council -Bolivia, China, Cuba, Malawi, Russia, and Uzbekistan - voted against Russia’s suspension -whilst another 4 - Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan and Senegal- - abstained?

No amount of window dressing by Guterres and his Secretariat can alter the fact that 100 of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly have depressingly voted to greenlight Russia’s continuing invasion and rape of Ukraine. 

The General Assembly is disunited, fractured and irrelevant - having totally capitulated on trying to end the murder, suffering and dispersion of Ukraine’s civilian population. 

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.

Guterres dawdles as Russia-Ukraine war impacts other UN members

 

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ continuing failure to take any concrete action to help end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has now seen that conflict threatening to seriously impact many of the other 191 member States of the UN. 

Guterres himself has warned of the problems faced by those member States: 

“This war goes far beyond Ukraine. It is also an assault on the world’s most vulnerable people and countries. While war rains over Ukraine, a sword of Damocles hangs over the global economy – especially in the developing world. Even before the conflict, developing countries were struggling to recover from the pandemic – with record inflation, rising interest rates and looming debt burdens.  Their ability to respond has been erased by exponential increases in the cost of financing. Now their breadbasket is being bombed.  Russia and Ukraine represent more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and about 30 percent of the world’s wheat. Ukraine alone provides more than half of the World Food Programme’s wheat supply. Food, fuel and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing.  Supply chains are being disrupted.  And the costs and delays of transportation of imported goods – when available – are at record levels. All of this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe. Grain prices have already exceeded those at the start of the Arab Spring and the food riots of 2007-2008. The FAO’s [UN Food and Agriculture Organization] global food prices index is at its highest level ever. Forty-five African and least developed countries import at least one-third of their wheat from Ukraine [or] Russia – 18 of those countries import at least 50 percent. This includes countries like Burkina Faso, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. We must do everything possible to avert a hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system.”

Guterres’ pathetic response involves:

1. Establishing a Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy and Finance in the UN Secretariat – more bureaucracy – and 
2. Allocating $40 million from the Central Emergency Response Fund to ramp up vital assistance to reach the most vulnerable as the UN waits for these nations to come begging. 

The UNGA has the power to end the conflict under UNGA Resolution 377 (V) A (1) dated 3 November 1950 – the “Uniting for Peace Resolution” - which provides: 

“That if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security...” 

Use of armed force would be a last resort.  

Calling for a ceasefire or diplomatic negotiations is totally inadequate. 

Resolution 377 (V) also established a Peace Observation Commission of 14 member States - that could have been replicated  - to personally observe and report on the situation in Ukraine and pressure Russia to withdraw. 

Why hasn’t Guterres already activated such a Commission? Alleviating distress and hardship in the aftermath of conflict – rather than acting to prevent or end conflict occurring – is an abdication of the UNGA’s primary responsibility under the UN Charter.

 Guterres’ continuing inaction to try and end the Russia-Ukraine conflict is surely sowing the seeds of the UN’s and his own demise. 

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.

UNGA & Guterres fiddle while Ukraine & the UN Charter burn

 

It is incomprehensible that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has held its Fifth Consultation on Our Common Agenda (Fifth Consultation) on March 10 at the same time as 2.597 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee their country which is being reduced to rubble following Russia's invasion on 24 February.  Our Common Agenda is an 85 page Report prepared by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in 2021 following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations when:

"Member States agreed that our challenges are interconnected, across borders and all other divides. These challenges can only be addressed by an equally interconnected response, through reinvigorated multilateralism and the United Nations at the centre of our efforts. Member States asked me to report back with recommendations to advance our common agenda. This report is my response."

This utopian talkfest discussing Guterres' personal ego trip into fantasyland should have been postponed – using the precious time gained to formulate and recommend concrete action that can be taken by the UNGA against Russia's invasion of Ukraine - which mandates the UNGA:

"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"

The UNGA and its Secretary-General are living in a dream world - whilst the real world is drifting dangerously towards World War III as US President Joe Biden warned on 12 March. In the midst of this worst turmoil in Europe since World War II – Guterres had the temerity to tell the Fifth Consultation:

"A multi-faceted war is raging in the heart of Europe, in violation of the United Nations Charter.  We need a serious effort to improve global governance, manage risks and safeguard the global commons and global public goods.   This is not only about the United Nations, or any other institution.   

Our Common Agenda

It is about working together to solve our biggest problems, through existing structures if they are fit for purpose, and new or reinvigorated frameworks where needed.   Failure to do so increases the likelihood that our children, or their children, are forced to rebuild the international order in the aftermath of catastrophe.   I have therefore asked my High-Level Advisory Board on Global Public Goods to provide us with concrete recommendations for improved global governance."

In Our Common Agenda – the Secretary-General had issued a call to identify and review the governance of global public goods (GPGs) and the global commons (GCs). Guterres announced the formation of a High-Level Advisory Board (HLAB) to develop an independent report in support of this objective. The report would reflect substantive research into GPGs and GC's ahead of the 2023 Summit of the Future.  GPGs are goods whose benefits cross borders and are global in scope. For example, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that will slow global warming.  GCs describe international, supranational, and global resource domains in which common-pool resources are found - the earth's shared natural resources, such as the high oceans, the atmosphere and outer space and the Antarctic. 

The UNGA and Secretary-General Guterres have their heads and feet in the clouds pursuing Nirvana – whilst Ukraine goes up in smoke before their very eyes and they continue to do absolutely nothing to isolate Russia as an international pariah and hold Russia accountable for flagrantly violating the UN Charter. In his closing remarks to the Fifth Consultation Guterres arrogantly asserted:

"We cannot afford to be distracted or deterred from our essential work by the current crisis."

Guterres and the UNGA will receive no plaudits for this insensitive and highly offensive statement from 44 million Ukrainian citizens whose lives have become a living hell. 

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.

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.

---

UN should use Israel-bashing model to oust Russia from Ukraine

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly needs to stop its pious bleating and move to immediately set up a network of Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to try and force Russia to end its invasion and occupation of Ukraine – adopting the same model it has established in trying to force Israel’s withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) over the last 50 years.

The General Assembly has failed in Israel’s case – because:

• Sovereignty remains unallocated and still in dispute between Jews and Arabs after 100 years
• Israel has the legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home there pursuant to articles 6 and 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter
• Any Israeli withdrawal can only occur after secure and recognised boundaries are fixed pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242.

However Russia’s invasion of the sovereign territory of another UN member state challenges the UN’s continued existence – as UN Secretary-General Assembly Antonio Guterres has pointed out: 

“It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible”

Reversing Russia’s flagrant violation of the UN Charter justifies the General Assembly adopting its Israel-bashing model to establish the following Ukrainian-dedicated agencies to humiliate and bash Russia into withdrawing from Ukraine: 

• Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Ukrainian People (CEIRUP): 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. 

• Department for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs’ (DPPA) Division for Ukrainian Rights:To serve as the Secretariat of CEIRUP and provide the following core functions: 

1. Organising the meetings of CEIRUP and its Bureau at UN Headquarters;
2. Monitoring political and other relevant developments;
3. Organising programmes of international meetings, conferences and CEIRUP delegation visits;
4. Implementing a publications programme;
5. Developing and maintaining the United Nations Information System on the Question of Ukraine (UNISUKR) and managing CEIRUP’s outreach efforts including via social media;
6. Cooperating with civil society organizations active on the Russia-Ukraine issue;
7. Organising an annual observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Ukrainian People;

• United Nations Ukrainian Works and Relief Agency:  To carry out direct relief and works programmes solely for Ukrainian refugees. 

• Special Rapporteur: To assess the human rights situation in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories, report publicly about it, and work with governments, civil society and others to foster international cooperation.

• Special Committee: To investigate Russian practices affecting the human rights of the Ukrainian People and other residents of the Occupied Ukrainian Territories

• United Nations Special Coordinator for the Russia-Ukraine conflict: The Secretary-General’s Personal Representative and the focal point on the ground for UN support in all political and diplomatic efforts related to any peace process, responsible also for coordinating the activities of all UN Russia-Ukraine agencies, funds and programmes on humanitarian and development assistance to be set up to assist the Ukrainian People

These agencies will neutralise any Russian veto in the Security Council and reinforce sanctions and other decisions made by individual UN Member States to force Russia out of Ukraine.

Simultaneously the UN Human Rights Council should establish an ongoing independent, international commission of inquiry - appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council - to investigate in the Occupied Ukrainian Territories all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law by Russia leading up to and since 22 February 2022.

The UN will cease to have any credibility or relevance if the General Assembly fails to implement these measures. 

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.

United Nations Security Council Abandons Humanity

[Published 9 February 2015]


In a supposed show of unity by the world powers against Islamic State - the United Nations Security Council is reportedly preparing to adopt a legally binding resolution intended to choke the terrorist group’s ability to trade in oil, antiquities and hostages.

As it pontificates on the terms of the Resolution – the Security Council completely ignores the Report of another United Nations organ – The Committee on the Rights of the Child - released on 4 February – which depressingly confirms the following litany of suffering visited on children, women and minorities in Iraq by Islamic State:

1. The systematic killing of children belonging to religious and ethnic minorities including several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive;
2. The very large number of children killed and severely injured as a result of the current fighting - including by air strikes, shelling and military operations by the Iraqi Security Forces
3. Deaths from dehydration, starvation and heat in conflict affected areas
4. The high number of children abducted by Islamic State - many of whom are severely traumatized from witnessing the murder of their parents and are subjected to physical and sexual assault.
5. “Markets” set up by Islamic State selling abducted children and women attaching price tags to them
6. Sexual enslavement of children – particularly from minority groups - detained in makeshift Islamic State prisons - such as the former Badoush prison outside Mosul.
7. The executions of teachers and health personnel
8. Recruitment and use of children especially children in vulnerable situations such as refugee children, children with disabilities, children who have lost their parents and children in street situations being used as:

(a) Suicide bombers
(b) Human shields in order to protect Islamic State facilities from airstrikes and being frequently forced to witness brutal acts of torture and killing
(c) Informants - for manning checkpoints or as bomb makers for armed groups -in order to support their families
(d) Some recruited children being trained in kidnapping
(e) Children as young as 12 or 13 undergoing military training organized in Mosul by Islamic State which is reportedly also giving children the responsibility to guard and arrest individuals
(f) Children and families belonging to minority groups, in particular Turkmen, Shabak, Christians, Yezidi, Sabean-Mandaean, Kaka’e, Faili Kurds, Arab Shi’a, Assyrian, Baha’i, Alawites - who are being systematically killed, tortured, raped, forced to convert to Islam, cut off from humanitarian assistance by Islamic State in a reported attempt to suppress, permanently cleanse or expel, or in some instances, destroy these minority communities.

The Committee could only urge Iraq to take all necessary measures to rescue children under the control of Islamic State and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Islamic State fighters must be laughing their heads off at the thought.

Regrettably the Committee did not see fit to damn the Security Council for its continuing failure to authorise and institute military action by the world body against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the United Nations Charter.

Instead we now have the prospect of yet another proposed totally ineffectual Security Council resolution talking about oil, antiques and hostages – the third in a series of resolutions on Islamic State that are worthless in ending the barbaric atrocities listed above.

Russia’s veto remains the obstacle to passing a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of military force.

Russia was eventually persuaded to join America in sponsoring a Security Council Resolution calling for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

A similar diplomatic effort is needed to destroy Islamic State.

There are many diplomatic inducements and trade-offs that can be explored including:

1. Easing current sanctions on Russia
2. Restoring Russia’s credit rating
3. Compromising on Syria and Ukraine

The human suffering caused by Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria must be stopped in its tracks without further delay.

Meantime the Committee on the Rights of the Child has invited Iraq to submit its next Report by 14 July 2020 which should be:

“in compliance with the Committee’s harmonized treaty-specific reporting guidelines adopted on 1 October 2010 (CRC/C/58/Rev.2 and Corr. 1) and should not exceed 21,200 words (see General Assembly resolution 68/268, para. 16). In the event that a report exceeding the established word limit is submitted, the State party [Iraq] will be asked to shorten the report in accordance with the above-mentioned resolution. If the State party is not in a position to review and resubmit the report, translation of the report for the purposes of consideration by the treaty body cannot be guaranteed.”

The Committee has also invited Iraq:

“to submit an updated core document in accordance with the requirements of the common core document in the harmonized guidelines on reporting, approved at the fifth Inter-Committee Meeting of the human rights treaty bodies in June 2006 (HRI/GEN/2/Rev.6, chap. I). The word limit for the common core document is 42,400 words, as established by the General Assembly in its resolution 68/268 (para. 16).”

Will Iraq still exist in 2020?

The United Nations and its diverse organs have become the world’s laughing stock as they engage in verbal gobbledygook, pathetic platitudes and mutual back-slapping - whilst doing nothing of substance to end the suffering of millions of human beings around the world.

What has to happen before the United Nations Security Council comes to its senses and gets really serious about degrading and destroying Islamic State?

Islamic State - Pope Calls For International Consensus

[Published 28 November 2014]


Pope Francis has made public his thoughts on the action necessary to counter Islamic State.

Speaking to Vatican Radio after his return from a visit to the EU parliament in Strasburg, he said:

“I never say all is lost, never. Maybe there cannot be a dialogue but you can never shut a door. It is difficult, one could say almost impossible, but the door is always open.”

Responding to a question about whether or not it would be possible to communicate with rather than fight the militants, the Pope said:

“I repeat what I have said: when you want to stop an unjust oppressor, you must do so with international consensus.”

Since dialogue is realistically impossible — only an international consensus expressed in a Security Council resolution under Chapter V11 of the United Nations Charter can achieve the Pope’s clearly enunciated position.

So far two Security Council Resolutions have been passed — Resolution 2170 adopted on 15 August and Resolution 2178 adopted on 24 September

These two Resolutions were passed under the provisions of Article 41 of the UN Charter:

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

Neither Resolution has acted as a brake to stop Islamic State in its tracks — let alone bring about its downfall.

An American led coalition has undertaken military intervention in Syria and Iraq to degrade and destroy Islamic State but its objectives have not succeeded by any stretch of the imagination.

The State Department has announced that over 60 coalition partners have committed themselves to the goals of eliminating the threat posed by Islamic State and had already contributed in various capacities to the effort to combat Islamic State in Iraq, the region and beyond.

The State Department outlined five areas of possible involvement by coalition members as formulated by Secretary of State John Kerry and recently resigned Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel:

1. Providing military support ;
2. Impeding the flow of foreign fighters;
3. Stopping Islamic State financing and funding;
4. Addressing humanitarian crises in the region; and
5. Exposing Islamic State’s true nature.

Not all coalition partners have participated in the countless aerial bombing attacks on Islamic State forces.

As at 6 November Australian fighter jets had flown 144 missions against Islamic State and dropped twenty-five 500-pound laser and GPS-guided bombs on 14 ISIL targets, with 11 destroyed and three damaged.

Belgium, France, Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom have also been involved in aerial strikes against Islamic State fighters.

However the two notable omissions from this international coalition ranged against Islamic State are China and Russia — both members of the Security Council holding the power to veto any stronger action by the Security Council up to now.

Such action is becoming increasingly urgent as an unknown number of foreign fighters flock to join Islamic State and a pledge of allegiance has been made by Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis— a Jihadi based organisation based in the Sinai Peninsula.

Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared on November 10:

“We announce to you the expansion of the Islamic State to new countries, to the countries of the Haramayn [Saudi Arabia], Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria,”

Baghdadi claimed them as new provinces under Islamic State.

This may indeed be all propaganda — but the Pope has clearly shown his concern.

The only real basis for international consensus rests on the Security Council passing a resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter:

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

A Papal plea made directly to China and Russia to join in drafting a resolution under Section 42 could just prove to be the catalyst to persuade these two recalcitrant nations into authorizing military action under the United Nations Charter against Islamic State.

Having supported Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 — China and Russia now need to go that extra mile to defeat what they have already declared to be a grave threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s President Putin has a chance to come in out of the cold caused by his growing international isolation over Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. China would enhance its international reputation enormously by acceding to the Pope’s request.

A Papal miracle is within reach.

Israel - Media Imbalance Incites Jew-hatred

[Published 5 September 2014]


The incessant media focus on Israel - compounded by misleading and factually incorrect reporting - has materially contributed to inciting the growth of Jew-hatred world-wide.

Organisations such as HonestReporting and CAMERA expose inaccurate reports appearing daily in the most widely read and supposedly reputable international newspapers, television stations, radio networks and on-line publications.

Corrections eventually made usually come too late to remedy the initial sensationalist reporting.

Matti Friedman sums up this phenomenon:

“Is there anything left to say about Israel and Gaza? Newspapers this summer have been full of little else. Television viewers see heaps of rubble and plumes of smoke in their sleep. A representative article from a recent issue of The New Yorker described the summer’s events by dedicating one sentence each to the horrors in Nigeria and Ukraine, four sentences to the crazed genocidaires of ISIS, and the rest of the article — 30 sentences—to Israel and Gaza.”

This pre-occupation with Israel at the expense of covering far more serious conflicts in the region prompted one concerned person to ask Professor Richard Falk - the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” — the following questions:

“Nowhere on the face of the earth will you find a country that has been unremittingly attacked in the language used to attack Israel, or at all — not truly genocidal nations like Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, Serbia, Cambodia, Guatemala, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Turkey; not the world’s worst violators of human rights like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Somalia, Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba; not seizers and occupiers of land like Russia, Armenia, Turkey (Northern Cyprus), Morocco and Azerbaizhan. Where are the BDS movements, Prof. Falk? Where are the blogs? Where are the armies of blog crawlers? Where are the videos? Where are the links? What do you think it is that draws all these “critics” to Israel and nowhere else?”

Falk’s reply - designating Israel as a “special case” - is very disturbing.

“Israel is a special case for at least three reasons:
— its legitimacy was established by UN and League initiatives without any effort to take into account the views of the population physically present in the country;

— the US as the world’s self-appointed global leader has singled out Israel for the most massive financial assistance over a period of many years, and has lent controversial support to Israel to shield it from censure by the UN;

— Israel itself claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East and otherwise posits itself as a shining example even extending to the boast that the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

These three reasons explain and justify the attention given to Israel’s alleged wrongdoing. Beyond this, the fact that worse offenders are not scrutinized to the same extent as Israel is more an argument for according more attention to such offenders. It is not excuse for Israel’s behavior. Whether we like it or not the Israel-Palestine conflict has become the litmus test of international morality ever since the collapse of apartheid in South Africa.”

Falk’s reasons for assigning only Israel and none of the other nominated states “special case” status are outrageous and can be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The “League initiatives” to which Falk refers is the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. Syria, Lebanon and Iraq - products of the same Mandates system - are currently humanitarian and politically dysfunctional disaster areas. Yet Falk does not regard them as “special cases”.

2. The views of “the population physically present” were taken into account - being both politically and violently expressed from the moment Britain assumed its role as Mandatory. Arab riots in 1920, 1929 and between 1936-1939 expressed opposition to the Jewish National Home. The 1922 decision on Transjordan, the 1937 Peel Commission, the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine all recommended changes to the Mandate’s stated policy to the detriment of the Jewish people.

3. Israel’s legitimacy was not established by the United Nations — but by the League of Nations, seven decades of State building and defeating six invading Arab armies in 1948.

4. Since when did financial aid received from another country qualify the recipient to be classed as a “special case” because other countries received lesser aid or no aid from the same donor country?

5. America has not always vetoed resolutions against Israel in the Security Council. America has also vetoed resolutions affecting countries including Panama, Nicaragua, Namibia and South Africa — but never have they been regarded as “special cases”

6. Israel is indeed the only democracy in the Middle East and its army is certainly one of the most moral armies in the world — yet Falk has long advocated support for the PLO and Hamas whose stated objectives are to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Falk’s discredited assertion that Israel is a “special case” setting it apart from the world community for special treatment encourages

1. the media to keep focusing disproportionately on Israel

2. Arab and Islamic countries justifying their continuing non-recognition of Israel

3. Jew-haters and self-hating Jews world-wide maintaining their campaigns denigrating and delegitimising Israel.

“Jews are always good for news” needs an urgent media rethink and policy overhaul — if increasing Jew-hatred world-wide is to be effectively silenced.