Palestine - Two Opportunities Better Missed

[Published 3 May 2012]


Israel’s former Foreign Minister - the late Abba Eban - is remembered for his many wise and pithy comments - of which the following is probably the most memorable:

“The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”

The Arabs have been unyielding in their refusal to recognize a Jewish state in its biblical and ancestral homeland throughout the history of the 130 years conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

The idea that such a Jewish state should be allowed to exist on just 0.01% of the former Ottoman Empire captured by Britain and France in the First World War - has been an ongoing anathema for the 22 Arab states who received the remaining 99.99% for Arab self-determination.

Opportunities to create another Arab state - and so end the conflict - were afforded by the Peel Commission in 1937, the United Nations in 1947, between 1948-1967 and in 2001 and 2008.

All such opportunities were missed by the Arabs.

Now the opportunity to conclude a peace treaty with Israel under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap has also gone begging - following the rush by the Palestinian Arabs to unilaterally seek to achieve statehood by joining the United Nations and when that failed - UNESCO.

Ironically - these are two opportunities that should have been avoided like the plague.

The attempt to join the United Nations was a failure - after the 15 members of the Committee on the Admission of New Members could not agree on whether Palestine’s application to join the UN complied with the two following fundamental requirements in Article 4 of the UN Charter:1.

1. Was Palestine a state?

2. If so, was it peace loving?

The Committee took their work seriously - as the following two paragraphs in their Report indicates:

“It was stated that the criteria set out in Article 4 of the Charter were the only factors that could be taken into consideration in the Committee’s deliberations. In support of this position, reference was made to the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on the Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter).

It was also asserted that the Committee’s work, whatever its outcome, should be mindful of the broader political context. The view was expressed that a negotiated solution remained the only option for a long-term sustainable peace and that final status issues had to be resolved through negotiations. Support was expressed for a two-State solution based on pre-1967 borders, resulting from political negotiations, leading to an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. It was stressed that the granting of Palestine’s right to self-determination and recognition must not be seen as contrary to Israel’s inalienable right to exist.”

The legal issues inherent in deciding whether Palestine was a “State” were also canvassed by the committee as the following paragraphs in their Report indicates:

“On the criterion of statehood, reference was made to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which declares that a State as a person of international law should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States.

With regard to the requirements of a permanent population and a defined territory, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled these criteria. It was stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood.

Questions were raised, however, regarding Palestine’s control over its territory, in light of the fact that Hamas was the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip. It was affirmed that the Israeli occupation was a factor preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over its territory. However, the view was expressed that occupation by a foreign power did not imply that the sovereignty of an occupied territory was to be transferred to the occupying power.”

Given the diversity and range of views expressed - it is no wonder that the Committee was unable to attest to Palestine’s current status qualifying it to meet the Charter’s requirements for membership.

Undeterred at the outcome - Palestine ran off to UNESCO hoping to get a better result there in its quest for statehood.

The application to join UNESCO was treated very differently to the UN application.

There was no vetting Committee to look at and first decide whether Palestine was a state - again a necessary prerequisite to entitle it to apply for membership under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.

Whilst there was no requirement in the UNESCO Constitution that Palestine be “peace - loving” - there was a provision that stipulated a two-thirds majority vote of the members was required. There appears to have been no consideration whether that meant members “present and voting” or whether it required two thirds of the 194 members to vote in favour.

The 58 members of the Executive Board simply voted to recommend to the Members that Palestine be admitted as a member of UNESCO - without apparently considering any of the issues that had so perplexed the Security Council’s Committee. This recommendation then went to a meeting of the 194 members - when 107 of those present and attending voted in favour. 129 were required - if a two-thirds majority of the 194 members was necessary.

This foray into UNESCO has turned out disastrously for Palestine, UNESCO and the scores of millions of people worldwide reliant on UNESCO - as events since that decision on 31 October 2011 have shown.

The idea that the two-state solution should be achieved by a negotiated solution has gone out the door. 194 countries have now recognized that Palestine is a state and that the Palestinian Arabs are no longer homeless. No more negotiations are required to create a state for the Palestinian Arabs.

If the state of Palestine now wants to make demands on Israel - a new negotiating process will first have to be agreed on between Israel and Palestine.

The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap have become extant - and Israel is now free to make decisions without regard to their provisions.

Palestine can only blame itself for the position it now finds itself in. The 194 nations that made the decision to admit Palestine as a member state of UNESCO - where the UN Security Council for good legal reasons feared to tread - are equally culpable .

All of these countries have forfeited the right to talk of international law as the final determinant in this long running conflict or any other conflicts - following their willingness to breach international law when it suits them.

The law of the jungle has taken over from the rule of law.

If these 194 countries ever come to their senses - the following further words of wisdom from Abba Eban will prove to be prescient:

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”

Such wise behaviour will only emerge when international law - not political opportunism - is applied to settle the Arab - Jewish conflict.

Palestine - Statehood Supersedes Oslo Accords And Roadmap

[Published 26 April 2012]


The Middle East changed dramatically with the recognition and admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 - resulting finally in the achievement of the two-state solution unsuccessfully sought for the last 19 years in negotiations conducted between Israel and the Palestinian Authority pursuant to the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Yet these seminal developments do not appear to rate a mention in Mahmoud Abbas’s latest letter of demand sent to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The contents of that letter have not been officially revealed.

However, one published draft - if eventually authenticated - contains the following material errors or omissions that will certainly not be conducive to Israel furnishing any positive reply.

1. The letter is signed by Mahmoud Abbas as: “Chairman of the P.L.O Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian National Authority”

Yet Mr Abbas has another distinguished title - “President of the State of Palestine” - which he somehow forgot to add.

This additional nomenclature appeared in the letter sent by Mr Abbas to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when Palestine unsuccessfully applied for membership of the United Nations as a peace loving State in September 2011.

Why omit it now in this letter to Mr Netanyahu - especially as Palestine was admitted to UNESCO as its 195th member state one month later? Why omit to mention this development at UNESCO as well?

Mr Abbas‘s reluctance to sign the letter as “President of the State of Palestine” and to fail to mention the UNESCO decision is surely deliberate and not caused by mere oversight.

If Palestine has already been recognized as a State by UNESCO and Mr Abbas is its President - any negotiations for the creation of such a State - the “two-state vision“- as envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - are extant.

If Mr Abbas still believes he can get Mr Netanyahu to resume negotiations for a Palestinian State under the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap by not stating he is “The President of Palestine” or mentioning the UNESCO decision - he must believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Mr Abbas’s unilateral approach to UNESCO to successfully procure recognition of Palestinian statehood has rendered any further negotiations under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap to achieve that identical goal totally meaningless.

If Mr Abbas is now seeking to resume negotiations with Israel to claim further additional territory for the State of Palestine - there must be a new negotiating process to replace the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap - with specific parameters to be determined and first agreed on between Israel and Palestine.

2. The draft letter contains the following self-serving statement:

“At the same token, I expect your understanding that settlement building is eroding the Palestinian trust in your commitment to reconciliation and the idea of the two states solution. The logic is simple: If you support the establishment of a Palestinian state, why do you build on its territory?”

Two pertinent comments on this last statement are warranted.

Firstly -as stated above - the two-state solution has already been achieved. That debate has to all intents and purposes been ended - unless the UNESCO decision is reversed by the International Court of Justice as being unconstitutional. Any move by UNESCO to refer the decision to the Court for its advisory opinion appears extremely unlikely.

Secondly - the arrogant presumption that 100% of the West Bank and Gaza is the territory of the Palestinian State - and that Israel has no claim to any part of that territory - continues to plague any efforts to finally resolve sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza - just 5% of former Palestine still remaining unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

The Jewish claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank and Gaza has been specifically preserved in international law by the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter - all of which have been declared null and void by Article 20 of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - now headed by Mr Abbas.

Until the PLO accepts the binding effect of this body of international law - the ongoing conflict in the West Bank and Gaza is set to continue.

Now that a Palestinian state has been recognized - any restraints on Israel changing the status of the West Bank under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap have been removed.

Mr Abbas needs to change his tune or see Israel follow his example by making unilateral changes in the status of at least those areas of the West Bank where Israel currently holds full security and administrative control.

3. Mr Abbas continues to make the following assertion - as if repeating it often enough will turn it into fact:

“We agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine-on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967".

Fact is that historical Palestine comprised what is today called Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza are 5% - not 22% of historical Palestine - whilst Israel comprises 17% and Jordan makes up the remaining 78%.

What Israel occupied in 1967 - the West Bank and Gaza - was not “Palestinian territory”.

The West Bank was “Jordanian territory” - occupied by Jordan between 1948-1967 and unified with Jordan by a vote of the Arab Parliaments of the West Bank and Transjordan in 1950 - and renamed “Jordan”.

Jordan ceded its claims to this territory to the PLO in 1988.

The PLO had no interest in it - or in Gaza then occupied by Egypt - before Israel occupied both areas in 1967.

Article 24 of the PLO Charter made this very clear:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the Western Bank in the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.”

Any future negotiations on the future status of the West Bank and Gaza - not currently included in the State of Palestine - must take these facts into account as well as the fact that there are now two exclusive “Arabs only” States and one Jewish State in historical Palestine.

Mr Abbas needs to take a reality check.

Whilst he persists with his revisionist views and tries to ignore the consequences of his unilateral approaches to both the United Nations and UNESCO in breach of the obligations imposed on him by the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap - any hope of further negotiations between Israel and Palestine is a pipe dream.

Quartet And UNESCO In Head-on Collision

[Published 19 April 2012]


UNESCO’S recognition that Palestine is a State has now been totally refuted by the Quartet - America, the Russian Federation, the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

The Quartet - in its latest statement - has now endorsed the view of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (OTP) just a few days earlier - that Palestine is not a State.

“The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment, as expressed in its 23 September 2011 statement, to examine possible mechanisms it can actively support going forward, individually and together, to advance peace efforts and strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s ability to meet the full range of civil and security needs of the Palestinian people both now and in a future state.”

The Quartet’s use of the words - “both now and in a future state” - was clear and unambiguous .

If the Quartet and the OTP are correct - then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as a State is indeed unlawful - since only States can be members of UNESCO under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’S Constitution.

Yet the Russian Federation and many other member states of the UN and the EU - 107 to be precise - voted to recognize Palestine’s claim to be a State - thereby qualifying it to be granted admission to UNESCO.

How then can their representatives in the Quartet be now saying Palestine is not a State?

The remaining 87 UNESCO member states - including America and Israel - did not vote for Palestine’s admission. Yet none of these States has done anything in the last six months to protest the illegality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO - although several courses of action were open to them.

Firstly - they could have attempted to have the decision reviewed by lobbying UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the constitutional propriety of its decision to recognize Palestine as a State - under Article XIV Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution which states:

“Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of this Constitution shall be referred for determination to the International Court of Justice or to an arbitral tribunal, as the General Conference may determine under its Rules of Procedure.’

Secondly - they could have suspended their membership or the payment of their membership dues or refused to attend meetings when Palestine was represented by its accredited spokespersons.

America and Israel suspended their dues - not to protest UNESCO’S recognition of Palestine as a State - but to protest that this recognition was achieved unilaterally outside the negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

So having by their conduct over the last six months done nothing to voice their opposition to UNESCO recognizing that Palestine is a State - how can their Quartet representatives now be claiming to do just that by claiming there is no existing State of Palestine?

The Quartet’s statement sounds an even more discordant tone when it asserts:

“The Quartet encouraged the parties, in this context, to cooperate to facilitate the social and economic development of Area C, which is of critical importance for the viability of a future Palestinian state as well as for its Palestinian inhabitants to be enabled to lead a normal life. The Quartet asked Quartet Representative Blair to continue his intensive work with the parties toward this end."

Again the words - "a future Palestinian State” - are carefully chosen - a clear negation of the UNESCO vote recognizing Palestine is a State.

But even stranger - "Area "C" is a specific creation of the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap negotiating processes - instituted in 1993 and 2002 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization through its then newly constituted negotiating entity - the Palestinian Authority.

“Area C ” comprises 61% in area of the West Bank and is home to only 4% of the Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank. It also happens to be the location where pre-existing Jewish settlements were destroyed in the 1948 Arab-Israel War - and were subsequently re-established after the 1967 War.

“Area C ” also contains most of the new Jewish settlements built since 1967 - where close settlement by Jews was to be encouraged under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel currently holds full security and administrative control in “Area C”. Sovereignty has remained unallocated between Jews and Arabs since Great Britain handed back its Mandate to the United Nations in 1948.

In going behind Oslo and the Roadmap to unilaterally achieve statehood at UNESCO - Palestine has cut itself completely adrift from Oslo and the Roadmap.

It surely is wishful thinking for the Quartet to have any expectations that further negotiations on the future of “Area C” can be conducted within the framework of Oslo and the Roadmap - once the two-state solution contemplated by Oslo and the Road Map had been achieved at UNESCO.

If there are to be any negotiations over Area C - where Palestine does not have and never has had effective control - a new Roadmap - agreed to by Israel and the Palestinian Authority - will first be needed to replace both Oslo and the Bush Roadmap.

That no doubt is what the Quartet wants to avoid - and provides a good reason for the Quartet to continually claim that there is no state of Palestine existing at the present time.

Perhaps the Quartet is preparing us to get ready to listen to a new composition - the Obama Roadmap,

For that to happen however - the Quartet must encourage UNESCO to high tail it to the International Court - to clarify whether its decision to recognize Palestine as a State is lawful or not.

The current disharmony caused by UNESCO and the Quartet playing from different scores needs to be resolved without delay.

Is Palestine now a state - or it is not?

The UNESCO decision has not only created a growing global humanitarian crisis caused by the loss of 22% of its budget in suspended American dues.

That decision has now also become crucial in determining whether:

1. Oslo and the Bush Roadmap have any further relevance at all and

2. The Quartet disappears ignominiously off the international stage into permanent retirement as the most powerful diplomatic negotiating team ever assembled in history that failed to achieve anything after eight years of trying.

Until the International Court gives its advisory opinion - the Quartet is going to look decidedly foolish claiming there is no such State yet in existence - when UNESCO says there is.

This head-on collision is certain to claim a lot of casualties.

Palestine In UNESCO - Ending The State Of Confusion

[Published 12 April 2012]


Palestine’s continuing membership of UNESCO has become far more tenuous and now faces increased scrutiny following a decision by the Office Of The Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that Palestine is not a State.

Only States can be admitted as members of UNESCO under Clause II Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.

The OTP decision now casts grave doubt on Palestine legally continuing to remain a member of UNESCO.

Alarm bells should be ringing at UNESCO calling for it to urgently approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine:

(i) whether Palestine is a State and if so

(ii) whether the number of votes required to admit it as a member under UNESCO’s Constitution is 129 - not the 107 actually obtained

The OTP decision was announced on 3 April - more than three years after Palestine had first sought to become a State party to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Sixteen legal opinions were submitted to the OTP - arguing both for and against the claim that Palestine was a State.

I am pleased the OPT has now confirmed my opinion that Palestine is not a State. However I am fully cognisant of the fact that the ICJ needs to confirm the correctness of that opinion for it to have any binding effect. Still it is comforting to be on the same wavelength as the OTP and many others who expressed the same opinion in their submissions to the OTP.

Hopefully UNESCO might at least now take the issues I have raised concerning Palestine’s admission to UNESCO more seriously - and not sit pat and smugly refuse to address my concerns.

I have sought in vain for the last five months to have UNESCO produce any documents which its Executive Board may have considered before concluding that Palestine was a State - qualifying to be admitted to UNESCO.

My requests to produce copies of such documents have been ignored. UNESCO has made it clear the matter is closed and is not to be the subject of any further discussion with me.

In contrast to UNESCO’s lack of transparency - the sixteen legal opinions lodged with the OTP can be viewed on the ICC website. The legal opinions or other documents UNESCO relied on (if any) are being withheld from public scrutiny.

Has UNESCO something to hide? I don’t really know at this stage - but its arrogant and high handed conduct needs to be exposed and justified.

Significantly some UNESCO documents have now come to light - from a source other than UNESCO - that make the decision of the 58 members of the Executive Board of UNESCO to recommend the admission of Palestine very intriguing.

Palestine’s request for admission to UNESCO was first made in 1989 and has been reiterated at every General Conference since then.

At the time of Palestine’s initial application in 1989 - Israel had submitted an opinion arguing that Palestine was not a State. Given that the 1993 Oslo Accords were then only a twinkle in someone’s eye - Israel’s viewpoint could not be seriously challenged - notwithstanding Yassar Arafat’s vacuous Palestinian Declaration of Independence made on 15 November 1988.

After 1993 and more particularly after the Bush Roadmap saw the light of day in 2002 - Palestine’s request for membership in UNESCO continued to be reiterated at every General Conference meeting without success.

The question that UNESCO now needs to answer is - what facts or circumstances changed in 2011 to enable the Executive Board of UNESCO to conclude that Palestine was a State and qualified to become a member of UNESCO?

There appears to be one document that may provide some assistance - the summary record of the sixth plenary meeting of the session of the Executive Board.

Perhaps a copy of this document will now fall off the back of a truck and end up in my hands.

Whether Palestine is a State must surely now be decided by the ICJ.

The legal uncertainty introduced by the OTP decision and the divergent opinions expressed in the submissions made to the OTP cannot possibly be ignored by UNESCO.

That kind of dismissive and contemptuous conduct might work against the expressed opinion of any individual like myself.

But it cannot and should not be tolerated when UNESCO is now faced with a formidable body of legal opinions that Palestine is not a State.

Whilst Palestine remains a member state of UNESCO - the following flow on effects are guaranteed:

1.The loss of 22% of UNESCO’s funding to the end of 2013 - totalling $260 million in suspended American dues - that is unlikely to be fully replaced

2.The abandonment or curtailment of many UNESCO global humanitarian programs in areas such as literacy, water purification, gender equality, AIDS and HIV education and prevention - affecting the lives of scores of millions of people world wide

3.The end of meaningful negotiations for the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - with manifold implications for resolving the long running conflict between Arabs and Jews.

UNESCO can of course continue to stick its head in the sand and ignore all calls for it to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

87 of the 194 countries in UNESCO did not vote to admit Palestine into UNESCO. They have remained silent for the last five months and by their conduct have accepted the legal right of Palestine to sit alongside them as an equal and member State. They can hardly claim that Palestine is not a State whilst they accept that Palestine remains a member of UNESCO.

The OTP decision should make all 194 member states think again.

The fact that Palestine might not legally be a State should surely see some of those 87 naysayer states proposing that UNESCO submits a brief to the ICJ seeking its advisory opinion on whether Palestine’s admission to UNESCO does comply with UNESCO’s Constitution - or does not.

Failure to do so can only result in foreseeable and possibly unforeseeable consequences - not only for the hopes and aspirations of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East - but for UNESCO’s global community.

The OTP decision serves as a clarion call for UNESCO to open its records and approach the ICJ without further delay.

Palestine Is A State - Fact Or Fiction?

[Published 6 March 2012]


Recognition of the existence of Palestine as a State was ostensibly given the international imprimatur on 31 October 2011 - when 107 countries voted to admit Palestine as the 195th member state of UNESCO.

Palestine’s admission to UNESCO rested upon Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution which states:

“Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.”

Palestine’s application would presumably have been vetted by UNESCO’s 58-member Executive Board - to make sure Palestine qualified as a state to entitle it to become a member of UNESCO - otherwise the application would have had to be ruled out of order.

Article II (2) above indeed makes clear that there had to be a recommendation by the Executive Board.

To try and find out how the Executive Board came to its conclusion - I asked UNESCO two questions - to which I received the following answers on 1 December 2011:

QUESTION: Did the Secretariat or any other division within UNESCO prepare a report on the status of “Palestine” to qualify as a “state” to be admitted to membership of UNESCO? If so could I please be sent a copy?

ANSWER:There was no document submitted to the General Conference by the Secretariat relating to the status of Palestine.

QUESTION:On what basis can Palestine qualify to be admitted as a member State of UNESCO when it does not possess the necessary qualifications to be recognized as a State in customary international law as codified in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933?

ANSWER:This question would need to be addressed to the UNESCO Member States that voted in favor of admission.

Not satisfied with these answers - I wrote a further letter on 2 December 2011 drawing UNESCO’s attention to the following:

Article II.2 of the Constitution requires “a recommendation of the Executive Board” as anecessary pre-condition for the admission of any states to UNESCO that are not members of the United Nations.

Can you supply a copy of the recommendation of the Executive Board to the General Conference to admit Palestine to membership of UNESCO and any reports that formed part of that recommendation or were considered by the Executive Board prior to making that recommendation.

There was no reply - only an impenetrable wall of silence erected by UNESCO ever since.

Now those of you who have read my many articles over the past 5 months know that I consider Palestine’s admission to UNESCO to be unconstitutional - being in breach of Article II (2) above.

I have unsuccessfully urged UNESCO to seek an advisory ruling from the International Court on the meaning of Article II (2) and on other clauses in the Constitution that appear to be inconsistent with it.

UNESCO can approach the Court to resolve these issues under Article XIV (2) of the Constitution which states:

“Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of this Constitution shall be referred for determination to the International Court of Justice or to an arbitral tribunal, as the General Conference may determine under its Rules of Procedure”

Not one of the 194 UNESCO member states seems remotely interested in pursuing this option. All have apparently accepted the fact that Palestine is a State.

No member State has objected to the flag of Palestine flying above UNESCO headquarters in Paris alongside their State’s respective flags.

Under Article II (7) - each Member State is entitled to appoint a Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.

On 23 January 2012 - Mr. Elias Wadih Sanbar was appointed Permanent Delegate of the member state of Palestine - without demur or objection from any of the other member states.

Given the apparent acceptance of Palestine as a state on an equal par with all the other 194 member states of UNESCO - my questions to all of them are:

1. Why is the world not now celebrating the realisation of the two-state solution on 31 October 2011 and an end to the long road to Palestinian statehood begun in 1993 with the Oslo Accords?

2. When will the state of Palestine start opening its doors to welcome those Palestinian Arabs that have been left to fester in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states for the last 64 years?

3. When will UNWRA be disbanded - now that the State of Palestine exists?

4. Why is the UN still carrying the following outdated material on its website:
“In late April the Security Council is due to hold its quarterly open debate on the Middle East. The focus of discussion will likely be whether the Quartet has been able to achieve sufficient impetus to break the stalemate in the Israel/Palestine peace process.

The Quartet—comprising the EU, Russia, the UN and the US—will next meet on 11 April in Washington, DC.”

Why waste the Security Council’s time with another debate on efforts to break the stalemate in the Middle East - when the stalemate was broken on 31 October 2011?

Isn’t it time the Quartet disbanded and announced the cancellation of its next meeting set for 11 April 2012? Has it any function now - following international recognition by the 194 member states of UNESCO that Palestine is a State?

Not one of the 195 member states of UNESCO ( including Palestine itself) can pinpoint the State of Palestine on a map or the boundaries which it encompasses. This surely is testimony to the mess that the world has landed itself in because it has chosen to ignore international law and UNESCO’s Constitution.

The world will have to live with its flight into fantasy and folly and bear the consequences of its unlawful decision.

You can’t be half pregnant - nor can you be half a state. If you call yourself a State - represent yourself as a State when seeking entry to world organizations - and get accepted on the basis of being a State - then you are a State.

Time to focus now on the claims of other groups with long standing demands for self determination - such as the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques and the Corsicans.

They should now all apply to join UNESCO - using Palestine as the precedent - confident in the knowledge that if UNESCO can miraculously turn fiction into fact by recognizing “Palestine” as a “State” - it can make the aspirations of these other long suffering people become a similar reality.

What is good for the goose must surely be good enough for the gander

Facebook Or Facelessbook?

[Published 22 March 2012]


Can anyone out there tell me how I can have direct on-line contact with a real live person at Facebook - not just some anonymous message that is flashed on my screen?

I need your help urgently to find such a person in an effort to discuss and resolve issues which have arisen between myself and Facebook.

My problems revolve around a Facebook Group I created called “Help Restore UNESCO’S Funding” - whose objective is clearly stated in the following terms:

“Pledged to calling for UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion on the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO - which if reversed would immediately enable America to resume funding 22% of UNESCO’s budget.”

The Group’s objective was to engender support for UNESCO approaching the International Court of Justice to obtain judicial confirmation on the legality of UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member state. I had started the Group after UNESCO had refused to even discuss the merits of a legal opinion I had furnished.

If UNESCO’s decision was found by the Court to be in breach of UNESCO‘S Constitution - this would result in America resuming payment of its financial dues to UNESCO - totalling about $260 million until 2013 - thereby avoiding UNESCO cutting its aid to scores of millions of people world-wide in programs such as literacy, gender equality and water purification.

I received some complaints directly on the Group page from people asking that their names be removed as members and questioning how they had become members. To the best of my knowledge these complaints were from people who had already agreed to become my Friends on my own face book page. I had then joined them as members of the Group - as was permissible and appeared to be encouraged by Facebook.

On receiving these complaints those objectors were advised of the procedure to enable them to remove their names as members of the Group.

In addition I had been sending out Friend Requests to people who were members of other Groups - of which I was also a member and a frequent on-line contributor. Many of these people became my Friends and I joined them to the Group page as well - without any objection from them.

Apparently my actions incurred the wrath of Facebook following complaints received by it.

I began to receive a number of automatic messages from Facebook stating that I was sending Friend Requests to people I did not know - affording me the opportunity to respond. I explained what I had done. An automatic response in acknowledgement was the only reply received in each case.

Believing my explanation had been accepted I continued to approach members in those other Groups of which they and I were members - asking them to become my Friends.

I then received an automatic message telling me that I had sent out Friend Requests to people I did not know - and that I would not be able to send out Friend Requests for seven days. I was also advised in the message that if I thought I was seeing the message by mistake - to let Facebook know.

A response in explanation was duly sent by me setting out what I had been doing.

Again - believing my argument had been accepted I resumed my approaches and - lo and behold - I received another automatic message advising me that I could not make Friend Requests for 14 days!!

Worse was still to come.

When I tried to send a message to someone about the difficulty I was having in accessing a web site - I received another automatic message stating that my messages had been blocked temporarily to prevent sending spam. I was directed to the automated Help Center - which I suspected would only lead to another automated response.

My capacity to send messages to anyone on Facebook - unrelated to my Group page - had now been arbitrarily blocked for an indefinite period - without affording me any opportunity to respond before such action was taken.

Oh and if you think that was the end - more was yet to come.

Facebook actually notified me by “no-reply emails” that some people had requested to join my Group - people to whom I had not sent a Friend Request.

When I endeavoured to sign them up - their names had disappeared off the radar. They remain unable to become members.

Undeterred - I did send off a complaint to the “no reply” e mail address and of course - as you might guess - I have received no reply.

Just to round off this confrontation - I now find I have been removed as a member of one of the Groups and the name of that Group has been removed from my Facebook page. This has been done without any notification to me.

When I tried to message the Administrator of the Group to find out what had happened - I was notified by another flashing message that I had been blocked because multiple people to whom I had sent Friend Requests indicated they did not know me.

I can understand that this very powerful social media site can do as it likes in the way it manages its affairs. But what they are doing seems to me to be a denial of natural justice - of the right to be given a fair hearing and a reasoned judgment after hearing all the facts.

I only hope that being the nerd I am - I have somehow missed a contact address of a real person at Facebook with whom I can correspond to try and sort out these issues.

If this is not possible - then my Group page has become effectively impacted in recruiting new members and my capacity to message anyone on Facebook has been frozen for I do not know how long.

Has anyone else had similar problems making personal contact with a human being at Facebook when they have issues that need to be resolved through face-to-face contact?

Discouraging communication and arbitrary decision making seems to be the complete opposite of what Facebook is all about - or should be about.

This is hardly a way to win Friends and influence people.

So my plea is - can anyone out there put a face to Facebook to help me resolve my run-in?

UNESCO Decision On "Palestine" Backfires Badly

[Published 7 March 2012]


A Report just issued by UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova reveals the extent of the serious crisis facing UNESCO following its decision to admit “Palestine” as its 195th member State - contrary to the terms of UNESCO’S own Constitution and customary international law.

Prior to the vote to admit “Palestine” on 31 October 2011 - Ms Bokova had issued delegates with this warning:

“Let me be frank. As Director General it is my responsibility to say that I am concerned by the potential challenges that may arise to the universality and financial stability of the Organization. I’m worried we may confront a situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue. I’m worried for the stability of its budget. It is well known that funding from our largest contributor the United States may be jeopardized. I believe it’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure that UNESCO does not suffer as a result”

Her unambiguous and clearly articulated message was ignored - but it has been proved to be correct.

The United States did in fact immediately suspend its payments to UNESCO - denying UNESCO about US$260 million for the period 2011- 2013 - amounting to 22% of UNESCO’S budget.

The suspension of such payments was mandated by American law for any international organization that took unilateral action to recognize “Palestine“ outside the negotiations being conducted between Israel and the PLO. There appears to be little prospect of that law being circumvented.- especially in an election year.

Ms Bokova was then forced to prepare her current Report for the 48 members of UNESCO’S Executive Committee to revise UNESCO’S already predetermined programs for global humanitarian aid for 2012-2013 to cope with the sudden loss of this American revenue.

The Report does not make for pretty reading.

Ms Bokova had to make an unprecedented call on member States to pay their annual subscriptions in advance to give her some cash up front to implement the budgeted programs from 1 January with minimum disruption - whilst she tried to sort out the financial mess that she had inherited as a result of the Palestine vote.

Her plea was not in vain. The total of advance payments received at 31 December 2011 amounted to $19.9 million compared to $2.2 million at the end of 2009. As of 31 January 2012, $88.4 million of 2012 assessed contributions have been received as compared to $21 million in January 2010.

However Ms Bokova is merely postponing making the really hard decisions on the cutting or abandonment of programs - hoping against hope no doubt for some miracle before these advance payments are swallowed up leaving an enormous black hole in UNESCO’S bank accounts

Her action in setting up an Emergency Donor Fund has been poorly supported with just US$42 million being pledged in the three months since its formation - only $32000 of which was donated by the public,public institutions and private endowments.

Only US$31.2 million of the US$72 million owing by America for 2009-2011 was recouped by cuts of 8% in activity budgets (US$21.7million) and 2% in staff cost budgets (US$9.5 million.)

Many UNESCO members are already in arrears with their contributions - which only exacerbates the cash flow needed to maintain the designated global programs. The percentage of unpaid contributions for 2009-2011 has significantly increased from 3% at the end of 2009 to 12% at the end of 2011.

Overall the total unpaid contributions by member states amount to a staggering $98.7 million at 31 December 2011 - twice the level at end of 2009.

UNESCO was also forced to draw down its total Working Capital Fund (WCF) of US$30 million to finance its programs as a result of its parlous financial position.

90% of UNESCO’S budget is paid by 25 of the 195 member states - putting the Organization at risk when one of them delays its payment. The WCF was the only reserve available to face delays in the payment of contributions. This reserve belongs to Member States and is not meant to finance programmes or to be used where a member suspends its payments..

The Report indicates there will be deep cuts in programs designed to help improve the lives of scores of millions of people world wide - as well as many more staff retrenchments.

An analysis of the provisional work plans as at end January 2012 shows the profound impact of the severe funding constraints across the entire Organization, which reaches into core priorities and operations.

The funding shortfall has forced UNESCO to start the 2012-2013 biennium with a reduced Regular Programme budget which translates into a reduction of some 58% to the education activity budget.

In some areas such as HIV and AIDS - only limited regular programme funds will be allocated to be used as “seed funding”. Ms Bokova hopes the shortfall will be supplemented from extra-budgetary resources.

The Natural Sciences Sector’s work plan budget has been reduced by 31%. The current budgetary situation has had very serious consequences for this Sector. Had the sector not freezed or abolished vacant posts, the cut in the regular programme budget would have been represented in a net negative allocation for regular programme activities. However, by delaying the recruitment of over 20 posts (for varying time periods), the Sector generated savings under the staff costs, which in turn were used to create budget for programme activities.

Ms Bokova’s Report has received a frosty reception from the International Staff Association of UNESCO - which Ms Bokova describes as a “staff confidence crisis”.

The Association concludes that the Report:

“lists haphazardly reductions in administrative costs and the postponement or cancellation of programme activities. Elements considered to be key priorities in the construction of a modern personnel management system for the Organization have been penalized inter alia through the suspension of the merit-based promotion scheme, investments in human resources management computer tools and training programmes and the cancellation of gender priority evaluation activities and training for Administrative Officers”

Yet this crisis could have been possibly averted by UNESCO spending just $100000 seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of its decision to admit “Palestine”. No suggested recommendation for this course of action appears in Ms Bokova’s Report.

An opinion declaring Palestine’s admission to be unconstitutional would lead to an immediate inflow of American funds and an end to UNESCO’S current woes.

UNESCO obviously still prefers to play politics at a real cost to its universality and financial stability.

Go figure - and spare a thought for those millions of people world wide who are fast becoming victims of UNESCO’S inaction to try and reverse the disastrous consequences of its decision on “Palestine”