An Open Letter to U.S./CDN Governments Regarding the U.N.

[jbg]

Dear Mssrs. Obama, Cameron and Harper:

I am writing about some serious developments recently reported in the news media that both seem to seriously undermine U.S. and Western foreign policy and pose a serious existential threat to Israel. In a New York Times article dated April 2, 2011 and published in print April 3, 2011, entitled Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out (link to article) the following appeared:

JERUSALEM — With revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for such a resolution in September, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution.

“We are facing a diplomatic-political tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of and that will peak in September,” said Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, at a conference in Tel Aviv last month. “It is a very dangerous situation, one that requires action.” He added, “Paralysis, rhetoric, inaction will deepen the isolation of Israel.”

With aides to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thrashing out proposals to the Palestinians, President Shimon Peres is due at the White House on Tuesday to meet with President Obama and explore ways out of the bind. The United States is still uncertain how to move the process forward, according to diplomats here.

Clearly, the U.N. is totally and utterly flouting U.S. and Western interests. It is virtually inevitable that such a resolution, if introduced, will be passed by the General Assembly. The General Assembly, not the Security Council over which whose actions the U.S. holds a veto, determines admissions. It is crucial that the United States, and all other Western democracies, rethink their contributions to and membership in the United Nations.

The U.N. was originally established by the “Allied Powers” who were close to victory in World War II. Its initial and praiseworthy purpose was to seek to prevent both the persecution of minorities and the incredible destruction of war. The Nazi Holocaust, the Shoah, was still in full swing at the time. Its existence was slowly becoming generally known. Having gone through the exercise of fighting Germany and other totalitarian powers not once, but twice in a generation, the decent people of the world were eager to prevent a repetition.

One of the first actions of the U.N. was to ratify the struggle of the Israeli independence fighters in recognizing the State of Israel. The U.N. did not create the State of Israel, however. That recognition of Israel served the two beneficent purposes: 1) validating the national aspirations of the Jewish people, who had been a cohesive, largely unified political, ethnic and religious group for thousands of years; and 2) providing a place for the displaced persons still penned up in European concentration camps, and Jews stuck in increasingly hostile Arab countries to which to emigrate.

The U.N. was also supposed to ease the transition of the numerous suddenly independent countries to self-sufficiency, self-government and prosperity.

Things, of course, have not worked out that way. While the U.N. budget has swelled, it has become largely an unproductive debating society, at best. Typical of the U.N.’s “work product” is a recent report by Richard A. Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Office of the United Nations. Richard A. Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University. This is an excerpt of his “work” (link):

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Press Conference by Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967

The enormous cumulative effect of prolonged Israeli occupation, accelerated settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and related policies to destroy homes and revoke residency permits made the vision of an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on a two-State consensus a “political impossibility”, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said today.

Special Rapporteur Richard Falk said, at a Headquarters press conference, that the intergovernmental peace process was premised on an “illusion” that talks would result in an independent, sovereign Palestinian State. He was discussing his latest report, which he recently presented to the General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). (See Press Release GA/SHC/3984)

First and foremost, the report underscored the persistence of a very serious humanitarian situation in Gaza, he said. While the Israeli blockade had been eased in some respects, it had been maintained in others, placing Gazans under great psychological and physical stress. Israel forbade the export of goods produced in Gaza, substantially destroying the local economy. Further, young people were forbidden from visiting their families in the West Bank or East Jerusalem and from studying at universities in other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

************

He said the BDS movement reflected the fact that Israel no longer held the moral high ground, which now belonged to the Palestinian struggle. That shift had resulted from the way in which Israel had conducted its 2006 war with Lebanon, attacked Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, and handled the flotilla incident. The cumulative effect of those three developments had deprived Israel of the moral high ground in global public opinion, he reiterated, saying that whichever side gained that ground, even if militarily weaker, often prevailed in the political struggle. “It’s certainly my view, yes,” Mr. Falk replied when asked whether that was his opinion as well.

Asked to comment on Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s proposal to put off intergovernmental negotiations and simply redraw the borders, he said that was the direction in which the parties were going, but he did not think that was where they should go. Such a redrawing amounted to de facto annexation under the banner of temporary occupation. It was a subversion of the regime of occupation, which underpinned the Security Council consensus reached in 1967 that Israel was obliged to withdraw from the lands occupied since that year’s six-day war. It was an important reality that must be exposed, but the media had not done a good job of clarifying such a fundamental change in the negotiability of a viable Palestinian State, he said.

This kind of activity is anti-Western for the fundamental reason that it is solely taking aim at pro-Western democracies. When Israel defends itself against Arab attacks the civilian casualties are collateral, light and accidental. These are not Moamar Qadafi’s strafing of peaceful demonstrators with helicopter gunships.

This activity is colossally expensive. And it is being largely funded by the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and other Western democracies. The proposal to now admit “Palestine” as a U.N. member is thus a frontal attack on the West.

The danger of this activity to the State of Israel is obvious. First of all, at least part, if not all, of Jerusalem is being unilaterally added by the U.N. to what would be another country. This sets an alarming precedent. What if the U.N. decided that Mexico “deserved” a restoration of the “occupied Republic of Texas”, the Gadsden Purchase, and California? Should the U.N. be able to undo European settlement of North America in favor of supposedly “indigenous” peoples?

This U.N. activity is a continuation of ancient hatred of Jews and Judaism under a modern, left-wing, progressive label. It is time for AIPAC to take this issue up. The worst that could happen is if Obama, alarmed by the risk to his own re-election prospects, quietly asks the U.N. to defer this issue to session-opening for 2013. What then?

To sum up, the West has no reason to finance its own destruction or suicide. It is time for use to return to a pre-Viet Nam faith in our values, and in Western democracy.

Very truly yours,

JBG

Edited April 7, 2011 by jbg

[Oleg Bach]

The UN has become a club where idealogs who have sold their idealism for a nice hotel - a scotch and a steak hang out. They are not in any positon to expose or attempt to take a position of world authority. They are out of touch - and If I had my way I would make it less attractive to be a member - no expense accounts - no hookers - and no more dreaming that you are there because you are smarter than some peasant living in the Congo - If they were so clever and sincerely diligent there would be evidence of problem solving ---- does not look like they have made much progress - but we can't desolve them - but we should reform them...The UN - needs an new UN - to guide the UN along.

[SF/PF]

JERUSALEM — With revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

We should be concerned about a potential UN resolution that would be the most sensible development in Israeli-Palestininian relations in decades?

Why? Because Israel will lose claim to land that it unjustly occupies?

[jbg]

We should be concerned about a potential UN resolution that would be the most sensible development in Israeli-Palestininian relations in decades?

Why? Because Israel will lose claim to land that it unjustly occupies?

Why the sole focus on delegitimizing Israel?

[bloodyminded]

A very coherent piece, JBG. Unsurprisingly, I have many serious disagreements with it, but for now, I'll stick to a couple of points that I consider very obviously mistaken. (That is, some of my more fundamental disagreements will take some reflection and effort, in deference to the a priori effort and thoughtfulness you've clearly employed.)

Clearly, the U.N. is totally and utterly flouting U.S. and Western interests

I disagree. It is arguably flouting US and Israeli interests...and that much is not perfectly clear. At any rate, how is it flouting the interests of "Western" states whose populations appear to be increasingly supportive and defensive of the Palestinians?

The General Assembly, not the Security Council over which whose actions the U.S. holds a veto, determines admissions. It is crucial that the United States, and all other Western democracies, rethink their contributions to and membership in the United Nations.

Is it your view that "Western democracies" are best served by an organ in which a single member state--now broadly recognized as an often untrustworthy Empire--holds veto power over international decisions?

This kind of activity is anti-Western for the fundamental reason that it is solely taking aim at pro-Western democracies

First of all, only one. I'm not sure why you commit to the plural. Second, it's not as if other countries and regimes are never rhetorically targeted by the UN; whatever the complaints about disproportionate foci on Israel, other (non-Western)countries do receive regular censure from the Body. So your statement is simply not accurate. Third, the second clause does not logically follow; "taking aim" at a pro-Western democracy does not in any way render the activity "anti-Western"...."fundamental[ly]" or otherwise. Not unless we've determined that pro-Western democracies are to be exempted from censure and criticism.

This U.N. activity is a continuation of ancient hatred of Jews and Judaism under a modern, left-wing, progressive label.

No. It is not anti-semitic (whether one agrees with it or not) and it's difficult to reconcile it as "left-wing," the favourite boogeyman of the reactionary right--here, and in the lexicon of official, current enemies.

Note the shared language, the shared hatred, between the battling global conservatives...both continually blaming "the left"!

Edited April 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

If a squater can manage to sit it out long enough to take possession of the land...then they have earned the privledge. 1946 till now is a long squat - I would say give it to them. BUT don`t let the squatters believe that they are better than their neighbours that have been sqautting for a thousand years. Both Israel and Palistine have earn their right to exist...They had better figure out that it is BOTH.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Israel's Iron Dome rocket defense system appears to have scored a hit.

Iron Dome

Mess with the bull....you get the horns.

Edited April 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[SF/PF]

Why the sole focus on delegitimizing Israel?

The only thing delegitimizing Israel is its policy on the occupied territories.

Neither side has shown the slightest interest in good-faith negotiations to move toward peace. Its long past time for the rest of the world to smack some sense into both sides.

[DogOnPorch]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Israel's Iron Dome rocket defense system appears to have scored a hit.

Iron Dome

Mess with the bull....you get the horns.

Heh...sweet. It works.

[GostHacked]

Why the sole focus on delegitimizing Israel?

That seems to be the jist of your post. Albeit veiled under the guise of 'western' interests.

[jbg]

A very coherent piece, JBG.

Thank you for the compliment.

I disagree. It is arguably flouting US and Israeli interests...and that much is not perfectly clear. At any rate, how is it flouting the interests of "Western" states whose populations appear to be increasingly supportive and defensive of the Palestinians?

Let's cut to the quick here. The Western supportiveness of the Palestinians springs from a combination of political correctness and desire for business connections with oil-rich leaders. There is no way that the average Westerner makes common cause with the jihadist ravings of the Palestinian leaders.

Is it your view that "Western democracies" are best served by an organ in which a single member state--now broadly recognized as an often untrustworthy Empire--holds veto power over international decisions?

And assuming you're right, what does that "Empire" gain from throwing its people's money down that rathole.

First of all, only one. I'm not sure why you commit to the plural. Second, it's not as if other countries and regimes are never rhetorically targeted by the UN; whatever the complaints about disproportionate foci on Israel, other (non-Western)countries do receive regular censure from the Body. So your statement is simply not accurate. Third, the second clause does not logically follow; "taking aim" at a pro-Western democracy does not in any way render the activity "anti-Western"...."fundamental[ly]" or otherwise. Not unless we've determined that pro-Western democracies are to be exempted from censure and criticism.

At the moment it's primarily aimed at Israel. Tomorrow, who knows? Canada's treatment of its FN people? Perhaps some day, with different policies, it's French minority? You can be sure they'll rarely focus on the daily slaughters proceeding apace throughout Africa and Asia.

No. It is not anti-semitic (whether one agrees with it or not) and it's difficult to reconcile it as "left-wing," the favourite boogeyman of the reactionary right--here, and in the lexicon of official, current enemies.

Is it a coincidence that the Jews are the only ones who seem to lack a right of "national self-determination" and don't qualify as "indigenous peoples"?

The only thing delegitimizing Israel is its policy on the occupied territories.

That's a long, complicated topic. But how about starting with the fact that the Arab countries never, in the first place, recognized the "1967 boundaries"? Please note, as well, that they started the war in the first place and lost it. Also, the Arabs commenced the Hebron Massacre of 1929, and other bloody events. Were those residents "occupiers" as well? Maybe it would have behooved the Arabs, after the 1967 War, to recognize Israel and seek peace.

Neither side has shown the slightest interest in good-faith negotiations to move toward peace. Its long past time for the rest of the world to smack some sense into both sides.

When only one side remotely cares about the pressure? Really?

That seems to be the jist of your post. Albeit veiled under the guise of 'western' interests.

Israel and the Jews are often the canary in the coal mine. It is the Jews that are the first target of bigoted, intolerant and dangerous people. Then the deluge, as has happened so often in history. Edited April 7, 2011 by jbg

[bloodyminded]

Thank you for the compliment.

Let's cut to the quick here. The Western supportiveness of the Palestinians springs from a combination of political correctness and desire for business connections with oil-rich leaders.

That's an odd combination. But wrong. First of all, no one--no one--is more supportive of oil-rich tyrants than is the United States. That's in fact one of the chief historical complaints of Arab muslims against the US, so it's interesting you'd mention it.

But I'm talking about the support ordinary people have for the Palestinian people.

And everything with which you disagree is not "political correctness." No doubt this would make your arguments easier, but it's simply not the case.

There is no way that the average Westerner makes common cause with the jihadist ravings of the Palestinian leaders.

No, they do not. I never claimed they did.

And assuming you're right, what does that "Empire" gain from throwing its people's money down that rathole.

If your argument is purely a cost/benefit one, and solely for the citizens of the United States, that is not clear in the piece you wrote.

At the moment it's primarily aimed at Israel. Tomorrow, who knows? Canada's treatment of its FN people? Perhaps some day, with different policies, it's French minority?

If the treatment were to reach (or, in the case of Canada's FN people, be re-established) the level of the terrible manner of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, I would hope so.

Is it a coincidence that the Jews are the only ones who seem to lack a right of "national self-determination" and don't qualify as "indigenous peoples"?

Nowhere does the UN reject Israel's right to "national self-determination."

Edited April 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Israel's Iron Dome rocket defense system appears to have scored a hit.

Iron Dome

Mess with the bull....you get the horns.

Yeah I've been mentioning Iron Dome for probably 2 years now. Glad to see it is finally working and deployed. Frankly, I think Iron Dome will have a bigger contribution to peace in the area than any worthless UN proclamations ever could. With a shield against rocket attacks, if it works well, Palestinians will soon tire of firing rockets only to see them blown out of the sky before ever reaching Israel, and Israel will not feel like it has to launch incursions into Gaza to nullify threats that have already been made ineffectual anyway.

[Bonam]

Nowhere does the UN reject Israel's right to "national self-determination."

The UN rejected Israel's right to national self-determination in resolution 3379, which remained in effect for 16 years. By labeling Zionism (the desire for the existence of a Jewish national homeland in Israel) as racism (something that is condemned and opposed by the UN), the UN directly and incontrovertibly expressed its opposition to the existence of Israel.

[DogOnPorch]

Trophy, as well, makes most of Hamas's and Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons ineffective...or much less effective.

[bloodyminded]

The UN rejected Israel's right to national self-determination in resolution 3379, which remained in effect for 16 years. By labeling Zionism (the desire for the existence of a Jewish national homeland in Israel) as racism (something that is condemned and opposed by the UN), the UN directly and incontrovertibly expressed its opposition to the existence of Israel.

No. Israel is a state, it does have national self-determination, as JBG put it.

We can place hypothetical attacks ahead of objective reality, if we wish. I see little purpose in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah I've been mentioning Iron Dome for probably 2 years now. Glad to see it is finally working and deployed. Frankly, I think Iron Dome will have a bigger contribution to peace in the area than any worthless UN proclamations ever could....

Yes, you have highlighted the program, but this was the first "warshot" scenario I'm aware of (against a Grad). The US has taken notice and wants in:

In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress to spur the production and deployment of Iron Dome. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project. Such financial assistance could expedite the completion of the defensive system, which has long been delayed by budgetary shortfalls.

A few days later, on May 20, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding in a 410-4 vote.

The bill, the United States-Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act (H.R. 5327), was sponsored by Representative Glenn C. Nye of Virgina.

[bloodyminded]

To sum up, the West has no reason to finance its own destruction or suicide. It is time for use to return to a pre-Viet Nam faith in our values, and in Western democracy.

What exactly is this "pre-Vietnam faith in our values"?

[GostHacked]

Yes, you have highlighted the program, but this was the first "warshot" scenario I'm aware of (against a Grad). The US has taken notice and wants in:

The US already took interest in it. This was the old Patriot Defence system. The US made it, but the Isreali's improved it may have perfected it. Does not seem to stop the rocket attacks though.

[Bonam]

No. Israel is a state, it does have national self-determination, as JBG put it.

We can place hypothetical attacks ahead of objective reality, if we wish. I see little purpose in it.

Oh, of course, I agree. It is a state, and has national self-determination. I certainly never claimed otherwise. I am surprised, I would not expect you to have missed the difference between "the UN condemns Israel's self-determination" and "Israel has no self-determination", two very clearly different statements.

Anyway, the UN is ineffectual to change this one way or another. But that doesn't change the fact that the UN directly opposed and condemned Israel's existence in resolution 3379.

[DogOnPorch]

The US already took interest in it. This was the old Patriot Defence system. The US made it, but the Isreali's improved it may have perfected it. Does not seem to stop the rocket attacks though.

Patriot isn't designed to shoot down incoming Katushyas and mortar shells.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, of course, I agree. It is a state, and has national self-determination. I certainly never claimed otherwise. I am surprised, I would not expect you to have missed the difference between "the UN condemns Israel's self-determination" and "Israel has no self-determination", two very clearly different statements.

The UN made no such statement. What they did was to pass a resolution that took the harshest criticisms of Zionism as objective truth, rather than a contentious opinion.

The fact that many people claim Israel and Zionism to be inseparable--a claim which may well be accurate, for all I know in my ignorance--doesn't demand that the UN "yes" voters all agreed with this, and hence were consciously voting against the very notion of "Israeli self-determination." That's an analysis, and in my view a monumentally oversensitive and wrongheaded one.

The Resolution was a bad one...and we can note well that it's no longer in play.

But no, it was not a Resolution designed to "condemn Israeli self-determination."

[DogOnPorch]

But no, it was not a Resolution designed to "condemn Israeli self-determination."

lol...right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/UNGA_3379_Map.png

[bloodyminded]

lol...right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/UNGA_3379_Map.png

Your link's not working for me.

Maybe you could explain why you disagree?

Edited April 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Patriot isn't designed to shoot down incoming Katushyas and mortar shells.

Right...it's a whole different ballgame...not Patriot or Arrow at all, which are considered longer range TMD systems.