Nikki Haley’s swansong at the UN was an embarrassment

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 10/12/2018

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley [Minasse Wondimu Hailu/Anadolu Agency]

The 6 December was the first anniversary of US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and that he would move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city. The announcement was cheered by Israel and its supporters for whom international laws and conventions are at best meaningless and at worst an irritant. Trump suggested that this move would help bring peace to the Holy Land. How wrong he was. Anyone but a diehard Zionist would have told him that he was deluded to think this, but nobody in his administration would have done so, because those tasked with developing a peace deal fall into this category.

One of these cheerleaders for Apartheid Israel is Nimrata Randhawa, better known to the world as Nikki Haley, the US Representative to the United Nations. In the UN Security Council, she can wield the US veto to protect Israel but she is unable to do that in the General Assembly, where no state has a veto. Her swansong in the chamber was an embarrassment for her and her country.

Haley left what was her final General Assembly with her pro-Israel tail firmly between her legs. Her resolution to condemn Hamas was voted down, while a resolution reiterating the call for a comprehensive peace based on the two-state solution, which she opposed, passed overwhelmingly. It is particularly galling that Haley wanted to use the UN to condemn Palestinians while defending Israel and its breaches of hundreds of resolutions passed by the very organisation she wanted to use to sanction the people of Palestine who are in breach of none.

The US envoy’s period in office has been characterised by her complete dismissal of Palestinian rights and unwavering support for Israel to ensure that it never faces accountability for its crimes. Her support for Israel since she took on the role has been astonishing. Early on in her appointment she made the defence of the Zionist state at the UN her primary goal, insisting that, “The days of Israel-bashing at the United Nations are over.” She added that the passing of so-called anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council, referring to the anti-settlement resolution 2334, “would never happen again.”

Haley even blocked the appointment of former PA prime minster Salam Fayyad as UN Envoy to Libya. “For too long the UN has been unfairly biased in favour of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of our allies in Israel,” she claimed.

Following Israel’s murder of over 60 Palestinians protesting peacefully on one day at the height of the Great March of Return demonstrations in the besieged Gaza Strip, Haley blocked a call for an international investigation into Israeli tactics in dealing with the peaceful protests. Instead, she blamed Iran and terrorist proxies for causing the violence. Haley went on to praise the Israeli forces’ performance throughout the protests: “I ask my colleagues here in the Security Council, who among us would accept this type of activity on your border? No one would. No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained.” She did not refer to the right that the Palestinian refugees marching to the nominal border fence have to return to their homes inside what is now called Israel. Resolution 194 regarding the right of return is yet another of the UN resolutions which Israel has failed to implement, even though its membership of the UN itself was conditional on doing so.

Palestinians will not forget her action on the day when 21-year-old volunteer medic Razan Al-Najjar was killed by an Israeli sniper’s bullet, possibly sourced from the US. Ambassador Haley fought to scupper a resolution in the Security Council calling for protection for the Palestinians.

One of Haley’s most embarrassing moments came when she tried to defend the US President’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the embassy from Tel Aviv. A resolution calling for the withdrawal of such recognition was backed by every council member except the US, which then used its veto to block it.

The resolution demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UN Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city’s final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Haley denounced the resolution as “an insult” and insisted that this action would not be forgotten.

“The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy,” she blustered. “It’s scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts. The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council.” Haley walked out of the chamber as the representative for Palestine began to speak.

A picture taken on October 18, 2018 shows the US Consulate in Jerusalem on October 2018 [THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images)

In October, she announced her resignation as America’s UN envoy but her defence of Israel ran through to the last minute of her period in office, which concluded with the General Assembly on 6 December.

The outcome of the vote on the two resolutions tabled at the GA last week was important to Palestinians and supporters of a just resolution to the conflict. Haley’s anti-Palestinian resolution called for condemnation of Hamas for “repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk”, and for its use of resources in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, “including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas.” The US-drafted text did not make any reference to Israel’s killing of nearly 300 peaceful protesters since 30 March or the botched covert Israeli operation inside Gaza that led to the recent flare up. The result of the vote was 87 in favour, 58 against, with 32 abstentions.

While this resolution gained a simple majority, including support from EU countries, it did not pass the two-thirds majority that the GA agreed would be necessary for it to pass. While Palestinians and their supporters were relieved and pleased, a closer examination shows worrying signs of a possible shift in support for Palestinian rights, including the legitimate right to resist a 51-year long illegal occupation and a 12-year siege on Gaza.

The Palestinians, though, can take comfort from the passing of the second resolution. The General Assembly called for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine in favour of the two-state solution. Not only did Israel vote against the Irish and Bolivian resolution as expected, but the US did as well, giving the clearest possible indication that it no longer supports a two-state solution. Australia also voted against a two-state solution, but none of the five countries opposed to the second resolution offered any alternative.

This General Assembly was likely to be Haley’s last public appearance as US Envoy. She has undoubtedly changed the role to one that takes its lead from both the US and Israeli administrations such that America’s Security Council veto is also openly Israel’s to use. This is a dangerous development, which together with the increasing support in the UN for condemnation of what Palestinians and international law regard as legitimate resistance is extremely detrimental to international law and order. The situation requires an urgent strategy to counter it.

Nikki Haley will not be missed by either Palestinians or their supporters. Good riddance, we say, to an apologist for Israel who has been the face at the UN of a completely biased, anti-Palestinian US administration. The Palestinians should be under no illusion that the next holder of the position, and those developing the “ultimate deal”, will be working to liquidate the Palestinian cause. However, those working against Palestinian rights should also know that they have picked on a people who have demonstrated over decades that they will not give up on their rights, whatever the challenges.

A challenge for Trump: Pull out of the UN

First published by the Middle East Eye on 27/6/2018

If it’s really ‘America first’, why is the US remaining in an organisation simply to act as Israel’s chief defender?SWITZERLAND-SYRIA-CONFLICT-UN-rights

President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

I challenge him to pull the country out of the UN entirely.

Trump’s decision to leave the UN rights council was announced by US ambassador Nikki Haley and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Haley gave two reasons for the decision: that “human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council” and that the council has become “a cesspool of political bias”.

Haley also pointed to a “disproportionate focus and unending hostility” towards Israel. She called the 47-member international council “an organisation that is not worthy of its name”.

Support from Netanyahu

A day earlier, UN rights chief Zeid Raad al-Hussein urged Washington to stop separating migrant children from their parents at the US border, saying: “The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable.”

Only Israel came out fully in support of the US pullout, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanking Trump, Pompeo and Haley for their “courageous decision against the hypocrisy and the lies of the so-called UN Human Rights Council”.

“For years, the UNHRC has proven to be a biased, hostile, anti-Israel organisation that has betrayed its mission of protecting human rights,” Netanyahu wrote on Facebook.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called the decision “regrettable” but said the UK was “here to stay” – despite the UK putting the council on notice last year for its criticism of Israel through the inclusion of a standard agenda item that considers Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians.

“We share the view that the dedicated Agenda Item 7, focused solely on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace – and unless things change, we shall vote next year against all resolutions introduced under Item 7,” Johnson said.

This will be interesting, as one of the resolutions normally reaffirms the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Would the UK really vote against this right?

Haley’s ‘extraordinary’ letter

Twelve rights and aid groups, including Human Rights First, Save the Children and CARE, wrote to Pompeo to warn that the withdrawal would “make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world”.

Haley responded in a letter that Iain Levine, the deputy executive director for programme with Human Rights Watch, described as “extraordinary”. He argued that Haley was seeking to hold HRW and other human rights groups “responsible for the US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council”.

Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s executive committee, noted in a statement: “It is not surprising that the United States administration who gives orders to snatch crying babies from their parents’ arms and who partners with Israel, a cruel and belligerent military occupier that holds an entire nation captive, has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).”

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley delivers remarks to the press together with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, announcing the U.S.'s withdrawal from the U.N's Human Rights Council at the Department of State in Washington

US ambassador Nikki Haley accused the UN rights council of hostility towards Israel (Reuters)

 

She continued: “The problem is not with the just and functioning global order, but with Israel who (sic) persists in committing lethal violations and war crimes against the Palestinian people. The US administration’s blind commitment to Israel and its proven track record of human rights violations will succeed in isolating it in the international arena and undermining its influence and standing globally.”

The US withdrawal from the council is not without precedent. Last October, the US withdrew from the UN education and culture organisation UNESCO, claiming it harboured “anti-Israel bias”. Then, too, Israel applauded the US decision as “courageous and moral”, while Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, said it showed the US administration’s “complete and total bias” towards Israel.

Accountability gap

The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, established to “bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”, when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

It would be natural to assume that a world power, which claims to be committed to human rights, would be a member of the ICC. The fact that it is not brings into question its real commitment to ensuring individuals who commit human rights abuses are accountable for their crimes.

Israel is currently awaiting a decision on whether the ICC, at the request of the PLO, will open proceedings against some of its military and political leaders for alleged violations, including the attacks on Gaza and the illegal settlements. It would be safe to assume that if the US were a member, it would leave the ICC if this happened, citing bias against Israel.

The US administration claims that the UN is dysfunctional, but then obstructs its work in order to protect Israel, including using its veto and withdrawing from its agencies. While it claims the UN singles Israel out for criticism, the US singles it out for protection from accountability for its crimes.

The US recently obstructed a UN Security Council resolution to provide protection for Palestinians participating in the peaceful Great Return March against violence by Israel, whose forces have killed 130 people, including medics and journalists. However, the US lost a similar resolution at the UN General Assembly, where it does not have a veto.

This mirrored the situation after Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Haley vetoed a Security Council resolution rejecting the recognition, while the General Assembly adopted a similar resolution.

US veto is Israel’s veto

If Trump believes the UN – 22 percent of whose budget is funded by the US – is dysfunctional, anti-Israel and disrespectful, he should leave the organisation entirely, just as he left the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.

It is likely that if America could leave the General Assembly but remain in the Security Council, it would – but that is not possible. It is all or nothing.

But even if for a moment Trump considered leaving the Security Council, Israel and its lobby would soon bring him to his senses. After all, the US veto is Israel’s veto on the council.

For a man who claims to put “America first”, I challenge the US president to withdraw his country from the UN.

– Kamel Hawwash is a British-Palestinian engineering professor based at the University of Birmingham and a longstanding campaigner for justice, especially for the Palestinian people. He is vice chair of the British Palestinian Policy Council (BPPC) and a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). He appears regularly in the media as a commentator on Middle East issues. He runs a blog at www.kamelhawwash.com and tweets at @kamelhawwash. He writes here in a personal capacity.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: The United Nations Human Rights Council is pictured on 13 March 2018 in Geneva (AFP)

 

Razan perdió su vida; mientras tanto, Nikki Haley perdía su humanidad

Primero publicado en Monitor De Oriente on 5/6/2018

Razan murió como una orgullosa palestina lleno de humanidad y será recordada con el mismo nombre con el que nació. Por el contrario, Nimrata Randhawa, será recordada por su nombre adoptado, Nikki Haley, ocultando su herencia india. Elshamy/Anadolu Agency]

El pasado viernes, 1 de junio, una médico voluntaria palestina, Razan Al Najar, mientras ayunaba, atendía a los heridos en la verja artificial que separa a Gaza de Israel. A miles de kilómetros, la embajadora de Estados Unidos en la ONU, Nikki Haley, maquinaba en nombre de Israel en el organismo internacional. El día acabó con Razan glorificada y convertida en mártir y en Nikki humillada y avergonzada.

Como hacía cada día desde el comienzo de la Gran Marcha del Retorno el 30 de marzo, Razan se despidió de su familia y se dirigió a la frontera, consciente de que sus habilidades serían necesarias para tratar a los palestinos que se disponían a marchar hacia la valla que separa artificialmente a Gaza del resto de la Palestina histórica. Marchan para ejercitar su derecho a regresar a los hogares de los que proceden y de donde las fuerzas israelíes les expulsaron en 1948. Sin duda, los conocimientos médicos de Razan serían necesarios, ya que Israel había decidido desplegar a decenas de francotiradores profesionales para asesinar a palestinos. El número de víctimas ha alcanzado las 119 y más de diez mil heridos; algunas estimaciones elevan esta cifra a más de 13.000.

Una publicación de Facebook – cuya exactitud no puedo verificar – afirma que, en sus últimas palabras, Razan le pidió a su madre que hiciera hojas de parra rellenas para la ruptura del ayuno al anochecer. Se despidió y marchó a encontrarse con sus compañeros médicos en la valla. En aquel momento, Nikki Haley estaría probablemente desayunando antes de dirigirse a la ONU y decidir cómo lidiar con los 15 miembros del Consejo de Seguridad. No había llegado a un acuerdo sobre ninguna declaración respecto a los acontecimientos en la frontera de Gaza desde el comienzo de las marchas, a pesar del alto número de víctimas. Aquel día, el Consejo decidía si respaldar una resolución presentada por Kuwait pidiendo protección para el pueblo palestino, o respaldar una resolución estadounidense condenando a Hamás por una serie de cohetes disparados desde la Franja de Gaza en respuesta a los crímenes israelíes.

Razan, de 20 años, era la mayor de seis hermanos. Tenía un título en enfermería general y había completado unos 38 cursos de primeros auxilios. Aunque no tenía asegurado un trabajo remunerado, se ofrecía como voluntaria en hospitales, ONGS y organizaciones médicas, desarrollando habilidades y experiencia que la convirtieron en una gran ayuda durante la Gran Marcha.

En una entrevista con el The New York Times el mes pasado, Razan explicaba por qué se había ofrecido voluntaria para ayudar en la Gran Marcha del Retorno, sobre todo como mujer. “Ser médico no es sólo un trabajo de hombres”, dijo Razan, “también es de mujeres”.

También atestiguó los momentos finales de algunos heridos de muerte. “Me rompe el corazón que algunos de los jóvenes que resultaron heridos o fueron asesinados me dijeran a mí su última voluntad”, contaba a Al Jazeera. “Algunos incluso me daban objetos suyos [como regalo] antes de morir.”

En una publicación en su cuenta de Facebook el 16 de mayo, Razan negaba las acusaciones de que ella y otros voluntarios habían sido coaccionados para ir a la frontera.

El 1 de junio, un francotirador israelí la disparó por la espalda, según informó la organización activista Al Mezan, citando a testigos oculares y a sus investigaciones. En el momento de recibir el disparo, se encontraba a 100 m. de la valla y llevaba ropas que claramente la identificaban como médico. Su chaleco médico manchado de sangre la acompañó a la tumba durante el funeral masivo que se celebró para ella al día siguiente.

Comparemos los actos humanos y desinteresados de Razan, de 21 años, con oportunidades limitadas de conseguir paz y justicia para su pueblo, con los intentos vergonzosos y descarados de la embajadora Nikki Haley en el Consejo de Seguridad para denegar la protección al pueblo de Razan. Mientras que Kuwait proponía una resolución al Consejo para cumplir su responsabilidad ante un pueblo oprimido y garantizar su protección, Haley proponía una resolución para denunciar a Hamás por los cohetes lanzados contra zonas israelíes tras los ataques y bombardeos mortales de Israel en el enclave asediado.

La votación sobre ambos textos se produjo poco después de la muerte de Razan. Haley no consiguió más votos que el suyo para su resolución; tres países votaron en contra y 11 se abstuvieron. Una total humillación para Estados Unidos y personalmente para Haley que hizo que los analistas revolvieran los registros históricos hasta encontrar otra ocasión en la que una resolución sólo hubiera contado con el apoyo del país que la proponía. En el momento de escribir este artículo, aún no han encontrado ninguna.

Una vez más, Haley quedó aislada cuando Estados Unidos vetó una resolución para proteger a los palestinos. Con su poder en Israel, ha dado la espalda a un pueblo palestino mayoritariamente pacífico que se enfrenta al ejército de Israel, ayudado por el hardware militar de EEUU, con un valor de miles de millones de dólares. En una reunión previa del Consejo respecto a los asesinatos de Israel contra manifestantes palestinos, decidió salir en cuanto su representante comenzó hablar. Supuso una clara violación del protocolo y produjo grandes críticas. Dado su desempeño general como embajadora de los Estados Unidos, el presidente Trump debería despedir a Haley inmediatamente. Ha provocado el aislamiento y la humillación de su país; todo por el bien de un aliado inmerecido, Israel.

El 1 de junio de 2018, Razan perdió su vida mientras Nikki Haley perdía su humanidad al defender las acciones terroristas de un Estado criminal, Israel. Razan murió como una palestina orgullosa, llena de humanidad, y será recordada con el mismo nombre que le pusieron al nacer. Al contrario, Nimrata Randhawa, hija de inmigrantes sij, un día fallecerá y será recordada por su nombre adoptivo, Nikki Haley, con el que oculta su herencia india. Razan será recordada por su voluntariado desinteresado, mientras que Haley será recordada por apoyar y proteger al único Estado de apartheid del mundo.

Razan no podía hacer mucho por cambiar el mundo y conseguir la paz en tierra santa, mientras que Haley, desde una de las oficinas más poderosas de la política mundial, podría haber ayudado a proteger a los palestinos y llevar la paz a la región. Si Razan hubiera tenido un cargo tan alto, el mundo sería un lugar mejor.

Descansa en paz, Razan Al-Najar. Vales más que un millón de Nikki Haleys.

 

 

While Razan lost her life, Nikki Haley lost her humanity

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 3/6/2018

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations votes during a UN Security Council meeting following the United States, United Kingdom and France attacks on chemical weapons positions in Syria at United Nations Headquarters in New York, United States on 14 April, 2018 [Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency]

Razan died a proud Palestinian full of humanity and will be remembered with the same name she was born with. In contrast, Nimrata Randhawa, will be remembered by her adopted name, Nikki Haley, hiding her Indian heritage. Elshamy/Anadolu Agency]

Last Friday, 1 June, a Palestinian volunteer medic, Razan Al Najar, was fasting and tending to the wounded at Gaza’s artificial fence with Israel. Thousands of miles away, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, was scheming on behalf of Israel at the world body. The day ended with martyrdom and glory for Razan and shame and humiliation for Nikki.

Just like she had done since the start of the Great March of Return on 30 March, Razan said goodbye to her family to go to the border, knowing that her skills would undoubtedly be called upon to treat Palestinians planning to march to the fence that artificially separates Gaza from the rest of historic Palestine. They have been marching to exercise their right of return to the homes they and their families hail from and which Israel and its terrorist gangs had expelled them from in 1948 and continued to do since then. Razan’s medical skills would surely be needed because Israel decided to deploy tens of highly trained snipers to kill Palestinians. The number killed has now reached 119, with over ten thousand injured; some estimates put this figure at over 13,000.

File photo of 21-year-old Razan Al-Najar, a volunteer medic in Gaza, killed on June 1, 2018, during the 10th week of the ‘Great March of Return’ protests at the Gaza-Israel border

A post on Facebook whose accuracy I cannot verify says that her last words to her mother were to ask her to cook stuffed vine leaves for her breaking of the fast meal at sunset. She said her goodbyes and left to join her medical colleagues at the fence. Nikki Haley would at that time probably been having her breakfast before heading to the UN to decide how to deal with the 15-member Security Council. It had failed to agree on any statement regarding the events at the Gaza fence since the start of the marches, despite the high number of casualties. The choice for the Council that day was whether to back a resolution tabled by Kuwait calling for protection for the Palestinian people or to back an American resolution condemning Hamas for a volley of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip in response to Israeli crimes.

Twenty-one-year-old Razan was the eldest of six siblings. She had a diploma in general nursing and had completed some 38 first aid courses. Although she had not secured paid work, she volunteered in hospitals and with NGOs and medical organisations, building skills and experience that made her an asset when it came to the Great March.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Razan explained why she had volunteered to help with the Great Return March, especially as a woman. “Being a medic is not only a job for a man,” Razan said. “It’s for women, too.”

She also bore witness to the final moments of some of those who were fatally wounded. “It breaks my heart that some of the young men who were injured or killed made their wills in front of me,” she told Al Jazeera. “Some even gave me their accessories [as gifts] before they died.”

In a post on her Facebook account on the 16 May, Razan denied claims that she and others went to the fence under duress.

On 1 June, she was shot in the back by an Israeli sniper, the human rights group Al Mezan stated, citing eyewitnesses and its investigations. She was100m from the fence the moment she was shot and was wearing clothing which clearly identified her as a medic. Her blood stained medical vest accompanied her to her grave during what was a massive funeral the following day.

Contrast the humane and selfless acts of 21-year-old Razan, with limited opportunities to bring peace and justice to her people, with the shameful and brazen attempts in the Security Council by US Ambassador Nikki Haley to deny another people, Razan’s people, protection from Israeli terror. While Kuwait had brought a resolution to the Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to an oppressed people and ensure their protection, Hayley was bringing a resolution to denounce Hamas for the volley of rockets that were launched into other Israeli controlled areas following the deadly attacks at the fence and bombings of the beleaguered enclave.

Votes on the two texts came shortly after Razan’s death. Haley failed to garner any votes for the resolution except her own, with three countries voting against it and 11 abstaining. A complete humiliation for the US and for Haley personally, leaving observers scrambling through historical records to find another occasion when a resolution only had the support of the country proposing it. None were found at the time of writing this piece.

Palestinians attend the funeral ceremony of Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, a female paramedic who was shot dead by Israeli forces while healing wounded demonstrators during ‘Great March of Return’ protests in Khan Yunis on Friday, in Huzaa neighbourhood of Khan Yunis, Gaza on June 02, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Hayley was again isolated when the US vetoed a resolution to protect Palestinians. With her Israel proxy, she had turned her back on a largely unarmed Palestinian people, facing the might of Israel’s military, aided by American military hardware worth billions of dollars. She had walked outof a previous Council meeting on Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters when their representative began to speak. It was a clear breach of protocol which brought heavy condemnation.  Given her overall performance as US ambassador, President Trump should, without delay, sack Hayley. She has brought isolation and disgrace to her country; all for the sake of an undeserving ally, Israel.

On 1 June 2018, Razan lost her life while Nikki Hayley lost her humanity defending the terrorist actions of a rogue state, Israel. Razan died a proud Palestinian full of humanity and will be remembered with the same name she was born with. In contrast, Nimrata Randhawa, the daughter of Sikh immigrants will one day pass away to be remembered by her adopted name, Nikki Haley, hiding her Indian heritage. Razan will be remembered for her selfless volunteering while Hayley will be remembered for her astonishing role, supporting and shielding the world’s only apartheid state.

Razan had little power to change the dynamics and bring peace to the holy land, while Hayley, from one of the most powerful offices in world politics, could have helped protect Palestinians and bring peace to the region. If only Razan had such a high profile office, the world would be a better place.

Rest in peace Razan Al-Najar, you are worth more than a million Nikki Haleys.

112 Palestinians were killed in #Gaza by Israeli forces from 30th March to 15 May 2018

Read more: ow.ly/wwyF30k7j4A

MEMO infographic by The White Canvas …

See more

184

21

130

Could the Palestine-Israel conflict destroy the UN?

First published by the Arab Weekly on 15/1/2017


The vote on UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on the illegality of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestin­ian territories brought relations among the international body, Israel and the future US administration to a head.

The United States unusually abstained on the resolution that criticised Israel while all other members of council voted in fa­vour of it. Israel was outraged, particularly since it thought it had managed to have the text taken off the table after Israeli officials and the incoming Donald Trump administration pressured Egypt to withdraw it. However, the resolu­tion was brought forward 24 hours later by New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela.

Israel called the resolution “shameful” and immediately recalled its ambassador to New Zealand, punished Senegal by can­celling aid agreements and hauled in all other remaining ambassadors for a telling off at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The matter did not end there. Is­rael threatened to cut its contribu­tion to the United Nations, thought to be $40 million a year, in protest of the resolution. It recently an­nounced that it would withhold $6 million of that contribution, which a Twitter posting by Israeli Ambas­sador to the United Nations Danny Danon claimed “represents the portion of the UN budget allocated to anti-Israel bodies”.

He argued that “it is unreasona­ble for Israel to fund such entities” but did not elaborate on which bodies would be hit by the cut.

The passing of Resolution 2334 also created ructions in the United States, with US President-elect Donald Trump claiming the resolu­tion would “make it much harder to negotiate peace” but also tweet­ing that, as to the United Nations, things would be different after he is sworn into office January 20th.

The US House of Representa­tives overwhelmingly approved a non-binding bipartisan resolution that rebukes the United Nations for criticising Israeli settlements. The resolution called for the Security Council resolution to be “repealed or fundamentally altered”. A simi­lar bipartisan measure has been introduced in the Senate.

That may not be enough for Israel or its supporters in the United States. Lawmakers, includ­ing US Senators Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, want to see US funding to the United Nations cut unless the Security Council repeals Resolu­tion 2334.

The call was supported by Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, who told Fox News: “I think a new president and Congress that wants to make sure that every penny of your money is going to something that protects and defends and advances US interests — I think there’s a lot of changes that could happen at the United Nations.”

If implemented, the cut in UN funding would not be the first such incident. In 2011, the United States and Israel withheld funding for UNESCO following the admission of the Palestinian territories to the UN agency. The move resulted in the suspension of the two coun­tries’ voting rights two years later.

The United States pays 22% of the world’s contributions to the UN budget, much more than any other country. By comparison, Israel’s contribution is 0.4%.

The effects of a serious cut in US funding of the United Nations would be severe. While the most visible activity of the United Na­tions in recent weeks has been through the Security Council, much of the work the world body and its agencies do is largely invis­ible to the masses.

The United Nations works on some of the world’s most pressing challenges from the humanitarian needs of survivors of earthquakes in Japan and Haiti to political crises and violence in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.

Not only is funding important to the United Nations’ operation but so too is America’s leadership and engagement.

Despite the very legitimate scepticism about the ability of the United Nations to deliver on security and justice in the Middle East and despite Israel’s contin­ued violations of Security Council resolutions, the United Nations remains a critical organisation for the people of the region.

As Resolution 2334 showed, there are times when the United Nations can help Middle Eastern causes by, at the very least, keep­ing them at an appropriate level of prominence. This is what Resolu­tion 2334 did and its ramifications continue.

It is worth noting that the name “United Nations” was coined by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was first used in the Declara­tion by United Nations of January 1st, 1942, when representatives of 26 countries pledged their govern­ments to continue fighting against the Axis powers in the second world war.

It would be ironic if the same country were to put the future of the United Nations in jeopardy by severely cutting its contribution to the world body.

Protesting the UN resolution on Israel’s illegal settlements could lead to the destruction of the United Nations.

The ‘Status quo is unsustainable’ so let us maintain the status quo

IMG_6830.JPG
President Obama addresses UN General Assembly

How often have Western leaders said this about Israel’s occupation of Palestine? President Obama said this again in his UN address on 24 September. Before him UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said it in March of this year. US Secretary of State John Kerry said it even before him, back in February.

What are they exactly referring to? The status quo is of course perceived differently by the Palestinians and Israelis and their respective supporters.

Israel and its supporters refer to the lack of two states that separate as many Jewish Israelis from as many Palestinian Muslims and Christians as possible to maintain as substantial a Jewish majority as possible in Israel. They also refer to the continuing possibility of tickets flying out of Gaza in protest at Israeli violations of the August brokered ceasefire.

Palestine and its supporters seek an end to the occupation of the territories occupied in 1967. This necessitates an end to the settlement project and the removal of the Israeli military from these areas.

You would have thought then that following the failure of the U.S. brokered talks and Israel’s recent abhorrent attack on Gaza which devastated humans and infrastructure, those that want to change the status quo would be looking for means to achieve this.

The Palestinians are trying to do this through the United Nations. Mahmoud Abbas wants a Security Council Resolution that sets a date for ending the occupation, which generously wants to give Israel three years to achieve. When you consider that Israel has had forty seven years to achieve, does not seem unreasonable. He is asking for a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps. Again, this is more than reasonable considering it would be on 22% of historic Palestine.

IMG_6829.JPG
President Abbas addresses the UN General Assembly

But pretty quickly the U.S., the UK and Australia expressed their support for the status quo by rejecting Abbas’s move. They will not support a Security Council resolution putting a date on the end of the occupation. Their remedy is based on a return to futile negotiations, which Israel uses to complete its ‘Greater Israel Project’. It will soon, if it hasn’t already, put an end to the two state solution, which its supporters claim is the only game in town.

This leaves the status quo in tact. A people under military occupation, Israel as an Apartheid state and peace a concept rather than an aim. Israel wants to maintain a perpetual ‘quiet occupation’.

The conclusion is that the West is simply complicit in the Greater Israel, colonial and racist project. Be honest guys, you don’t give a damn about Palestinians or justice. It takes for one colonialist to support another.

Palestinians must now take matters into their own hands and start with signing the Rome Statutes. Once an Israeli leader appears before the International Criminal Court, the game will change. More importantly, the victims of Israel’s war crimes will be on the way to receiving justice.

Updated 1/10/2014

Surprise surprise, Obama calls for change in status quo during his meeting with Netanyahu. And of course Netanyahu wants peace and a 2-state solution! We’ve been here before. In addition, the U.S. has made it clear it would veto a resolution setting a date for an end to the occupation.

The Palestinians should simply move to singing he Rome Statutes.