Search This Blog

Thursday, January 11, 2018

What's missing in NPR's Jerusalem discussion? Palestinians and International Law

NPR Morning Edition commentator Cokie Roberts offered no surprises in her 4:30 min Q&A over Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem Israel’s capital. The context-free segment was aligned with MSM talking points featuring unquestioned support for Israeli
unilateralism.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570387437/ask-cokie-trump-recognizes-jerusalem-as-israels-capital

Roberts was accurate about one thing. International legitimacy is still important to Israel. Despite all the UN hand-wringing, Israel is quite comfortable at the table. Hence, Roberts goes to that infamous Partition Plan as a means to nudging the ensuing conversation toward legitimacy.

ROBERTS: Well, the U.N. had a huge role (in Israel’s creation). As the post World War I British control over Palestine was scheduled to end in 1948, the U.N. debated the future of the region and eventually did adopt what was called the Partition Resolution in 1947, which divided Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states and put Jerusalem under international control to be administered by the U.N. But that didn't last long.

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

Did the UN resolution “divide Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states” and “put Jerusalem under international control”?

Though UN General Assembly 181 (The Partition Resolution) was approved by the  UN General Assembly - minus input from the existing residents and over the  objection of the surrounding Arab states – it remains the fictional bedrock of Israel’s legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the UN does not have state making powers and UN 181 conferred no legal authority to Israel’s founders for their unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

In reality, UN 181 merely recommended that the partition plan be implemented and requested the Security Council take up the matter from there as UN General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding.

Importantly, it called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to accept the plan, but they were certainly under no obligation to do so. This is important to keep in mind when considering what followed.

Given that Arab Muslims and Christians not only outnumbered Jews 2 to 1, owning the vast majority of the land, the Arab rejection of the plan that sought to convey 55% of mandate Palestine to the Jewish minority was to be expected.

In 1945, Jewish land ownership hovered just under 6%.

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

INSKEEP: What happened?

ROBERTS: Well, as soon as the state of Israel was declared, five Arab armies attacked Jewish settlements in the region. Israel fought back and captured the western part of Jerusalem.

*******************************
Israeli historians broadly concede that between 200,000 to 400,000 Palestinians were “transferred” from Palestine prior to Israel’s unilateral declaration of statehood May 14, 1948. This highly planned ethnic cleansing included expulsion and dozens of massacres and terror attacks on civilians.
The attack of the “5 Arab Armies” Roberts mentions is a common boilerplate statement that deserves unpacking. Given the ethnic cleansing, land grab and looting already underway, Arab States took up arms to prevent the Zionists from claiming all of Palestine for themselves.
The unilaterally declaration of the state of Israel by the Zionists over lands they had no rights to was the chief motivator for the invasion. 
There was considerably more involved in the Zionist taking of Palestine than simply “Israel fighting back” which implies self-defense and evokes empathy. In reality, Israeli terror squads like the Hagganah and Stern Gang  (precursors to the Israeli Defense Forces) had long been preparing, training and arming for Plan Dalet, the Zionist “population transfer” plan for the Arab inhabitants of Palestine.
The conflation of the “Arab invasion” with the “Zionist expulsion” was important to Israel’s founders for two reasons: It provided cover for old fashioned ethnic cleansing and it conferred a semblance of legitimacy to the newly declared state. Everybody loves and underdog. 
As there was no internationally recognized state of Israel when this invasion occurred, “Israel” was never invaded.

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

ROBERTS CONT: Then in a later war, the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel took all the city. And East Jerusalem is now considered occupied territory by the Arabs, who also claim the city as their capital.

*********************************************
“Considered occupied territory by the Arabs”? 
It is not just considered occupied territory by the Arabs, but by the rest of the world as well. 
Here, Roberts selective forgets UN Resolution 242, unanimously approved (15-0) by the Security Council (a legally binding resolution unlike UN 181) in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967. The that resulted in the unfortunate misunderstanding by the Arabs that Israel was occupying their lands. 
The resolution – reiterated through successive security council resolutions, the most recent passed last year with a US abstention - calls for the Israeli withdrawal of lands captured in that war including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in exchange for full recognition of Israel by surrounding Arab states. 
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i)      Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii)     Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

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

INSKEEP: And the United States had not recognized it as Israel's capital up to now, which leads to our next question (When did the US recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?)

ROBERTS: Well, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed in 1995 with overwhelming, overwhelming support in both houses.

*******************************************
Roberts adds not one but TWO “overwhelmings” to emphasize the “unshakable” pro-Israeli US position. However, there was another aspect to the Jerusalem conundrum. Again, it was “the rest of the world”. 
Had Roberts contrasted that vote in the US Congress to the vote on the issue in the UN Security Council 15 years prior, listeners might have been given a glimpse of just how “overwhelmingly” out of step the US is with the international community. 
When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, the move was widely condemned and it reverberated straight to the Security Council which found the annexation was in contravention of international law and urged its rejection. UNSC 478 passed with overwhelming, overwhelming support 14-0. 
The US abstained 
 In particular, UNSC 478 notes Israel's non-compliance with UNSC res 476 and condemned Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law…as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. 
Why would NPR not want its highly educated listener base aware of the fact that everything US politicians are doing with regard to Israel is consistently opposed to the agreements reached by the international community? Against international law?

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

ROBERTS: But let's be clear, Steve. This was a strictly political move. The bill was introduced by Bob Dole, who was running for president, and he wanted to woo the evangelical Christians who support Israel plus Jewish voters.

But President Clinton, who allowed the bill become law without signing it, convinced the Congress to insert the waiver which allows a six-month delay if there are security reasons to support that.

And for reasons of stability, each succeeding president has signed the waiver every six months. The Trump administration argues this president is making a bold move by saying he's going to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

Reasons of stability? Meaning if the US acts in violation of international law and the international consensus, there may be a reaction? 
While Israel hides behind International bodies for legitimacy, it undermines ignores and holds them in contempt when they challenge its regional designs and aggression.
Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948, its acquisition of territory by war in 1967 and its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980, are but three examples. 
Setting aside the multi-lateral UN agreements in place recognizing the special status of Jerusalem – home to sites revered by the three major world religions and a majority of the world’s population – another consequence of Israeli unilateralism is completely absent in Roberts reporting - the 5 million Palestinian refugee living without rights under Israeli military occupation. 
Unlike the Jews, Muslim and Christians expelled from the “Promised Land” are not entitled to a “right of return” under Israel’s racist demographic formulation. 
Additionally, the impact of the announcement on the 300,000 Muslims and Christians living in East Jerusalem under apartheid “residency” laws under constant threat of expulsion, does not bear mention in the piece. 
Mentioning their plight, it appears, is but a nuisance to NPR programmers. As their existence has always been to the Zionist program. 
While unilateral action has defined the founding and expansion of the state of Israel, International consensus remains important. Just as Israel and its apologists harken back to UN 181 as a founding document, the multi-national efforts made on behalf of justice and human rights for Palestinians has not been for naught. 
With a two-state settlement, all but neutralized by a “peace process” that has institutionalized 30-years of illegal settlement expansion on stolen lands throughout the West Bank and E. Jerusalem, activists too are focusing on the “facts on the ground”.
If Israel insists on total control, the choice could not be more clear. 
It must either live up to its slogan as “the only democracy in the middle east” and obligations under international law by restoring full rights to the 5 million occupied Muslims and Christians under a binational state or continue down the racist path of S. Africa, international alienation and apartheid.

REFERENCES:

Palestine Remembered:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2707.html

Palestine Remembered Village Statistics:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/4-The%20Land%20And%20Its%20Ownership/Page-019.jpg

UNSC 181:

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253

UNSC 242:

https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967)

UNSC 478:

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

Plan Dalet:

http://www.jmcc.org/Documentsandmaps.aspx?id=755

No comments:

Post a Comment