web analytics
September 24, 2014 / 29 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘UN Security Council’

UN Security Council Emergency Session on Zionist Snow Conspiracy

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

The UN Security Council is to convene an emergency session to discuss the heavy snow storm  enveloping Jerusalem. The 58 states who make up the Organization of Islamic Countries demanded the special session because of the untold suffering this is causing to the 200,000 Palestinians living in Jerusalem. In welcoming the move, Baroness Ashton of the EU confirmed that only Palestinian Arabs have been affected by the snow due to the racist ‘security’ wall that separates them from the 650,000 Jewish (illegal) settlers living in Jerusalem.

Speaking from Ramallah the Palestinian Authority’s leading cleric Sheikh Mohammed Luni Jihad asserted that the Israelis created the snowstorm specifically to punish the Palestinians and in particular to destroy the Al Asqa Mosque. While some climate scientists have disputed certain aspects of the Sheikh’s claim, there is universal agreement that this kind of freak snowstorm is due to man-made global warming which is caused mainly by the Zionist control of all the world’s natural resources. Al Gore and David Cameron both confirmed that the ‘science was settled’ for this.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was quick to agree to the special security council session, stating that there was no greater tragedy in the world today than the sufferings of the Palestinians, and that the snowstorm was a ‘disproportionate response’ by the Israelis to recent ‘minor’ provocations. The latter reference was to the totally harmless past time of Arab youths in Jerusalem to stone Jewish women and children (which in some cases does not even lead to death or serious injury). US Secretary of State John Kerry warned the Israelis that if the snow storm was allowed to continue – and hence deprive the Palestinian youths of the opportunity to stone Jews – then he would personally support a third intifada. Fortunately the Arab youths have already found inventive ways to express their frustrations in the snow.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was especially scathing in his criticism of the Israelis. He believes the snow storm has been created not just to persecute Palestinians but also to give the Israelis an excuse to delay the release of the next bunch of convicted terrorists earning Masters degrees in Israeli prisons.

Meanwhile on campuses through the western world students mobilized to show their support for the suffering Palestinians. A common theme expressed in protests was that the snow storm was an attempt by the Israelis to ‘whitewash their crimes against humanity’.

The Disasters and Emergencies Committee (DEC) has also launched an emergency appeal to ensure that additional money can be given to the Palestinians to buy tobogans and ski equipment for the terrorists released from prison who are all struggling to survive on an EU-funded salary of just $50,000 per year.

Visit Confronting Antisemitism and Israel Hatred in the UK.

Guardian’s Cartoon of Powerful Jews Manipulating Western Leaders

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013

Last November we posted about a political cartoon at the Guardian by Steve Bell depicting British foreign minister William Hague and Tony Blair as puppets being controlled by Binyamin Netanyahu, in the context of expressions of support by these leaders during the war in Gaza.  Bell’s image evoked the canard of powerful Jews controlling western politicians for their own nefarious purposes and was hauntingly similar to more explicitly antisemitic cartoons routinely found in Arab and Islamist world.

The Guardian’s readers’ editor, Chris Elliott, addressed the row a couple of weeks later, and actually rebuked Bell for ‘unintentionally’ using the visual language of antisemitic stereotypes.

While such cartoons often have more of an immediate impact in reinforcing negative stereotypes about Jews than lengthy essays, the damage done by such toxic ideas regarding ‘Jewish control’, in any form, should be taken seriously.  The Guardian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in news reports and commentaries, often includes passages with the unmistakable  suggestion that Israel (and the pro-Israeli lobby) wields enormous power over ineffectual Western leaders – a theme present in a report by Harriet Sherwood and Julian Borger titled ‘Iran nuclear programme deal in danger of unravelling’, Nov. 11.  The story centered on nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) which ultimately unraveled largely due to concerns that the agreement would have eased sanctions on Iran without requiring that it cease enriching uranium.

The report by Sherwood and Borger included the following:

In a bid to contain the danger, the lead US negotiator, Wendy Sherman, flew straight from the talks in Geneva to Israel to reassure Binyamin Netanyahu’s government that the intended deal would not harm his country’s national interests.

The hastily arranged trip represented an acknowledgement of Netanyahu’s power to block a deal through his influence in the US Congress and in Europe. Egged on by the Israelis, the US Senate is poised to pass new sanctions that threaten to derail the talks before they get to their planned next round in 10 days’ time.

More immediately, Netanyahu demonstrated over the weekend that he could sway the Geneva talks from the inside through his relationship with Paris.

These passages of course strongly suggest that US congressional leaders take their marching orders from Jerusalem and that the French government’s position was not motivated by what it saw as its own national interests but, rather, as a result of the influence of the Israeli prime minister.

However, the deal was fatally flawed, according to many experts, due in part because it would have fallen short of the requirements in six resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council over the years which called on Iran to suspend ALL uranium enrichment – resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, rendering them binding under international law.

As Adam Chandler observed in an essay published at Tablet about the superficial analysis by Sherwood and Borger:

[Their argument] smacks of that paranoid, evergreen charge that all wars and international campaigns are waged on behalf of Israel, a claim that devolves from Israel into “the Jews” as it goes through portal after conspiratorial portal.

You don’t even need to believe that antisemitism is at play to nonetheless be contemptuous of the extraordinary myopia displayed in the Guardian report.  As Walter Russell Mead observed recently about the broader intellectual dynamic which unites antisemitism with anti-Zionism:

Weak minds…are easily seduced by attractive but empty generalizations. The comment attributed to August Bebel that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools can be extended to many other kinds of cheap and superficial errors that people make. The baffled, frustrated and the bewildered seek a grand, simplifying hypothesis that can bring some kind of ordered explanation to a confusing world.

Guardian “journalists” may fancy themselves sophisticated, erudite and worldly, but their frequent ‘Zionist root cause’ explanations betray both their ideological bias and the extraordinarily facile nature of their reasoning.

Visit CIFWatch.

Saudi Arabia Says No to UN Security Council Seat

Saturday, October 19th, 2013

Just a day after having won a seat (for which it had lobbied) for the first time on the United Nations Security Council, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the coveted seat.

The reason?

Saudi Arabia … is refraining from taking membership of the U.N. Security Council until it has reformed so it can effectively and practically perform its duties and discharge its responsibilities in maintaining international security and peace,”it said in a Foreign Ministry statement.

What is really going on seems to be that someone at the highest level in the kingdom is furious over international relations with respect to the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia is particularly disgusted by U.S. failure to halt Iran’s move towards hegemony in the region. Close second and third concerns are the failures, in its view, of the U.S. to support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and to conclude the ongoing civil war in Syria.  Both of the latter two conflicts are also seen as proxy wars for Iranian control.

Although nearly every nation expressed some level of surprise over the Saudi Security Council seat rejection, the kingdom had sent a strong signal of displeasure last month when the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal cancelled his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. The reason given at the time was displeasure over the body’s inaction on vital matters in the Middle East.

The only other time anyone can recall that a member nation of the U.N. rejected a seat on the Security Council is back in 195o, when the Soviet Union boycotted its permanent seat for half a year in protest at Taiwan’s occupation of the Chinese seat instead of Beijing.

Is it the UN or Azkaban? Saudi Arabia Now on the Security Council

Friday, October 18th, 2013

It had to happen.  You knew it was going to happen.

What with Iran getting a lead role on the Disarmament and International Security Committee, and Syria having been selected to serve on UNESCO’s Human Rights Committee, it had to happen.  Saudi Arabia, the bottom feeder of human rights, especially for women’s rights, has received the nod and now gets to sit at the big table.

On Thursday, October 17, Saudia Arabia was one of five countries to “easily win seats on the UN Security Council,” according to the AP. Two of the other three newly elected members also have horrific human rights records, so apparently that is no bar to a position on the most elite grouping of the global forum.

Well, is it such a problem if known human rights abusers are selected to serve on the Security Council? Why yes, because the mandate for the group includes giving members leading voices in matters of international security and providing oversight to UN peacekeeping forces.

Chad – notorious for its use of child soldiers, and Nigeria – have we not heard enough about the delightful Boko Haram to know that any place that group is comfortable should not be on the UN Security Council, are the other two controversial seat winners.

The two non-controversial choices for the elite seats were Lithuania and Chile.

Regional groups nominate members and the selections are made to ensure that all the regional groups are represented.

There are about 60 member countries of the U.N. which have never been chosen to sit on the Security Council.  Israel is one of those.

Israel Seeks UN Security Council Seat; Will Power Proffer Power?

Monday, October 7th, 2013

Late last week the Jewish State publicly announced that it plans to run for one of the ten rotating positions on the Security Council of the United Nations for the 2019-2020 year. Virtually everyone agrees it will be a tough battle for Israel to land a seat on the Security Council, but this year Israel has a special weapon it has not had in the past: US power. Or, more accurately, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.

This past July, when Power appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her vetting in advance of being appointed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N, Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) bluntly asked Power whether she would assist Israel if the Jewish State seeks to fill one of the ten rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council.

“Absolutely, sir,” Power responded. “The Security Council seat is one that has eluded Israel, despite its many contributions across the years, and I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as well as playing defense on the legitimation of Israel, and we’ll make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli public servants in the U.N. system.”

Now for a little background information: in order to win one of those ten rotating seats, two-thirds of the 193 member states of the U.N. General Assembly must vote to support a country’s bid.  In the 64 plus years during which Israel has been a member state of the U.N., it has never been approved for a seat on the U.N.’s Security Council.

Israel never has, but every one of its’ neighbors has had a seat on the Security Council several times: Egypt, four times; Jordan, twice; Syria, three times and Lebanon, twice.  Even Iraq and Iran have been voted on to the Security Council. But not Israel.

The Security Council can make policy decisions which have binding authority.  It can impose sanctions or authorize the use of the military. In contrast, the General Assembly can only pass resolutions, which are non-binding statements.

The ten rotating spots for the Security Council are chosen from within the five regional groups into which the U.N. is divided: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin American and the Caribbean, and the Western Europe and Others group (WEOG).

Although geographically – which is exactly how the groups are organized – Israel would naturally fall within the Asia Pacific group.  But the Islamic countries refused to permit Israel to be a member of that group. Sounds impossible, or at least impermissible, but it is what happened. And it was permitted.

So for years Israel was a U.N. member nation without a regional group home.  This meant that it was unable to participate in certain U.N. activities, one of which was being considered for a position on the Security Council.  But in 2000 the semi-magnanimous members of the WEOG permitted Israel to become a partial member of their regional group.

And then, in 2004, Israel was made a permanent member of WEOG. With that decision, after 55 years as a U.N. vagabond nation, Israel had a home in a regional group and became eligible for a seat on the Security Council. Israel will be running against Germany and Belgium for two seats available to members of WEOG.

Israel’s U.N. ambassador Ron Prosor said that “We’re going all out to win” because “it’s about time.” But going “all out” may not be enough, given that 120 of the U.N.’s 193 member states belong to the “Non-Aligned Movement,” the vast majority of which are decidedly hostile to Israel.

All eyes should be on Power to see how she plays offense – and defense – on behalf of Israel. As promised.

UN Security Council Adopts Syria Resolution Unanimously

Saturday, September 28th, 2013

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution outlining the details of taking under international control and ultimately destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal.

“Today’s historic resolution is the first hopeful news on Syria in a long time,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council after the vote.

The Syrian sides must engage constructively in the upcoming Geneva 2 conference, which would be a significant step towards the “creation of a democratic state that guarantees the human rights of all in Syria,” Moon said in his address to the Council.

“The regional actors have a responsibility to challenge those who will actively undermine the process and those who do not fully respect Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity,” he added.

The target date for a new peace conference in Geneva was set for mid-November. The Secretary-General said that the Syrian opposition must be represented at the Geneva peace talks in a single delegation,.

If inspectors decide that Syria has failed to fulfill its obligations, the resolution calls for consequences, based on another resolution to be passed in the event of non-compliance.

Ex Powell Aide: US Can Attack without UN Mandate

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013

The 15-nation UN security council is not, traditionally, a place where decision are made based on morality and ethics. The august body has been split on the civil war in Syria since ir began, in 2011, with Russia, President Bashar al-Assad’s ally and chief arms dealer, and China, eager for the Syrian oil, vetoing three resolutions condemning Assad and urging punitive measures to make him stop.

It is virtually certain that the same UN council will reject a call for moving troops against Assad’s army, even if the Syrian president is caught splashing anti-American graffiti with a spray can of sarin on the walls of Damascus.

“The experts in Syria have the mandate to determine if chemical weapons were used, and if so, which ones, but not who unleashed this attack” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that point for reporters in Moscow on Monday.

But the U.S. has intervened in at least one conflict in the recent past without security council support—when President Clinton threw the Airforce into the Kosovo War in 1999, some suggesting in order to divert attention from his troubles with a pesky special prosecutor.

U.S. and European officials have been referring to the Kosovo bombing campaign, which pressured Serb President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his troops from Kosovo. The beleaguered Clinton ignored the security council to avoid letting the Russians cast a veto, and got his backing from NATO, or, in other words, from himself.

It’s been done, and it can be done again, is the message in Washington this week.

Richard Haas

Richard Haas

Richard Haas, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations who served in the GW Bush administration, rejected the Russian argument that a Western attack on Syria would require UN approval, Reuters reported.

“The UN Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate, and, as many have pointed out, it was bypassed at the time of Kosovo,” Haas told reporters in a conference call, possibly while loading bullets into his personal firearm.

“To say only the UN Security Council can make something legitimate seems to me to be a position that cannot be supported because it would allow in this case a country like Russia to be the arbiter of international law and, more broadly, international relations,” said Haas, who probably recalls the time, in 2003, when he was a close advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell under President GW Bush, and his boss offered a shamefully deceitful presentation to the security council regarding the grounds for launching another war.

Will President Barack Obama want to associate himself with the unilateral strategies of both his predecessors? Barack the multilateralist, champion of the Arab Spring – resorting to hiring the services of an adviser straight out of the GW war room? Incidentally, Haas has had second thoughts on the invasion of Iraq, and in an interview with the Huff Post he said it was a wrong war and a war of choice.

Nevertheless, it looks like you can take the foreign policy expert out of the GW White House, but you can’t extract the GW White House out of expert:

Legitimacy for a strike on Syria, Haas said, could come from a “coalition of the willing” (when have we heard that one before?) of individual countries supporting retaliation against Assad, to demonstrate that the use of weapons of mass destruction (wait, that one is familiar, too!) will not be tolerated.

A furious Russia could launch the general assembly in an attempt to humiliate the U.S. and force it to abandon its attack on Syria, should Obama opt to strike.

Israel could only benefit from an American attack: for one thing, it is sure to wipe out the Syrian WMD reserves (which, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, the Syrians do possess, and then some); and then, once the U.S. is mired in international condemnations – it might go easy on the Netanyahu government when it issues a permit—as comedian Jacky mason put it so aptly—to add a toilet to some settlement.

Stay tuned…

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/ex-powell-aide-us-can-attack-without-un-mandate/2013/08/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: