By Abdullah Al-Ahsan
“I believe his shameful remarks must be repudiated by the international community, because the war against terror will only succeed if it’s guided by moral clarity,” The Times of Israel reported (January 14) Prime Minister Netanyahu as saying to visiting leaders of the US pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. The Israeli leader said this in response to Turkish President Erdugan’s challenge for his attendance at the anti-terror solidarity march held in Paris on January 11. So far no European or North American leader has come forward to repudiate Erdugan or even to explain “moral clarity” sought by the Israeli leader, but interestingly an Israeli newspaper has reported that, French President Francois Hollande had asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to go to Paris for the march, but the Israel premier decided to attend anyway after hearing that his political rivals were going to be there (Forward January 12, 2015). Clearly it was domestic consideration that provoked the Israeli leader to embark on the trip to Paris. However, what the Israeli leader would like to call diplomacy might be viewed is nothing but bullying in international relations.
Israel at the UN
Israel has applied its “diplomatic” ploy even before its birth: the story of its entrance into the United Nations is relevant. On the request of Britain the UN formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in May 1947 to deliberate the conflict in Palestine: No Arab country was included; only one Muslim country – Iran – was in the Committee. Interestingly a number of renowned Zionists were included as members of the Committee representing the USA and Britain. Israel used the Diaspora extensively to achieve its goal. Since the Jewish representative insisted on the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, the Committee decided to investigate public opinions in the area. The UNSCOP came up with two plans: one known as the majority plan prepared by mostly Western countries proposing to divide the land between Jews (over 56% of the territory for 31.7% mostly immigrant population) and Palestinians (about 43%) and Jerusalem as a neutral international city under direct supervision of the UN. The other known as the minority plan backed by India, Iran and Yugoslavia advocating a federated state composed of two component territories, each enjoying local autonomy with Jerusalem as the capital. The Palestinians somehow reluctantly accepted the minority plan (they wanted a unitary state with democratic rights of every citizen in the territory) while the Zionists, also reluctantly (they wanted the whole of Palestine as a Jewish state) favored the majority plan. When the proposals were put forward for discussion the Zionists vigorously embarked on gathering international support for the majority plan. American observer Kermit Roosevelt describes Zionist activities on the UN resolution as follows:
Rallying a group of influential Americans and selecting their targets with care, they exerted all possible influence – personal suasion, floods of telegrams and letters, political and economic pressure. … Many of the telegrams, particularly, were from Congressmen, and others as well invoked the name and prestige of the United States government. An ex-Governor, a prominent Democrat with White House and other connections, personally telephoned Haiti urging that its delegation be instructed to change its vote. (“The Partition of Palestine,” in The Middle East Journal. Vol. 2 No. 1 (January 1948).
He further noted that the Zionists also targeted Liberia, China, the Philippines, Ethiopia and Greece. One US government report noted the situation as:
The US and USSR played leading roles in bringing about a vote favorable to partition. Without US leadership and the pressures which developed during UN consideration of the question, the necessary two-thirds majority in the General Assembly could not have been obtained … It has been shown that various unauthorized US nationals and organizations, including members of Congress, notably in the closing days of the Assembly, brought pressure bear on various foreign delegates and their home governments to induce them to support the US attitude on the Palestine Question. (See, Henry Cattan, The Palestine Question. (London: Croom Helm, 1988).
On November 29, 1947 the UN adopted the majority plan to divide Palestine on conditions that Israel recognized the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes and both states maintain an economic union. The UN resolution also noted that Britain would withdraw from the country by August 1948 and a five member UN Commission would supervise the division of Palestine. The Palestinians were extremely disappointed and rejected the plan. Other Arab states complained that the resolution had violated the UN Charter and rejected the planned partition.
As soon as it was clear that the British were leaving the territory reports of clashes between Jewish and Palestinian armed groups for land began to appear. In reality, however, organized armed Jewish groups were attacking Palestinian villages and forcing the Palestinians out to make space for Jewish immigrants. As a result, Britain decided to terminate its mandate and leave Palestine earlier. Britain set May 15 for withdrawal, but on May 14, a day before, a group of Jewish activists in Tel Aviv proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine. Within hours the US and the USSR recognized the new state, and other western countries followed. These recognitions were possible due to Zionist lobby campaigns in these countries. Immediately an all-out war broke out between 75,000 strong Israeli armed forces and disorganized Palestinian groups. Although volunteers and regular armies from neighboring Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon entered in support of the Palestinians, they were no match for the Israeli troops. The Israelis had acquired arms, munitions and even airplanes from European countries and had smuggled many weapons into Palestine despite a UN ban on arms shipment to the region. Israel was also supported by Jewish volunteers, some with sophisticated military training, from various parts of the world.
Meanwhile the UN continued with its effort to end the violence and on May 20, 1948 the Security Council appointed Count Folke Bernadotte, president of the Swedish Red Cross who enjoyed the reputation of negotiating with the Nazis and saving many Jewish lives, as UN mediator for Palestine. The UN also established the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to help mediate between the conflicting parties in Palestine. Bernadotte was ordered to “promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation in Palestine” and was allowed to negotiate beyond the terms of the Partition Plan. Bernadotte recommended certain modifications in the Plan by slightly reducing the size of the Jewish occupied territories. The next day, on September 17, 1948, he was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist group in Jerusalem. No action was taken against those who were identified as Bernadotte’s assassins. One of the accused, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Israel’s prime minister. This clearly indicated the limitations the UN was going to have in handling the issue. It is noteworthy that in spite of the sympathetic role played by the UN in its establishment through direct intervention, the State of Israel developed an antagonistic attitude toward the world body. By the middle of 1949 the war stopped, and military might determined the future of Palestine; Israel occupied almost 78 percent of the historical territory, Egypt occupied Gaza and the Jordanian forces occupied central and eastern parts of Palestine which came to be known as the West Bank.
On November 29, 1948 Israel applied for UN membership but was rejected because of its position on the question of its boundary, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. When it reapplied in February 1949 the Secretary General held discussions on those questions, and after having assurance from Israeli authorities, the country was granted UN membership on May 11, 1949. None of the three issues have settled during almost six decades of Israel’s existence at the world body. Israel is the only member state of the UN which does not have a defined border.
Incessant Israeli Defiance of the World Body
In spite of the extremely favorable treatment that Israel received during its entrance into the UN, Israel now considers the world body an Israel-bashing institution. Volumes of books may be written on Israeli behavior in the United Nations. In July last year UN human rights chief Navi Pillay slammed what she said was Israel’s deliberate defiance of international law during the Gaza conflict. But Israel accused Pillay as being biased against Israel. Not only Pillay, Israel also has accused William Schabas, professor of international law and genocide studies who was assigned by the UN to inquire whether violations were committed in Gaza over the summer (2014), for being prejudiced against Israel. As a result Schabas resigned. Earlier Justice Richard J Goldstone, an international award-winning and experienced judge from South Africa, was appointed by the UNHRC to head a committee of four members to investigate war crimes committed in Gaza (Dec 2008 – Jan 2009). In an Op-ed in NY Times he said, “In many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives (Sept 17, 2009.)” But after publication of the Goldstone report the Judge seems to have come under pressure from Israeli circles and retracted his position saying, “if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document” (Guardian April 3, 2011.) It is hard to imagine how an experienced of his caliber would have altered opinion on such an important and sensitive issue for world peace and security without publicly producing what he came to know later. Did Goldstone come under pressure from pro-Israeli bullies? Who knows?
It is interesting to note that the UN and other affiliated institutions have tried to employ well known experts in the field mainly from the Jewish background such as Schabas and Goldstone, yet both of them appear to have come under attack and have been challenged for their moral and professional integrity. One self-declared human rights scrutinizing institution – UN Watch which claims its mandate as “to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter” – has welcomed Goldstone’s revised statement and resignation of Schabas. Amusingly UN Watch has not found Israel’s flouting of the three conditions that the world body had set as pre-condition for its membership. Although UN Watch seems to have been successful in defusing Goldstone and Schabas, it has failed to silence Richard Falk, the former professor of international law who served United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. UN Watch expressed satisfaction on the expiry of his term in June last year. Earlier it had accused Falk as being a believer in conspiracy theory who made “statements supporting terrorism against America, the West and Israel.” What is the evidence? Who requires evidence for such allegations? Richard Falk also seems to have become victim of identity theft. Anti-Semitic trash has been posted in his name in the social media to defame him. Is this part of a smear campaign against him only because he has exposed Israeli human right violations? Who knows?
Israeli Bullying in US Politics
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made his remarks about international community’s moral obligation to speak against Turkish Prime Minister Erdugan as mentioned earlier while speaking to visiting leaders of the US lobby AIPAC. Israel has successfully influenced US policies for generations; the US has used its veto power on behalf of Israel 32 times. With the passage of time Israel’s power in the US politics has risen significantly. Many even have started to call Netanyahu “the Republican Senator from Israel (Forbes February 1).” Recently House Speaker John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin to address the Congress on Iran without even informing the White House. According to The USA Today “When House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cooked up a plan to bypass the White House and have Netanyahu address Congress, both men surely thought they had pulled off a coup.” This has created uproar in US politics: many commentators have described this plan as churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous. NY Times writer Thomas Friedman has called it a bad mistake (February 4). Why so many well wishers of Israel have come up against the Boehner Netanyahu scheme? Is Israeli influence in the US politics coming to an end? But make no mistake; Netanyahu has supporters in the media and among political lobby groups. Generally it is extremely difficult to take any principled stand on Israel in America. Paul Findley in his They Dare to Speak Out has highlighted this decades ago. The recent experience of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt also speak loudly about this problem. Powerful Israeli interests are not confined to the USA alone; they are able to impact all over the world. That is why it is difficult to find academicians such as Richard Falk and politicians such as Erdugan.
Erdugan’s Courage to Challenge Israeli Bullying
In recent times only President Erdugan has effectively challenged Israeli bullying in international politics. In January 2009 he effectively challenged Israeli leader Shimon Peres on Gaza in the World Economic Forum in Davos and in 2013 he has secured an apology from Prime Minister Netanyahu for Israel’s 2010 attack on Turkish humanitarian flotilla destined for Gaza. However, Israeli Foreign Minister has recently declared that Netanyahu’s apology was a mistake. The apology deal was originally brokered by President Obama. Although the apology should have been followed by compensation claims by Turkey, nothing was done in that direction. Perhaps this was part of the deal that Turkey would not seek compensation. But is this how other nations deal with Israel? How long can the civilized world endure this bullying behavior? There are good signs – some European countries have now developed the courage to challenge Israel’s anti-Palestinian rhetoric for its “struggle for existence.” World leaders must develop more courage to confront Israeli bullying. The faster that they are able to do this, the faster they will pave the way for peaceful co-existence in the world today.
Dr. Abdullah Al-Ahsan is Vice-President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
18 February 2015