United Nations approves Palestinian bid, a step before statehood

 

United Nations approves Palestinian request despite deliberate US/Israeli obstruction.

By

Joseph Chez

 

November 29, 2012

It is inconceivable that the role-model of democracy in today’s modern world, the United States of America, has systematically stood in the way of Palestinians creating their own recognized state under the United Nations Charter. Since 1948, when Israel declared itself a nation, the U.S. was first to give recognition to the Jewish state, followed by the Anglo mother-country, the United Kingdom, whose Parliamentary Balfour Declaration became the blueprint for a Jewish homeland,
but also made
it possible for the roots of today’s Palestinian/Israel world issue.

At the behest of the United Kingdom which then had control of much of Arabia, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution partitioning Palestine in what was envisioned to become two states living side by side: one; the state of Palestine; and two, a homeland for a Jewish state.  However, Arabs/Palestinians who lived in what was then known as Palestine in Trans-Jordan, were given no voice to object to Palestine being partitioned and a major portion of their land, be given to Jews – primarily emigrating from Europe. Thus began the conflict in which Palestinians began to fight the British and Jews, who they saw as occupiers.  However, the fractured nature of Arab clans and coupled with facing a heavy hand of a foreign army, Arab/Palestinians could not successfully fight the well-armed British and/or the zeal of Zionist emboldened to establish a Jewish state.  

 

On May 15, 1948, as the  British Mandate was about to end, Jewish settlers declared their independence from British rule and by de facto became a recognized nation, primarily by the say so of England  and its sibling, the United States of America.  Palestinians still living within the new Jewish state, fearing for their lives, fled the area. Thousands more who chose to remain were either killed by Jewish settlers or were forcibly expelled from their own homes and  property - becoming refugees in the thousands - in neighboring Arab lands.

 

However, it must be noted, that as a consequence of the British Balfour Declaration and subsequent UK sponsored United Nation’s partition resolution, Arab objection and conflict against a perceived intrusion of a Jewish state, has continued to this date.  Regrettably, even though the 1947 UN Partition Resolution was to create two states, only Israel has since acquired “state” status while the apportioned Palestinian lands became occupied by Israel. 

 

To this date, Palestinians living in what is quasi recognized Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, have lived under occupation and in virtual life in prison. And yet, much to the displeasure of the community of nations, against the subjugation of Palestinians by the Jewish state, numerous UN resolutions have been passed requiring Israel to abide by International Law and to end the occupation – but to no avail. Israel has thumbed its nose at the numerous UN resolutions and has kept a tight grip on the freedoms of Palestinians. This situation of course could not have happened if it were not for Israel’s mighty American benefactor, whose veto power at the UN Security Council has systematically killed any chance of dispute against Israel.  Accordingly, since Palestine has never acquired state status, Palestinians have had no standing before the jurisdiction of the United Nations. In fact, it has been the diplomatic strategy of England, the United States of America and Israel, to keep Palestinians from acquiring any form of recognition from the United Nations. This is because if Palestine has no state status, it can not bring its grievances before the world body. Thus, Palestine as a stateless occupied land - will remain in limbo.

 

Increasingly however, nations of the world have begun to recognize the malevolent actions of the state of Israel, despite the relentless and successful campaign by the United States, England and Israel to discredit Palestinian grievances or, label any angry Palestinian reactions, as those of terrorist. So I am reminded of a recent CNN interview of an Israeli government functionary who was attempting to explain the terrorist acts of Hamas in Gaza, as a mutual threat to the freedoms of Israelis and Americans… For which the CNN reporter asked of the Israeli: “so what would you do, if you were under occupation?”

 

A greater question is what’s in it for the U.S. in giving cover for the misgivings and lawlessness of the state of Israel? Why stand in the way of Palestinians achieving statehood? The answer is simple but still, enigmatic. There are three ways in which to approach this question; religiously, politically or of economics:

 

As absurd as it is stupid, the US describes itself as a Judeo-Christian nation and thus, bound by such dogma, Christians have evangelized US foreign policy.  Yes, the Christian ethos is so strong in current politics that government cannot ignore the biblical damnation if it does not come to the aid of Israel. In fact, many American believers now describe themselves as Christian Zionists, committed to the security of Israel. (The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah …All who lift it will surely hurt themselves… Zechariah 12:1-14)

 

Politically, American Christians have become a feared block of voters which pick and choose politicians. The once comical “Jesus freaks” or “moral majority” are no longer the laughing block but instead, have permeated into every corner of public life. It is no wonder thus, that expressing allegiance to Christian values is the American litmus test. To this end, Christians demand a forceful presence in Congress, but also preach politicians for an unquestionable mighty arm force, for the greatness of the country and for the defense of Israel.  Additionally, Jewish Americans also have a dynamic influence in American politics.  So strong is their reach, that Congress dares not cross certain boundaries when it concerns Israel. AIPAC you may say - gives politicians life or oblivion.  In addition, Israel has played the religious angle to its favor.  We now know that AIPAC/Israel recruited GW Bush for president and delivered – if he were to only take out Saddam Hussein, a mortal enemy and imminent threat to Israel. More currently, AIPAC/Israel also lobbied for would be US President, Mitt Romney, if he were to also, attack Iran.  Interestingly, Mitt’s Mormonism had him rooted in biblical ties with Israel. So what happened with Barack Obama winning the presidency? He vowed to the same litany of, in defense of Israel.

 

Economically, the U.S. consumes one third of the world’s hydrocarbons even though it has one sixth the world’s population. Conveniently, the Middle East is awash in petroleum, thus giving the US a need for controlling interest of the oil spigot in the region. Presently, Saudi Arabia is considered the number one oil producing nation, and of course, the mighty one and only extracting oil company in Saudi Arabia is ARAMCO (ArabAmericanCompany).  However, through out the region there are also many other nations rich in oil in which the US has a footprint. Regrettably, many of the Middle Eastern nations have royal families or worse, dictatorial regimes which keep much of the oil profits but keep their population in check. To this end, the U.S. is in a tight spot and reverts to propping up those repressive regimes in order to keep the oil flowing – to the US. Needless to say, the region is imminently important to the economic well being of the nation.  But why watch Israel’s back? Geo-politically, Israel is positioned strategically in the region for the US to intervene in the event of oil disruption from competitor nations or would be aggressors.  Moreover, the US has the most influential industrial military complex, framed in such a way that it becomes a revolving door for massive weapons systems to be sold to the Pentagon, retiring generals becoming CEOs of military/aero space companies, generals becoming lobbyist in Congress, Congress buying more weapons systems, the Pentagon unnecessarily decommissioning weapons systems and then transferring those systems to Israel, and thus, resulting in Israel pressuring Congress for more military hardware aid.  Congress therefore, feels the heat from AIPAC/Israel and approves more weapons systems ordered by the US military complex. One might then ask, if the US Congress and the American military complex truly have the security interest of the country in mind, or if it is plain dollars and nonsense – in defense of Israel?  

 

Regardless, the US feels compelled to embrace the social, political, religious and military ties that bind the US with Israel. Israel on the other hand, fully understands this American weakness and exploits the American tightly-wound religious/political undergarment and does not miss the opportunity to squeeze the Americans where it hurts, at their option and at the appropriate time. 

 

Consequently, as the world becomes impatient with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, sectors within the community of nations want the United Nations to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue, although governments are keenly aware that the United States and England have a disproportionate influence in world affairs and within the UN, for which resolution after resolution against the occupying state of Israel, goes down to defeat.  Moreover, the United States of America has forcefully assumed the role of arbitrator concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  The Europeans on the other hand, have followed in such endeavor, but have demurred to the process as set by the United States and England.  Thus the question rises; why would Israel’s benefactor lead the discussion in arbitration in this critical matter and isn’t there a conflict of interest?

 

To avoid the conflict of interest perception, The United States and Israel have done the obvious, i.e. to propose a series of peace talks between the parties in order to achieve the goal of a two state solution – in theory. Accordingly, the US has sponsored a number of prominent peace talks in which the two parties are urged to resolve the issues and ultimately come up with a suitable and mutually peaceful two-state arrangement.  The folly of such conceptual trap however, is that Israel’s vision is to keep the land they have occupied, as they assert, that it is the promised land given by God to the Jews.  And by God, they aim to keep it that way.  Thus, the Camp David Accord of 1978, the Madrid Talks in 1991, the Oslo Accord in 1993, The Taba Agreement 1n 1995, the Wye River Memorandum in 1998, Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 1999, the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the most recent in 2003 being the Quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia - promoting the Road Map for Peace talks – have all been framed to give the illusion of progress, although requiring the Palestinians to meet certain unattainable goals before Israel would agree to give up any occupied territory. Thus it was foreseeable that each and every agreement has failed as it was designed to do so.  Furthermore, the United States has consistently argued that it is not for the United Nations to resolve the issue but that the two parties must mutually agree to a resolution – which is the same recipe for failure.

In as much as the world has caught on to the Israeli/US deception, Palestinians have realized that peace negotiations with Israel is but a hoax and therefore, have decided to go the route of United Nations recognizing Palestine as a state.  However, the US and Israel continue to argue that the only way for a two state resolution, is not through the UN but to go back to the peace table and both parties reach agreement.  But, since the Palestinian Authority sees no viable peace alternative with Israel, on this date of November 29, 2012, Palestinians will have made their bid for elevated status before the United Nations General Assembly.  At the same time, Israel’s government has threatened to annex Samaria and Judea if Mahmoud Abbas makes the bid before the UN. Worse, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman has also threatened to do away with any and all Palestinian government officials, as it has been the unofficial Israeli government policy to assassinate Palestinian leaders.

 Today, history is at a crossroads, but even in the last minutes of the Palestinian presentation before the United Nations, the United States, at the behest of Israel, continued to discourage Palestinians from having the United Nations intercede in the process of Palestine gaining recognition as a future state.

 Thus, this date of November 29, 2012, the United Nations with an overwhelming majority of 138 nations voting in favor of Palestinians, to 9 abstaining or against, voted to grant Palestine elevated status, a closer step before acquiring full nation status. And yet, the question remains why the United States of America, the role model it portrays to be, has chosen to side on the wrong side of history?

 

ROYAL WEDDING AND ROOTS OF HATE, AND SUBJUGATION – SHOULD YOU BE CELEBRATING?

By

Joseph Chez

April, 28, 2011

If you loathe dictators, fascist regimes, subjugation, hate, discrimination, slavery, genocide, and the social caste system, why would you then be celebrating a royal wedding? If you do, you will then uphold those vestiges of hate and social mongering which royalty attempts to maintain.

So, on the eve of the royal wedding, the United Kingdom, its former colonies, member countries of its commonwealth and other parts of the world, millions of people are celebrating the upcoming wedding of “prince” William and Kate Middleton. Prince William of course being a member of the British royalty, and Kate Middleton, a “commoner” is soon to become part of the royal family. But, while the celebration begins, should we not contemplate on the ramifications of continuing with the charade of bowing to “royalty” and further perpetuate the myth of special privilege?”

Perhaps you may not be a British subject, but should you not still care about the consequences of this wedding, or, about the continuing preservation of royalty? Your answer should be yes. After all, we are all universal citizens inhabiting the same planet and are therefore, subject to the acts others. “No man is an island”, remember? You should further understand that the practices and the acts of monarchs have in fact affected most of the world. Today, each and every one of us continues to suffer, or at least feel the affects of direct acts by members of a monarchy or acts done in behalf of a monarchy. The very concept of special privilege by royalty and the subjugation of those underneath that special privilege, to this day, continue to shape our social, political and economic fabric.

What may you say? Royalty adds to culture fantasy and allows for children to dream about becoming a prince or a princess, or, that most present day monarchies are benign and may just be constitutional monarchies? Of course, reading or dreaming about benign fairytales is of no consequence, but in reality, the truth about monarchies is no fairytale. In addition, to say that constitutional monarchies no longer have absolute power and therefore remain only as ceremonial figures, would be akin to continue to revere a ruthless dictator, such as Joseph Stalin, the fascist Adolph Hitler, or Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe - after they had left the reigns of power.

Thus, it should be noted that in many parts of the world, such as in Austria, Belgium, Bahrain, “Canada”, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Monaco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others parts of the world, the monarchy continues to thrive and holds special privileges - at the expense of the populace . So I dare question: who the hell gave royals a certificate of special privilege? And just like many white folk were asking of President Obama to show his birth certificate to prove he was a bona fide American, it should be asked of the royals to prove a divine right or genetic proof that they deserve a special social, political or economic privilege.

History can only attest to the countless tribal societies which were decimated in behalf of powerful monarchies. In the Americas, entire indigenous societies were simply slaughtered to make room for European expansion. In Australia, aboriginal peoples were almost decimated into extinction. In Africa, in the name of a king or queen, human beings were hunted down to be taken as slaves for servitude and economic ventures for the new world. As a result of that, slavery flourished in the new British colony in North America. Even lynching of human beings became a practice in order to enforce a caste system - white over black.

As India became the property of the British monarchy, an insidious caste social system was instituted, based on shades of color – with the mother royal queen and new owner of India, unquestionably, being at the top of the social scale. Can we then not believe that today’s KKK or neo-Nazis formulated their race-based hate on the same principle as the royals have substantiated their racial or social strata?

In the region once known as Arabia and also under the rule of the British Kingdom, the new rulers could not supplant the local Muslim religion for Christendom. So, they divided the Muslim religion into two, one Shiite and the other, Sunni. As a consequence of the monarchial tactical divisiveness, it is no secret that countless lives continue to be lost through out the Middle East due to the religious difference imposed.

From the beginning, monarchies acquired their legitimacy by relying on human ignorance; people either accepted charismatic leaders who later made themselves kings, or as their rulers governed for long periods of time, their longevity and rule became a tradition. However, once the royalty became established within a given society, they claimed a divine right. In fact, royals cleverly aligned their authority with the will of God, making people believe that any attempt to defy the will of the monarchy would be tantamount to defying God. And as monarchies scoured the earth for new places to rule, one of their main weapons in conquering was Christendom, a religion that justified the monarchy’s rule and eased the transition for the conquered to obey the new king.

However, in today’s modern world in which science has mapped the entire human genome and has found no genetic differences, at least genetic traces that would make any human superior over another, still, royal families thrive under privileged political, economic and social circumstances – but can not morally or scientifically justify their special status. Moreover, royal families in many parts of the world are some of the wealthiest families in the world. But how did they become so rich? Certainly royalty is not known for their employability. Further, in most cases, they live in opulence while their counterpart commoners live marginally. And although in existing constitutional monarchies, the royals may not control the purse strings of the country, the royal families continue to live under taxpayer’s funded stipends covering most, or all of their living expenses, despite their the vast wealth they may already have.

In sum, it is not William or Kate who I personally condemn, but the system that supports their royal status. We must understand that it is the concept of royalty which is being promulgated in furtherance of supremacy. Is it too much for you to accept? Chew on it some more and read more history. However, while the winds of democracy are blowing even in places where they were not expected, the world demands a more egalitarian society, in which democracy reigns – not the royals. So why I ask, does royalty continue to propagate and millions of people celebrate? For those who may argue in defense of the monarchs, I may suggest that there can be no justification for their existence, either morally, politically, socially or otherwise. In fact, royalty and dictators belong in the annals of human ignorance. Dinosaurs came to and end - by divine will. But, how dare dictators or royals believe they deserve a role in governance without the democratic consent of the people? However, the nature of things has the last say so on this issue. Currently, a number of despised dictators are on the way out and the remainder on the list will soon have their end. In like circumstance, royalty must not sit on the throne, but should take their blue blood to the “loo.” But, if you still believe royalty deserves a special status in our human evolution, then you must also go to the loo, celebrate the royal wedding and take in the royal air – especially after a blue blood has taken a royal flush. Smell any difference?

http://universalwrit.blogspot.com/