Posts Tagged ‘Security Council’

European UN Ambassadors Help… Kill the Peace Process

December 23, 2011

Two months ago, I’ve written a lengthy post detailing what I believe is the obstacle for peace in the Middle East (meaning, between the Israelis and the Palestinians). In case you haven’t gotten through it, let be give you the abbreviated bottom line –

The main obstacle for peace is the special treatment the Palestinians receive from the international community. I’m not talking about the whole seperate UN refugee agency that makes a mockery of real refugees around the world and lives to perpetuates this conflict, rather than helping put an end to it. I’m talking about accepting their ridiculous demands. I’m talking about not condemning them when needed. I’m talking about one-sidedness that seems to only present itself in such an ugly form when it comes to this conflict.

Before the Palestinians attempted to yet again circumvent negotiations, I’ve written a post detailing what they have done in the previous year in order to not bring forth a peace settlement, to not end this conflict. And I’ve said in that post, more times than I’d like to bare or count, the Palestinians get away with it. No one seems willing to condemn them for anything. To the contrary, when they were putting up demands and making it difficult to even discuss the possibility of a peace agreement, countries such as Ireland, Norway and even the United States awarded them with upgrades of status to their envoys.

This week, four ambassadors proved this point exactly. The Ambassadors to the UN of the four European countries currently holding a seat in the security council – France, Britain, Germany and Portugal – issued a one-sided condemnation to Israel. For what? Issuing a bidding for house settlements in East Jerusalem (a cabinet response to the Palestinian’s unilateral move in UNESCO that started coming to frution this week) and for its’ inability to stop and persecute the perpetrators of Price Tag operations (which stems from Israel being a democracy, Irnoy of all ironies – but more on that in a later post).

Click here if you’re interested in reading about the other side of this conflict

Advertisements

What is the ‘obstacle for Peace’?

October 25, 2011

The Quartet (an intentional body constructed from the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia) will attempt to jump start peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians later this week. This of course comes in the midst of the Palestinian unilateral move in the UN, which is expected to either not pass or be vetoed early November. Everyone is pessimistic about the option that the peace process and direct talks would be started and some even claim it would take nothing short of a miracle to make that happen. Honestly? They’re probably right. There’s hardly any chance the parties will engage in bilateral talks and the Quartet is simply trying to see if indirect talks – a really bad idea – could take place.

The main reason for that is probably that the parties are so far away in how they perceive a peace process, including on the integral key issue: the goal. Israel has always wanted the goal to be one thing – the end of conflict and the end of mutual demands that as a result will give birth to a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. The Palestinians however wanted the goal to be a Palestinian state. There is a huge difference between the two.

Now the parties are even further away – Israel wants what it always wanted: a peace process with no predetermined results, with no prior conditions. The Palestinians want a lot more: They have a list of demands they require (which just grew this week – I’ll explain later on) for them to even think about negotiations and a peace process (a bilateral process as opposed to the unilateral one they’ve worked so hard, much harder, to advance). When Israel dared put one condition in response to their condition, the Palestinian refused it and demanded that only their demands will be met. The Israeli condition, by the way, was a Palestinian recognition that Israel is not just any state, but the birthright state of the Jewish people. That is due to the fact that to this day, the Palestinian distort facts, truths and history and refuse to acknowledge the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. This goes to show how unwilling they are to end the conflict and the mutual demands, but instead only seek a Palestinian state alone.

Israel at this point, especially after the outraging move in UN, is done with favors and gestures. It is done negotiating how to start negotiations. It has given the Palestinian a huge unprecedented gesture in the form of 10 months moratorium on all Jewish buildings in the West Bank, which the Palestinian rejected. They refused to enter negotiations until they were pressured to do so by the international community and then demanded, still does, the renewal of the moratorium, the same one they’ve thought so little about when it was first offered and given. Now, they are putting up another demand, claiming that the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, promised he would release more Palestinian prisoners after a swap deal for Gilad Shalit would be made. They demand that in addition to 1,027 prisoners released, Israel will release more. The former PM of Israel released hundreds of prisoners on several occasions as good-faiths gestures with the Palestinians. None of this helped bring forth a peace agreement. And there is certainly no good-faith between either parties at the moment.

In a trip to Colombia last month, Palestinian Authority President claimed he was close to signing a deal with former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, and that he believes that is why his term was cut short. FALSE!!! History distortions and lies are not new to the tactic of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas (as can be vividly seen in his article at The New York Times on May 17th, or his speech before the UN General Assembly last September). Maybe it’s because he cannot grasp the notion of democracy, but Ehud Olmert was removed from office due to many corruption charges against him, for some of which, severe in nature, he is standing trial today. Moreover, in his claims he forgets to mention that Olmert made proposals to end the conflict, which were even greater than those of Bill Clinton (which former PA President Arafat rejected) – proposals that led nowhere near a peace agreement. He also forgets to mention how he walked away from the table when Olmert himself launched an offensive against the 8 years of rocket barraged fired at Israeli citizens from the Gaza Strip, but Abbas’ rivals – Hamas.

(more…)

Lebanon prevented a condemenation of Thursday’s terror attack

August 20, 2011

And the hits just keep on coming. While the escalation in Israel’s south is still in progress due to the henious terror attack, the Arab / Muslim world once again uses it’s abounding power and strength in it’s ongoing war against Israel.

Lebanon is now acting as the current representative of the Arab world in the United Nations’ Security Council (The Arab world always has a country, in rotation, representing it in the Security Council). Last night, as the Security Council tried to pass a condemnation resolution to this terror attack, Lebanon blocked it – According to the Security Council’s rules all 15 members must sign off on a resolution for it to pass. Lebanon blocked it.

According to the deputy U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Rosemary Discarlo, the condemnation message was a standard message the Security Council used in every terror attack worldwide and the Security Council has used this text many times before.

This was not about the context of the condemnation message, it was about condemning the death of Israel is at all.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prospor, said in response that this is yet another sad remainder that often the UN is “deaf and blind” when it comes to terror being committed against Israeli citizens.

This is once again a demonstration as to how the UN is motivated by self-interest and is not interested in promoting peace, human rights and justice. It took the Security Council less than 24 hours, without the facts even being cleared up, to adopt Turkey’s decision to condemn Israel for the flotilla incident in May 2010. It took over FOUR months for the Security Council to condemn Syria’s Bashar Assad for the slaughtering of his opposers. To this day, It has not condemned North Korea for its’ offensive against South Korea (that happened on November 23rd, 2010).

I’m sure that if a terror attack against Lebanese citizens would take place, they would demand a condemnation. Well, they probably won’t, seeing as Lebanon is one the biggest terror hubs in the area with Iranian-backed Hezbollah having its’ army, stronger than Lebanon’s Western-backed army, that managed to dissolve the Lebanon government of Saar Hariri (As Israeli Ambassador, Ron Prospor said, Lebanon is “a state controlled by a terrorist organization”). The Arab world never took his inner battles outside. But when Israel was cutting a tree on its’ side of the border and a Lebanese soldier opened fire, which resulted in casualties on both sides, they demanded a Security Council condemnation.

This is yet again an example of hypocrisy and how the majority of power in this world is in the world hands (feel free to once again take a look at freedomhouse.org‘s map of the unfree majority of this world).

(more…)


%d bloggers like this: