The Emperor Has No Clothes: Podcast on Israeli Apartheid

 photo noclothes_zps1utt9j5u.jpg

Under international law apartheid is considered a crime against humanity. A UN report documenting Israeli practices of apartheid came under immediate attack after its publication earlier this year. US Ambassador Nikki Haley leveled furious and virulent denunciations of it at the UN, while the authors were smeared as anti-Semites in the media.

Caving into pressure, UN Secretary General Antionio Guterres removed the report from the UN’s website, prompting the resignation of Rima Khalaf, head of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, the UN agency that produced the report. All this happened back in March of this year. I put up a post about it at the time recounting the controversy and describing some of the malicious accusations being hurled, but other than a couple of brief quotes I did not get into the contents of the report itself.

Recently, however, the Christian website We Hold These Truths posted a two-part podcast featuring a discussion–not only on the attacks against the report, but also delving into the nuts and bolts of the report itself.

“What’s so amazing about all these ad hominem attacks is that no one is countering any of the facts that are presented in the report,” comments Craig Hansen, the guest on the program. “I’ve been looking and I can’t find any source debunking any of the claims asserted in the report. They just don’t like the conclusion that Israel is an apartheid state.”

Hansen’s own conclusion, after reading the entire 74-page report: that “the emperor has no clothes.” Or to put it another way, Israel now stands exposed as an apartheid state. The authors of the report, Richard Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and a former UN Special Rapporteur in the Middle East, and Virginia Tilley, a Professor of Political Science specializing in the comparative study of racial and ethnic conflict at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, have left no stone unturned. As Hansen describes it, they have examined Israeli policies, laws that have been enacted and put in place over its entire history, and they have assembled enough evidence probably to convict the Zionist state of the crime of apartheid in an international court of law. Their findings, conclusions, and recommendations are all documented in detail in the report, he notes, and he discusses what some of those conclusions are.

For one thing–and this probably accounts for why the report was hammered and denounced so vigorously–all UN-member states, because apartheid is a crime against humanity, have an obligation, not just a moral obligation but a legal obligation, to oppose and obstruct apartheid wherever in the world, and in whatever country or territory, it may be practiced. The implications are obvious. Had the report been left to stand it could have led to a situation in which every single UN member state would not only have been justified in imposing sanctions on Israel, but would have, at least in theory, been legally bound to do so. It would, in effect, have been the BDS movement on steroids.

Another interesting aspect of the program is how the report was treated by the Christian Broadcasting Network, described by Hansen (accurately) as a “Christian Zionist mouthpiece.” On March 15, the same day the report was published, the CBN posted an article headlined, “Haley Accuses UN of Demonizing Israel,” the tone of which lauds the US ambassador while describing Falk as being “known for accusing America and her Jewish ally of being colonial empires.”

Counting oneself a Christian, while at the same professing support for Israel, as I’ve noted before, are mutually incompatible. You can either be a follower of the man who said “blessed are the peacemakers” or you can support the apartheid state, but you cannot do both. Maybe the UN report will help make this more clear to people. My hope is that a Christian Zionist or two (or three) will read the report or at least listen to the podcast.

At any rate, part one of the podcast can be found here.

Part two is here.

You can also go here to visit the We Hold These Truths website, and here to access the full UN report, entitled “Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid,” in PDF form.

Israel’s New Cultural War of Aggression

MAY 8, 2017

A few weeks ago my book Palestine’s Horizon: Toward a Just Peace was published by Pluto in Britain. I was in London and Scotland at the time to do a series of university talks to help launch the book. Its appearance happened to coincide with the release of a jointly authored report commissioned by the UN Social and Economic Commission of West Asia, giving my appearances a prominence they would not otherwise have had. The report concluded that the evidence relating to Israeli practices toward the Palestinian people amounted to ‘apartheid,’ as defined in international law.

There was a strong pushback by Zionist militants threatening disruption. These threats were sufficiently intimidating to academic administrators, that my talks at the University of East London and at Middlesex University were cancelled on grounds of ‘health and security.’ Perhaps, these administrative decisions partly reflected the awareness that an earlier talk of mine at LSE had indeed been sufficiently disrupted during the discussion period that university security personnel had to remove two persons in the audience who shouted epithets, unfurled an Israeli flag, stood up and refused to sit down when politely asked by the moderator.

In all my years of speaking on various topics around the world, I had never previously had events cancelled, although quite frequently there was similar pressure exerted on university administrations, but usually threatening financial reprisals if I was allowed to speak. What happened in Britain is part of an increasingly nasty effort of pro-Israeli activists to shut down debate by engaging in disruptive behavior, threats to security, and by smearing speakers regarded as critics of Israel as ‘anti-Semites,’ and in my case as a ‘self-hating,’ even a self-loathing Jew.

falkpalestine

Returning to the United States I encountered a new tactic. The very same persons who disrupted in London, evidently together with some likeminded comrades, wrote viciously derogatory reviews of my book on the Amazon website in the U.S. and UK, giving the book the lowest rate possible rating, This worried my publisher who indicated that how a book is rated on Amazon affects sales very directly. I wrote a message on my Facebook timeline that my book was being attacked in this way, and encouraged Facebook friends to submit reviews, which had the effect of temporarily elevating my ratings. In turn, the ultra-Zionists went back to work with one or two line screeds that made no effort whatsoever to engage the argument of the book. In this sense, there was a qualitative difference as the positive reviews were more thoughtful and substantive. This was a new kind of negative experience for me. Despite publishing many books over the course during this digital age I had never before had a book attacked in this online manner obviously seeking to discourage potential buyers and to demean me as an author. In effect, this campaign is an innovative version of digital book burning, and while not as vivid visually as a bonfire, its vindictive intentions are the same.

These two experiences, the London cancellations and the Amazon harassments, led me to reflect more broadly on what was going on. More significant, by far, than my experience are determined, well-financed efforts to punish the UN for its efforts to call attention to Israeli violations of human rights and international law, to criminalize participation in the BDS campaign, and to redefine and deploy anti-Semitism so that its disavowal and prevention extends to anti-Zionism and even to academic and analytic criticism of Israel’s policies and practices, which is how I am situated within this expanding zone of opprobrium. Israel has been acting against human rights NGOs within its own borders, denying entry to BDS supporters, and even virtually prohibiting foreign tourists from visiting the West Bank or Gaza. In a remarkable display of unity all 100 U.S. senators recently overcame the polarized atmosphere in Washington to join in sending an arrogant letter to the new UN Secretary General, António Guterres, demanding a more friendly, blue washing, approach to Israel at the UN and threatening financial consequences if their outrageous views were not heeded.

Israel’s most ardent and powerful backers are transforming the debate on Israel/Palestine policy into a cultural war of aggression. This new kind of war has been launched with the encouragement and backing of the Israeli government, given ideological support by such extremist pressure groups as UN Watch, GO Monitor, AIPAC, and a host of others. This cultural war is implemented at street levels by flame throwing militants that resort to symbolic forms of violence. The adverse consequences for academic freedom and freedom of thought in a democratic society should not be underestimated. A very negative precedent is being set in several Western countries. Leading governments are collaborating with extremists to shut down constructive debate on a sensitive policy issue affecting the lives and wellbeing of a long oppressed people.

There are two further dimensions of these developments worth pondering: (1) In recent years Israel has been losing the Legitimacy War being waged by the Palestinians, what Israeli think tanks call ‘the delegitimation project,’ and these UN bashing and personal smears are the desperate moves of a defeated adversary in relation to the moral and legal dimensions of the Palestinian struggle for rights. In effect, the Israeli government and its support groups have given up almost all efforts to respond substantively, and concentrate their remaining ammunition on wounding messengers who bear witness and doing their best to weaken the authority and capabilities of the UN so as to discredit substantive initiatives; (2) while this pathetic spectacle sucks the oxygen from responses of righteous indignation, attention is diverted from the prolonged ordeal of suffering that has long been imposed on the Palestinian people as a result of Israel’s unlawful practices and policies, as well as its crimes against humanity, in the form of apartheid, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and many others. The real institutional scandal is not that the UN is obsessed with Israel but rather that it is blocked from taking action that might exert sufficient pressure on Israel to induce the dismantling of apartheid structures relied upon to subjugate, displace, and dispossess the Palestinian people over the course of more than 70 years with no end in sight.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

More articles by:

Report on The Question of Apartheid in israel dismissed by Ambassador Nikki Haley

Our Report on The Question of Apartheid in Israel. Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

By Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley

Instead of responding to it with constructive criticism, you launched defamatory attacks on all involved.

Dear Madam Ambassador:

We were deeply disappointed by your response to our report, Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, and particularly your dismissal of it as “anti-Israeli propaganda” within hours of its release.

The UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) invited us to undertake a fully researched scholarly study. Its principal purpose was to ascertain whether Israeli policies and practices imposed on the Palestinian people fall within the scope of the international-law definition of apartheid. We did our best to conduct the study with the care and rigor that is morally incumbent in such an important undertaking, and of course we welcome constructive criticism of the report’s method or analysis (which we also sought from several eminent scholars before its release). So far we have not received any information identifying the flaws you have found in the report or how it may have failed to comply with scholarly standards of rigor.

Instead, you have felt free to castigate the UN for commissioning the report and us for authoring it. You have launched defamatory attacks on all involved, designed to discredit and malign the messengers rather than clarify your criticisms of the message. Ad hominem attacks are usually the tactics of those so seized with political fervor as to abhor rational discussion. We suppose that you would not normally wish to give this impression of yourself and your staff, or to represent US diplomacy in such a light to the world. Yet your statements about our study, as reported in the media, certainly give this impression.

We were especially troubled by the extraordinary pressure your office exerted on the UN secretary general, António Guterres, apparently inducing him first to order the report’s removal from the ESCWA website and then to accept the resignation of ESCWA’s distinguished and highly respected executive secretary, Rima Khalaf, which she submitted on principle rather than repudiate a report that she believed fulfilled scholarly standards, upheld the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, and produced findings and recommendations vital for UN proceedings.

Instead of using this global forum to call for the critical debate about the report, you used the weight of your office to quash it. These strident denunciations convey a strong appearance of upholding an uncritical posture by the US government toward Israel, automatically and unconditionally sheltering Israel’s government from any criticism at the UN, whether deserved or not, from the perspective of international law. Such a posture diminishes the US’s reputation as a nation that upholds the values of truth, freedom, law, and justice, and that serves the world community as a regional and global leader. It also shifts the conversation away from crucial substantive concerns.

It may have been that the word “apartheid” alone was enough to trigger your response, a reaction undoubtedly abetted by Israel’s instantaneous denunciation of our report. In following Israel’s public lead, however, you fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves grasped and warned of the apartheid features of their policies for decades. The widely admired Yitzhak Rabin, twice Israel’s prime minister, once confided to a TV journalist,

“I don’t think it’s possible to contain over a long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.”

Prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak both warned publicly that Israel was at risk of becoming an apartheid state and cautioned their constituencies about what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians realized this and launched an anti-apartheid struggle. Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair has stated flatly,

“we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories.”

These prominent Israelis were clear-headed observers of their own country’s policies as well as patriots, and it was their cautions, as much as any other source, that inspired ESCWA member states to consider that the possibility of an apartheid regime existing in this setting must be taken seriously and so commissioned the report now under attack.

It is therefore wholly inappropriate and wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we as authors were motivated by anti-Semitism. The reverse is true. To clarify this claim, we call your attention to two features of the report that we hope will lead you to reconsider your response.

Firstly, the report carefully confines its working definition of apartheid to those provided in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the International Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not rely on definitions developed in polemics about the conflict or taken casually from online sources. As the 1973 Convention and the Rome Statute are part of the same body of law that protects Jews, as well as all people in the world, from discrimination, this authoritative definition should not be set aside. Any responsible critique must therefore engage with these legal definitions, and the larger body of international human-rights jurisprudence in which they are situated, so as to address the report for what it actually says rather than concocting a straw man that can be easily dismissed. We hope you will reconsider the report in this light.

Secondly, the member states of ESCWA requested that a study be commissioned to examine whether Israel’s apartheid policies encompassed the Palestinian people as a whole. This meant that, as authors, we were asked to consider Palestinians living in four geographic regions within four legal categories or “domains”: those living in the occupied territories, those resident in Jerusalem, those living as citizens within Israel, and those living in refugee camps or involuntary exile. For each domain, we found that Israeli policies and practices are, by law, internally discriminatory. But more importantly, we found that all four operate as one comprehensive system that is designed to dominate and oppress Palestinians in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state.

It is this whole system of domination, too long misinterpreted by treating Palestinians as situated in unrelated categories, that generates the regime of domination that conforms to the definition of apartheid in international law. Moreover, it is this system that has undermined, and will continue to undermine, the two-state solution to which the United States has committed its diplomatic prestige over the course of several prior presidencies. Appraising the viability of this diplomatic posture in light of findings in this report would, we propose, be crucial for the credibility of US foreign policy and should not be blocked by political considerations.

Finally, we find it deeply troubling that your objections to our report have extended to criticism of the UN itself, partly on grounds that the UN devotes excessive attention to the question of Palestine. For one thing, this reasoning rests on a “false fact”: The UN, and ESCWA, engages with a vast range of issues, with Israel constituting only a small fraction of the whole. For another, denying that the UN has a special role here ignores the unique responsibility of the UN in relation to this conflict. Immediately after World War II, a war-weary Britain, then the Mandatory authority in Palestine as a result of arrangements following World War I, turned over the future of Palestine to the UN for resolution. The UN was therefore, from the outset of its existence, given a responsibility for finding a solution to the conflict in Palestine. This was unlike any comparable responsibility the UN possesses anywhere else in the world. Seven decades of human suffering and insecurity have resulted from the UN’s failure to discharge this obligation—not because it has paid too much attention to Israel but because it was not able to bring its influence sufficiently to bear so as to produce a sustainable and just peace. For observers able to view the conflict with impartiality, it has become clear that what has happened in Palestine can only be resolved when the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians are taken into account. The UN continues to have a vital role in that mission, and it is crucial that its member states, including the United States, endorse this role and do its best to enhance its effectiveness.

We hoped our report would give rise to discussion of all these issues. Especially, we hope that its findings will inspire a review of this question by authoritative legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice. We did not seek a shouting match. We therefore now respectfully ask, against this background, that our report be read in the spirit in which it was written, aiming for the safety, security, and peace of everyone who lives in territory currently under Israel’s control. As the report’s authors, this was our moral framework all along, and we still retain the hope that the serious questions at stake will not be buried beneath an avalanche of diversionary abuse of our motives and character. Charges of crimes against humanity should not be swept to one side out of deference to political bonds that tie the United States and Israel closely together, or for reasons of political expediency. Such machinations can only weaken international law and endanger us all.

Sincerely,

Richard Falk,
Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Virginia Tilley,
Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University

Moral Failure at the United Nations

By Lawrence Davidson

March 24, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  On 15 March 2017 the United Nations’ Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) published a report on Israeli practices and policies toward the Palestinians. Using international law as its comparative criterion, the report came to a “definitive conclusion” that “Israel is guilty of Apartheid practices.” The term Apartheid was not used in the report merely in a “pejorative” way. It was used as a descriptor of fact based on the evidence and the accepted legal meaning of the term.

Such was the immediate uproar from the United States and Israel that U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, in a moment of moral failure, ordered the report’s withdrawal. The head of ESCWA, the Jordanian diplomat Rima Khalaf, decided that she could not, in good conscience, do so and so tendered her resigation.

Reportage

The initial New York Times coverage of the incident paid little attention to the accuracy of the report, an approach which, if pursued, would have at least educated the Times’ readers as to the real conditions of Palestinians under Israeli domination. Instead it called the report, and those involved in producing it, into question. For instance, the NYT told us that “the report provoked outrage from Israel and the United States.” The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, was quoted as declaring that, “when someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the U.N. it is appropriate that the person resign.” At no point in the NYT story was it noted that Ms Haley’s charge that the report was false, was itself false. Other coverage by the NYT improved only slightly.

The NYT did pay attention to the fact that, among the authors of the report, was former U.N. human rights investigator Richard Falk. Falk served six years as U.N. Spacial Rapporteur for the Occupied Territories. According to the NYT, his presence had to “gall[ed] many Israeli supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite.” There is something troubling about a newspaper that claims to represent the epitome of professional journalism reporting such slurs without properly evaluating them. Richard Falk, who is Jewish, has an impeccable record of both academic achievement and public service. His reputation for honesty and dedication to the cause of human rights exemplifies the best practice of Jewish values. Thus, he has every right to say that “I have been smeared in this effort to discredit the report” – a study which “tries its best to look at the evidence and analyze the applicable law in a professional manner.”

Israel’s Behavior

An objective consideration of Israel’s behavior makes it hard to escape the brutal reality of its officially condoned practices.

On 17 March 2017, at the same time as the forced withdrawal of the ESCWA report, the U.S. State Department released a report on “grave violations against Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation.” This was part of the department’s annual “country reports on human rights practices.” Among the problems cited were Israel’s practice of unlawful detention, coerced confessions and excessive use of force, including torture and killings.

Usually these annual human rights reports are made public by the Secretary of State. This year Rex Tillerson, who presently holds the office, was nowhere in sight. And, of course, President Trump failed to issue any of his characteristic tweets in reference to the Israel’s barbaric behavior.

Earlier, on 8 February 2017, it was reported that “Israel has banned anesthesia gas from entering the Gaza Strip.” There is a current backlog of some 200 patients in Gaza requiring surgical care, and some will die due to Israel’s ban.

A week later, on 14 February 2017, it was reported that Israeli officials were blackmailing Palestinian patients seeking permission to enter Israel for necessary medical treatment. A 17-year-old Gazan boy who suffered from congenital heart disease and needed a heart valve replacement “was explicitly told that in order to [leave the Gaza Strip and] have his operation, he would have to cooperate with the security forces and spy for Israel.” He refused and subsequently died. This is not a new or unusual tactic for the Israelis.

Blackmail All Around

The moral failure at the U.N., represented by the withdrawal of the ESCWA report, is the result of Secretary General Guterres’s decision to acquiesce in a denial of reality – the reality of Israel’s practice of Apartheid.

On the other hand, it probably also stems from Guterres’s acceptance of the reality of U.S. financial leverage along with the apparent threat to bankrupt the United Nations. This is, of course, a form of blackmail. Significantly, U.S. use of its financial clout at the U.N. mimics the same practice by the Zionist lobby in the halls of Congress.

Obviously the United Nations, to say nothing of U.S. politicians, needs alternate sources of income. My wife Janet once suggested that the UN be awarded the right to exploit and profit from all undersea resources. Not a bad idea. Likewise, U.S. politicians should agree to, or be forced to rely upon, government-based campaign funding rather than be pressed into putting themselves up for sale.

However, such changes do not appear imminent. As it stands now, reality in Palestine is what the Americans and Israelis say it is because politicians and international leaders literally can’t afford to challenge their corrupted views.

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history. http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What’s your response? –  Scroll down to add / read comments 

The UN’s moral failure on israeli apartheid

The UN’s moral failure on Israeli apartheid

Apartheid - wrong for South Africans and wrong for Palestinians

By Lawrence Davidson

Moral failure

On 15 March 2017 the United Nations’ Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) published a report on Israeli practices and policies toward the Palestinians. Using international law as its comparative criterion, the report came to a “definitive conclusion” that “Israel is guilty of apartheid practices.” The term apartheid was not used in the report merely in a “pejorative” way. It was used as a descriptor of fact based on the evidence and the accepted legal meaning of the term.

Such was the immediate uproar from the United States and Israel that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in a moment of moral failure, ordered the report’s withdrawal. The head of ESCWA, the Jordanian diplomat Rima Khalaf, decided that she could not, in good conscience, do so and so tendered her resigation.

Reportage

The initial New York Times (NYT) coverage of the incident paid little attention to the accuracy of the report, an approach which, if pursued, would have at least educated the newspaper’s readers as to the real conditions of Palestinians under Israeli domination. Instead, it called the report, and those involved in producing it, into question. For instance, the NYT told us that “the report provoked outrage from Israel and the United States”. The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki R. Haley, was quoted as declaring that, “when someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the UN it is appropriate that the person resign”. At no point in the NYT story was it noted that Ms Haley’s charge that the report was false, was itself false. Other coverage by the NYT improved only slightly.

The NYT did pay attention to the fact that, among the authors of the report, was former UN human rights investigator Richard Falk. Falk served six years as UN spacial rapporteur for the occupied territories. According to the NYT, his presence had to “gall[ed] many Israeli supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite”. There is something troubling about a newspaper that claims to represent the epitome of professional journalism reporting such slurs without properly evaluating them. Richard Falk, who is Jewish, has an impeccable record of both academic achievement and public service. His reputation for honesty and dedication to the cause of human rights exemplifies the best practice of Jewish values. Thus, he has every right to say that “I have been smeared in this effort to discredit the report” – a study which “tries its best to look at the evidence and analyse the applicable law in a professional manner”.

Israel’s behaviour

An objective consideration of Israel’s behaviour makes it hard to escape the brutal reality of its officially condoned practices.

On 17 March 2017, at the same time as the forced withdrawal of the ESCWA report, the US State Department released a report on “grave violations against Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation”. This was part of the department’s annual “country reports on human rights practices”. Among the problems cited were Israel’s practice of unlawful detention, coerced confessions and excessive use of force, including torture and killings.

Usually these annual human rights reports are made public by the secretary of state. This year Rex Tillerson, who presently holds the office, was nowhere in sight. And, of course, President Trump failed to issue any of his characteristic tweets in reference to the Israel’s barbaric behaviour.

Earlier, on 8 February 2017, it was reported that “Israel has banned anesthesia gas from entering the Gaza Strip.” There is a current backlog of some 200 patients in Gaza requiring surgical care, and some will die due to Israel’s ban.

A week later, on 14 February 2017, it was reported that Israeli officials were blackmailing Palestinian patients seeking permission to enter Israel for necessary medical treatment. A 17-year-old Gazan boy who suffered from congenital heart disease and needed a heart valve replacement “was explicitly told that in order to [leave the Gaza Strip and] have his operation, he would have to cooperate with the security forces and spy for Israel”. He refused and subsequently died. This is not a new or unusual tactic for the Israelis.

Blackmail all around

The moral failure at the UN, represented by the withdrawal of the ESCWA report, is the result of Secretary-General Guterres’s decision to acquiesce in a denial of reality – the reality of Israel’s practice of apartheid.

On the other hand, it probably also stems from Guterres’s acceptance of the reality of US financial leverage along with the apparent threat to bankrupt the UN. This is, of course, a form of blackmail. Significantly, US use of its financial clout at the UN mimics the same practice by the Zionist lobby in the halls of Congress.

Obviously, the UN, to say nothing of US politicians, needs alternate sources of income. My wife Janet once suggested that the UN be awarded the right to exploit and profit from all undersea resources. Not a bad idea. Likewise, US politicians should agree to, or be forced to rely upon, government-based campaign funding rather than be pressed into putting themselves up for sale.

However, such changes do not appear imminent. As it stands now, reality in Palestine is what the Americans and Israelis say it is because politicians and international leaders literally can’t afford to challenge their corrupted views.

De Mistura between Lavrov, Al-Jubeir, and Guterres دي ميستورا بين لافروف والجبير وغوتيريس

De Mistura between Lavrov, Al-Jubeir, and Guterres

Written by Nasser Kandil,

فبراير 7, 2017

Since his assuming the mission of the UN Envoy in Syria Steffan De Mistura was a mediator in promoting the sectarian formula to reorganize the state in Syria by the force of the war waged by the alliance extends from Washington to Al-Qaeda organization including Turkey, France, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, but he determined to make Syria surrounded by a region that feels hostility toward it starting from Al-Qaeda organization represented by Al Nusra front towards which he was keen on creating formulas to improve its position as money laundering returning from the sale of drugs, and the Saudi Israeli bilateral with which he has relations starting from the money and ending with the intelligence work with Israel, since he was an envoy in Lebanon sponsoring the hostility toward the resistance. De Mistura is the owner of the theory of the inspiring Lebanese example for the political solution in Syria in a call for a settlement that ensures the presidency of the President Bashar Al-Assad but by making the presidential position for his sect without powers and making the position of the Prime Minister belong to a sect that is controlled by Saudi Arabia with powers that drive Syria to a path similar to the path of Lebanon after Taif Agreement but without an  auspices as provided by Syria to Lebanon.

The balances of the ruling powers of the first stages of De Mistura’s mission were providing his project the prosperity, so it was an opportunity to reveal his cards which were no longer hidden for each one who dealt with the issue entitled the political solution in Syria, and because Moscow before its military involvement in Syria was dealing with the political endeavors and preventing the employment of  the decision of the war in the philosophy of politics, it was witnessing De Mistura’s plots and clashing with them, towards the stages when the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who was concerned in following up the political issue of Syria was forced to talk about De Mistura in a language that beholds him the responsibilities of supporting the terrorism and the postponement in doing what is needed, being away from accomplishing his duties and mobilizing his position as a UN envoy unfairly. Many times De Mistura has disabled Russian initiatives as the attempt of expanding the delegation of the opposition, or neglecting the talk about a ruling transitional body in order to go to a political ceiling for a solution that stems from the Syrian constitution and includes its modification and holding the elections on its basis. Lavrov does not forget the interferences of De Mistura in the Security Council in which he did not hesitate to accuse Russia of committing war crimes. Syria as well cannot forget all the collisions with De Mistura and his malignant behavior, as well as his conspiracies in the essence and in the details.

The coincidence between the victory of the Syrian army supported by its allies in Aleppo and the election of Antonio Guterres as a new Secretary-General of the United Nations has formed a change in the destination of the surrounding circumstances with the work of De Mistura whose his task will end in Spring unless renewed by Guterres. The information says that the understanding which enabled Guterres to occupy the position includes an agreement with Russia to exempt De Mistura from his tasks and nominating an alternative that is agreed upon with Moscow. In the beginning of the year, De Mistura has been notified by the Secretary- General the ending of his tasks in spring, so he assumed to coordinate with Russia and through the withdrawal of the veto on the continuation of his tasks. It seems that this has happened with the positions which expressed by De Mistura recently, that includes the formation of a delegation that gathers the formations of the opposition by consensus or by force, and a political ceiling that includes the government, constitution and elections. The campaign organized by the opposition that lives in Riyadh against him was just the echo of the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir to restore the changeable UN envoy, while the interference of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to support him was just the echo of the understanding between Gutterres and Lavrov.

Once again after the victory of Aleppo and Astana Path the role of the UN envoy in the United Nations has moved to be under the test, to see his concordance with the variables, will De Mistura succeed or fail?

Translated By Lina Shehadeh,

دي ميستورا بين لافروف والجبير وغوتيريس

فبراير 3, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– منذ توليه مهمته كمبعوث أممي في سورية كان ستيفان دي ميستورا وسيط تسويق الصيغة الطائفية لإعادة تنظيم الدولة في سورية، بقوة الحرب التي يشنها الحلف الممتد من واشنطن إلى تنظيم القاعدة وبينهما تركيا وفرنسا والسعودية و«إسرائيل»، لكنه عقد العزم ليكون لسان حال منطقة وسط هي الأشد عداء لسورية، بين تنظيم القاعدة ممثلاً بجبهة النصرة التي كان يحرص على ابتكار صيغ تبييضها، كما يتم تبييض الأموال العائدة من بيع المخدرات، ومن جهة مقابلة الثنائي السعودي «الإسرائيلي» الذي تربطه به علاقات تبدأ من المال وتنتهي بالعمل الاستخباري مع «إسرائيل» منذ كان مبعوثاً في لبنان يرعى العداء للمقاومة. ودي ميستورا هو صاحب نظرية انموذج اللبناني الملهم للحل السياسي في سورية، بدعوة لتسوية تثبت رئاسة الرئيس بشار الأسد، ولكن وفقاً لجعل المنصب الرئاسي لطائفته ونزع صلاحياتها، وجعل رئاسة الحكومة من موقع طائفي تتحكّم به السعودية وبصلاحيات تأخذ سورية لمسار شبيه بمسار لبنان بعد الطائف، ولكن من دون رعاية كالتي وفرتها سورية للبنان.

– كانت موازين القوى الحاكمة للمراحل الأولى من مهمة دي ميستورا تتيح لمشروعه فرص الحياة، ولذلك كانت فرصة ليكشف أوراقه التي لم تعد خافية على كل من تعاطى عن كثب بالملف المسمّى الحل السياسي في سورية، ولأن موسكو منذ ما قبل انخراطها العسكري في سورية تقف على بعض المساعي السياسية وتوظيف منع قرار الحرب في فلسفة السياسة، كانت تشهد مؤامرات دي ميستورا وتشتبك معها، وصولاً لمراحل كان وزير الخارجية الروسية سيرغي لافروف المعني بمتابعة الملف السياسي لسورية، يضطر للحديث عن دي ميتسورا بلغة تحميله مسؤوليات الدعم للإرهاب والمماطلة بالقيام بالواجب والانحراف عن المهمة، وتوظيف صفته كمبعوث أممي بصورة غير نزيهة، وكثيراً ما عطّل دي ميستورا مبادرات روسية من نوع توسيع وفد المعارضة أو تخطّي الحديث عن هيئة حكم انتقالي للذهاب إلى سقف سياسي واقعي للحل ينطلق من الدستور السوري ويتضمّن تعديله وإجراء انتخابات على اساسه. ولم ينسَ لافروف مداخلات دي ميستورا في مجلس الأمن التي لم يتورّع خلالها عن اتهام روسيا بارتكاب جرائم حرب، أما سورية فلا يمكن أن تنسى كل محطات التصادم مع دي ميستورا وسلوكه الخبيث ولا مؤامراته في الجوهر وفي التفاصيل.

– شكّل التزامن بين انتصار الجيش السوري مدعوماً من حلفائه في حلب، مع انتخاب أنطونيو غوتيريس كأمين عام جديد للأمم المتحدة، متغيّراً في وجهة الظروف المحيطة بعمل دي ميستورا، الذي تنتهي مهمته في الربيع ما لم يجدّدها غوتيريس. والمعلومات تقول إن التفاهم الذي سمح لغوتيريس بالفوز بالمنصب تضمّن اتفاقاً مع روسيا بإعفاء دي ميستورا من مهامه، وتسمية بديل عنه يتفق عليه مع موسكو. وفي مطلع العام تبلّغ دي ميستورا من الأمين العام إنهاء مهامه في الربيع، فتعهد بالتنسيق مع روسيا وسحب الفيتو عن مواصلة مهامه، ويبدو أن شيئاً من هذا قد حصل مع المواقف التي عبّر عنها دي ميستورا مؤخراً، وما تتضمّنه من تشكيل وفد جامع للمعارضة بالتراضي أو بالإكراه، ومن سقف سياسي يتضمّن حكومة ودستوراً وانتخابات. وما الحملة التي نظّمتها المعارضة المقيمة في الرياض عليه إلا صدى لصوت وزير الخارجية السعودية عادل الجبير لاستعادة المبعوث الأممي المتبدّل، بينما تدخل الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة لدعمه ليس إلا صدى التفاهم بين غوتيريس ولافروف.

– انتقل مجدداً مع انتصار حلب ومسار أستانة، دور المبعوث الأممي والأمم المتحدة ليكون تحت الاختبار لدرجة ملاءمته للمتغيرات، ينجح دي ميستورا أو يفشل!

(Visited 661 times, 661 visits today)
Related Articles

UN idiot: Al-Aqsa Mosque is Jewish

Posted on

alt

Antonio Guterres, the newly installed United Nations secretary general and a Friend of Israel told Israel Radio on Friday that “it was completely clear that the Temple that the Romans destroyed in Jerusalem was a Jewish temple.”

This is no news to people who have studied the history of Temple Mount and Jewishness from some objective sources. The Zionist narrative of Temple Mount, just like Holy Holocaust is all based on fakes, frauds, and forgeries (watch video below).

The so-called Temple Mount (Solomon Palace or Haikale Sulemani) and part of Old City of Jerusalem were destroyed by Romans in 70 AD to crush the anti-Rome armed rebellion by the people of Judea, who were not Jewish. Majority of them belonged to Hebrew tribes also known as Bani Israel who were descendants of 12 sons of prophet Israel (Jacob). These people who lived in Arabian peninsula converted to Christianity and Islam with the passage of time. Over 90% of current world Jewry is not Israelites but Khazarian Turks.

Israeli historian Dr. Shlomo Sand, author of books The Invention of Jewish People’, ‘The Invention of the Land of Israel’, and ‘How I ceased to be a Jew’ has claimed that the word JEW was invented in late 18th century – most probably by Christian Zionists.

The photo above clearly shows that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of Rock are not built on top of the Temple Mount. And the so-called Wailing Wall under the Al-Aqsa Mosque is not the foundation wall of the Temple Mount – but of a Roman fortress.

In October 2016, UNESCO declared that Old City of Jerusalem (occupied East Jerusalem) had nothing to do with Judaism.

But don’t expect Netanyahu stop speaking through Antonio Guterres’ mouth in the future.

Related Videos

%d bloggers like this: