Did the Fledgling United Nations Have a Legitimate Mandate in 1947 to Partition Palestine?

Source

By Hans Stehling,

It is a fact that is hardly credible, but a fact nevertheless, that the vast majority of people, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, have now little or no idea of the political machinations that brought about the establishment of an Israeli state in Palestine – a region that was predominately Muslim Arab for well over a thousand years. A period over which there had only ever been a minority Jewish presence. That fact is verified as follows – the documented proof being in the public domain, available to anyone at the touch of a key.

The present United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 50 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. It replaced the ineffective pre-war League of Nations, after WW2.

On 25 April 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco. Fifty nations were represented who signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations on 24 October 1945, and the UN was officially formed.  [Those 50 signatories, however, have to be seen in the context of the 193 UN Member states that in 2018 now represent the entire global population i.e. fifty is just over 25% of the present total].

On 29 November 1947, the resolution to recommend to all current Members of the then fledgling United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, was put to a vote in the UN General Assembly.  The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the resolution, with 10 abstentions. That is 33 out of a current total of 193 UN member States i.e. 17%.   (Britain, of course, abstained).

Barely six months later, on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, and U.S. President Harry S. Truman unexpectedly recognized the new nation on the same day. However, that does not tell the full story. President Truman was not at all in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine and was heavily leaned upon by B’nai Brith International, a powerful Jewish service organisation in America.

In the event, Truman was persuaded to change his opinion. And that decision was of vital importance because a handful of U.N. Member States would inevitably follow America’s lead as a result of intense Zionist lobbying. Consequently, it was in fact only a tiny minority of the global population that actually voted to impose a Jewish state in the midst of the Muslim Middle East.

If the same resolution were to be put to the vote today before a UN that now genuinely represents the entire global population, the result would be vastly different from that in 1947/8. And Gaza would now be a thriving sea-port on the eastern Mediterranean with an international airport, a strong fishing industry and operating as a popular tourist destination as the gateway to the Middle East and its hinterland.

Instead, we have nearly two million civilians under an inhuman siege from an occupying army that is armed and funded by both the US and the UK; that has blockaded essential supplies including electricity for over eleven years in a bid to starve an entire civilian population into submission and effect a regime change.

It’s a story of raw colonial power, political greed and personal ambition through the subjugation of an entire people by an internationally armed and funded, military occupation and illegal settlement, in open violation of the international Geneva Conventions on Human Rights.

In 2018, supported by a US Republican Congress (and a compliant UK Conservative Government), it continues as the spark that will eventually cause a devastating war – unless there is a paradigm shift in policy.  That seems most unlikely under the current Trump White House that is already intent on waging an American war against Iran by deliberately bankrupting the Iranian oil industry against the unanimous will of Europe, China, India and most of the international community.  It’s a very dangerous game by a dangerous man.

*

 

Hans Stehling (pen name) is a political analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Advertisements

The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis

Via The Saker

The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis

November 02, 2018

By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-non-existent-sea-of-azov-crisis/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20181101/1021618870.html

After the resolution of the European parliament that, contrary to international law and common sense, condemned the actions of Russia in the Sea of Azov, Ukraine cheered up and achieved the bringing of the question concerning elections in the DPR/LPR to the consideration of the UN Security Council.

Russia couldn’t block the introduction of this issue into the agenda both for moral and long-term political reasons.

The fact is that Moscow in 2015 also tried to obtain, and actually did obtain, the approval of the Minsk Agreements via the decision of the UN Security Council. This allowed to put Ukraine on the hook of international legitimacy. Kiev, which desired to jump away from the topic, couldn’t state any more that it doesn’t consider itself to be bound to any agreement with “terrorist-separatists” and that it isn’t obligated to them at all. The decision of the Security Council also enshrined that Russia isn’t a party to the conflict. Kiev after this shouted a lot, caused a fuss, sabotaged the implementation of all without exception points of the Minsk Agreements, but didn’t at all dare to officially withdraw from them.

But every coin has two sides, it is possible to find something bad in any good situation, and in any bad situation – something good. The same thing applies here: cementing its position via the decision of the Security Council, Russia couldn’t, without suffering serious reputation losses, deny the Security Council its right to consider the implementation of the decisions approved by its resolution.

Of course, the Security Council couldn’t adopt an anti-Russian or anti-Donbass resolution in connection with the existence of Russia’s veto. But the 5 member countries of the Security Council (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Great Britain) made a statement of non-recognition of the elections being prepared in Donbass and urged Russia to cancel them. The statement was supported by Germany, Italy, and Belgium. It is strange that there was no America among the declarants. However, this allows to present the statement as the collective position of the European Union, while Washington receives the opportunity to later express itself in support of its allies, but in the meantime to make one more attempt to carry out behind-closed-doors bargaining with Moscow.

Both parties are formally right. Ukraine and its Euro-American intercessors specify that elections in Donbass, according to the Minsk Agreements, have to take place under Ukrainian laws, but Minsk will be violated if they take place now. The People’s Republics, whose position Russia supports, state that this may of course be true, but Ukraine long ago had to adopt a whole complex of acts and carry out other measures, including disengaging troops and ceasing shelling before the turn of the People’s Republics to observe the Ukrainian electoral laws comes.

Judging by separate passages of the speech of the Russian envoy in the UN Security Council, Moscow suggests to consider these elections as the simple legitimation of the heads of the republics, who, unlike their predecessors, weren’t elected by anybody. The West is proposed to look at these elections as the solution to a purely technical problem. Moscow has a trump card on its side  – the fact that the head of the DPR Zakharchenko was killed and charges of organising murder were brought to official Kiev structures.

Europe, however, didn’t want to accept the arguments of Russia, which is demonstrated by the statement of 8 EU states. This, of course, can be the usual diplomatic demarche without consequences — occupying an advantageous position for bargaining in the great global game. But there can also be more serious undertakings that as a result will lead to the realisation of Kiev’s dream of disavowing Minsk, but for reasons that are not at all joyful for Ukraine.

We remember that Germany and France weren’t at all afflicted when Russia froze meetings in the Normandy Format until Ukraine took a more constructive position. They sighed freely, because Kiev bothered them worse than a bitter radish, and sat down in the first row of the parterre to see how Volker will get out of the situation. But they remain guarantors of the Minsk Agreements. It is clear to all that Minsk will never be fulfilled. Kiev doesn’t hide from the West that it is afraid of a domino effect if Donbass is given special status. But Paris and Berlin can’t just say “we changed our mind, Minsk doesn’t work any more”. It is for this same reason that Russia can’t deny the UN Security Council its right to periodically consider the question of implementing the Minsk Agreements. France and Germany themselves insisted on these agreements, they participated in their development, they declared that this is their big victory. The political losses that both countries and their leaders will incur if they change their position will be too great.

France and Germany need to have a pretext to free themselves from the obligation of solving the Ukrainian crisis. If it is impossible to withdraw from the agreements at their own will, and if it is impossible to allow it to be disrupted by a Kiev supported by the West, then it is necessary to shift the blame onto Russia and the People’s Republics.

The West perfectly understands that the refusal under obvious pressure to hold elections in the People’s Republics will cause essential damage to Russia’s international authority. That’s why it acts maximally publicly, up to the level of collective statements following the results of the UN Security Council meeting, closing for Moscow the option of changing its mind and once again “postponing” elections. After the elections have taken place, the West can refuse to recognise Pushilin and Pasechnik as negotiators in connection with the non-recognition of the elections that they were elected in. Also the powers of other delegates signed by them during negotiations can also not be recognised. This is enough to bury the Minsk process under an absolutely plausible excuse.

But if indeed the West does this, then it won’t be done to start a new round of negotiations and reach compromises that are more acceptable for Kiev. If there was the desire to save Ukraine, then it would be enough for Germany to stop the construction of “Nord Stream-2” and not prevent Poland from paralysing the work of “Nord Stream-1”. The geopolitical situation surrounding Kiev would immediately significantly change, and the chances – albeit tiny – of lasting at least 5 years while Russia searches for new markets and delivery routes for its gas would sharply grow for the regime. But Germany initially didn’t plan to opt for such sacrifices, which indeed granted us [Russians – ed] the right to affirm that the destiny of Ukraine, in principle, has been decided, therefore it is better for the Kiev regime to immediately die because long agony only increases the torture.

The West in general, and Europe in particular, needs to jump away from the toxic topic, because it is already clear that Russia will soon raise the question of who will pay for the restoration of Ukraine, like how it already raised such a question concerning Syria. By the time that such a question will be asked by Moscow, it is necessary not to have any formal connections with the Ukrainian crisis. The destruction of the Minsk and Normandy Formats — formally not due to their own fault — allows France and Germany to distance themselves from the problem, while at the same time keeping their finger on the pulse. After all, Poland, Hungary, and Romania won’t be able to avoid border problems connected with their minorities in the West of Ukraine. This means that the EU will anyway be involved in a settlement. But Germany and France will be free from obligations and will be able to dictate to their younger partners in the EU the conditions of support for their position, threatening to leave them alone with their problem in the event of obstinacy.

The Azov crisis should be considered from the same point of view. The West didn’t notice this problem during a year, and then suddenly the European Parliament started to care about it, while even Ukraine recognises that although the economic losses from Russia’s actions in the Sea of Azov and big, Moscow acts in full accordance with international standards – no violations of protocols by Russian customs groups were documented.

There is nothing extraordinary about Russia’s actions. The US examined the vessels going to Cuba not only in the days of the Caribbean Crisis. Israel examined the vessels going to Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, which even caused a diplomatic incident and the cooling of earlier excellent relations with Turkey. It is possible to give a plethora of examples: a warship’s right to examine a trade vessel in the high sea is the ABC of international law.

Nevertheless, the European Parliament started talking about a possible aggravation in the Sea of Azov and began to threaten with sanctions.

Who will aggravate? Russia has no need to do this, Ukraine can’t, and there isn’t anyone else there. Sofa “experts” already started talking about the entrance of the “NATO fleet” in the Sea of Azov. Those who are cleverer speak about its entrance in the Black Sea, understanding that a warship can only pass in the Sea of Azov with the permission of Russia, and a breakthrough – moreover, by a whole “NATO fleet” – equals war. In addition, large ships anyway can’t breakthrough there, but small cutter boats and dinghies can be brought to the Sea of Azov by Ukraine via land routes without any NATO. But this won’t change anything since Russia can sink everything that floats on this sea. This water area is completely exposed to barrelled artillery fire from the coast, not to mention missile systems. If someone wants to launch a war against Russia, then they will find a more convenient place than the Sea of Azov.

NATO ships, for the purpose of flying the flag, entered, enter, and will continue to enter the Black Sea. The Sea Breeze exercises are staged there annually, but, having an unsinkable “aircraft carrier” named Crimea, Moscow reliably dominates in its water area so much so that a hypothetical attack of Russia using the forces of a really large squadron or shock aircraft carrier grouping is possible no closer than from the region of the Aegean Sea. In the Black Sea a fleet hostile to Russia becomes too vulnerable. Because of Crimea it has nowhere to manoeuvre, and it can’t quickly leave in case of danger – a large grouping of ships can’t overcome the Turkish straits overnight.

So all of this is a fairy tale in favour of idle chatter. The non-existent Azov crisis is invented, on the one hand, for the purpose of mobilising Russophobic voters in the EU for the European Parliament elections in May, 2019, and on the other hand — this noise masks the real actions of the West, and allows it to drift away from Ukraine, imitating its comprehensive support.

Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the West didn’t see the danger of the situation being aggravated during a whole year (when it really existed), but saw it precisely now when the problem was solved. The fishermen of “Nord” were exchanged for the Ukrainian poachers lassoed by Russia. It is only left to exchange captains, then vessels, and then the crisis will fizzle out. Especially if Kiev doesn’t forget to return “Mekhanik Pogodin” after “Nord”.

By the way, apparently Kiev started to suspect that something was amiss, because the comments of Ukrainian officials concerning the Azov crisis were wonderfully weighted, especially against the background of the West’s hysterics. The Kiev regime doesn’t even want to denounce the agreement on the status of the Sea of Azov, contrary to its habit of disrupting all agreements with Russia. However, the regime is now concentrated on destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and creating a pocket “local church”. It is too busy for the Sea of Azov.

Iran demands israel (apartheid state) be forced to join NPT

Iran demands Israel be forced to join NPT

ISRAEL NUKES DIMONA

SPUTNIK – Iran’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a biting response to his Israeli counterpart’s claim that Iran and Syria posed “significant proliferation threats” to the Middle East and the world.

Iranian IAEA Ambassador Kazem Gharibabadi urged the international community to pressure Israel to sign onto Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying that doing so would be the only way to bring peace to the Middle East.

Speaking at the 62nd Annual Session of the ongoing IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Gharibabadi charged Israel with threatening its neighbors, pointed to its possession of nuclear weapons, and chastised the IAEA for giving in to Israeli pressure and not following up on what he said were the country’s “dangerous” nuclear activities.

According to the ambassador, little progress has been made on nuclear disarmament, one of the NPT’s major stated objectives, in the fifty years since the treaty was signed. Gharibabadi also pointed to the Middle East Nuclear Weapon Freeze Zone idea, a UN project dating back to 1970s aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons in the region, and how this proposal too has suffered from a “lack of political will.”

Gharibabadi’s remarks came on the heels of comments at the conference by Israel Atomic Energy Commission chairman Ze’ev Snir, who also called on the international community to take action against alleged Iranian and Syrian nuclear activities. The two countries, he said, “pose significant proliferation threats to the region and the world.”

Snir warned about an “outrageous threat” by Iran [to] attack Israeli nuclear sites, and called Tehran a threat to “regional peace and security.” The Israeli ambassador called on the IAEA to conduct a thorough verification of Iran’s activities, saying the country’s nuclear weapons ambitions were “a documented fact.”

Israel, which has a policy of neither admitting or denying the existence of a nuclear weapons program, is presently believed to be the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, with estimates that it has anywhere between 80 and 400 warheads deliverable by a variety of air, sub and missile platforms.

Iran, an NPT signatory under observance by the IAEA over compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, is barred from the creation of nuclear weapons. The fate of the 2015 deal, which was signed by the Iran, the United States, Russia, China, and several European countries, was put into question after Washington withdrew from the deal in May 2018 and vowed to impose unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Last month, during a visit to an Israeli nuclear facility, Israeli Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu made what has been widely interpreted to have been a veiled warning about Israel’s nuclear capabilities and their possible use if the country was ever attacked. Iranian Foreign Minister called the remarks hypocritical and “beyond shameless.”

Signed in 1968 and stepping into force in 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is tasked with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and furthering the goal of eventual global nuclear disarmament. Under the treaty, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China are recognized as nuclear weapons states. Non-signatories include Israel, India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.

SOURCE

Iran urges UN to censure israel’s (apartheid state) nuclear threat, make it respect intl. rules

Press TV

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony in the Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert on August 29, 2018.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony in the Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert on August 29, 2018.

Tehran has written to the United Nations, calling on the world body to condemn Israel for threatening Iran with a nuclear attack and bring the regime’s atomic weapons program under its supervision.

Standing right beside the Dimona nuclear facility late last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Iran as a “threat” to the region and said Tel Aviv has the means to destroy its “enemies” in a veiled reference to Tel Aviv’s nuclear arsenal.

“Those who threaten to wipe us out put themselves in a similar danger, and in any event will not achieve their goal,” he said. “But our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing. They are familiar with our policy. Whoever tries to hurt us – we hurt them.”

In a letter addressed to the UN on Thursday, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the world body said Netanyahu’s belligerent remarks poses “a serious threat to international peace and security.”

It also urged the UN to make Israel abide by international rules and the UN Charter.

The letter also highlighted Israel’s long history of aggression, occupation, militarism and state terrorism among other international crimes, urging the world community to take a firm position on the Zionist regime’s “unbridled actions and nuclear threat.”

In the letter, Iran further demanded that the UN condemn Israel’s anti-Iran threat, make the regime join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and bring its nuclear program under the supervesion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It also reminded the UN that Iran is itself a victim of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons.

The UN member states should not turn a blind eye to Israel’s threat and make efforts towards to the elimination of its entire nuclear stockpile, the letter read.

Responding to Netanyahu’s highly aggressive comments, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed the premier as “warmonger” and said the threat was “ beyond shameless.”

“Iran, a country without nuclear weapons, is threatened with atomic annihilation by a warmonger standing next to an actual nuclear weapons factory. Beyond shameless in the gall,” Zarif tweeted.

Israel is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but its policy is to neither confirm nor deny that it has atomic bombs. The Tel Aviv regime is estimated to have 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.

Unlike Iran, the regime is not a member of the NPT — whose aim is to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and weapons technology – in defiance of international pressure.

Why the West Rejects Russia’s Syria Reconstruction Initiative

South Front

Written by Peter Korzun; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has claimed that the UN is deliberately obstructing the process of Syria’s reconstruction. According to him, that organization’s political affairs department sent out a secret directive to UN agencies banning participation in any efforts to reboot the Syrian economy. The document states that all contributions should be limited to humanitarian aid only. The UN Security Council (UNSC) was not made aware of the directive.

What Makes the West Reject Russia’s Syria Reconstruction Initiative?

In case anyone has forgotten, that letter was distributed last October when the position of Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs was held by US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman. This is the first time Moscow has publicly questioned the UN Secretary-General’s real authority over the UN agencies. The directive contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 2254 that was adopted in 2015, paragraph 14 of which “[u]nderscores the critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their home areas and the rehabilitation of affected areas.”

According to Sergey Lavrov, the US and its Western allies are making assistance contingent upon a political transition process that limits the reconstruction efforts to only the areas under their control. On July 28, Russia raised the issue of Syria’s reconstruction at the council. The Western UNSC members refused to cooperate. On Aug. 15, US Secretary of State Pompeo and UN Special Envoy de Mistura met in Washington to agree that “that any discussion of reconstruction was premature” before a political resolution could be found.

Moscow is urging the EU to contribute financially to the reconstruction of that war-torn nation in order to stem the flow of refugees to Europe. The return of about six million Syrians to areas where fighting has ended and conditions are improving would help to ease the burden on Europe and other countries. Before meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Aug. 18, Russian President Vladimir Putin called on European countries to help rebuild Syria so that Syrian refugees could return home, thus mitigating the migrant crisis. The issue is a huge headache for the Europeans, but their contribution to Syria’s reconstruction has added up to zilch.

The migrant exodus from Syria has become a pressing problem for the neighboring states. There are about 3.5 million refugees in Turkey, 1.5 million in Lebanon, 670,000 in Jordan, and 250,000 in Iraq. Russia is cooperating with Jordan and Lebanon on the issue. After his meeting with Sergey Lavrov, Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil said the refuges could start returning right now, without waiting for a political settlement. Jordan is weighing Russia’s plan to repatriate 150,000 Syrians from Jordan by the end of 2018. The proposal includes the establishment of a center near the border with Syria to process the paperwork. Moscow is doing its best to normalize the situation — after all the Western countries are not the only ones who can contribute to the problem’s solution, and the UN Refugee Agency is not an instrument designed to carry out their political will.

In late July, Turkish President Recep Erdogan came up with a political initiative to arrange a summit on Syria that would draw in Russia, Turkey, France, and Germany. He even set the date — September 7. The prospects for such a summit were discussed during the meeting between the Russian and Turkish foreign ministers in Ankara, Aug. 13-14. But the only discussions on Syria mentioned during President Putin’s visit to Germany and his talks with the chancellor on Aug. 18 were those at a lower level — between experts on the region. On Aug. 17 the Russian press quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s claim that no four-nation summit will take place. One can only guess what happened, but one thing is certain — neither Ankara nor Moscow wants to be held responsible for any failure.

In a nutshell, there will be no Western participation in the reconstruction efforts until there is some progress in the political process, which actually implies that Bashar Assad should go. But the West has not done anything to make such a political process possible. The UN-brokered talks in Geneva have remained hopelessly stymied, while the Astana process initiated by Russia, Turkey, and Iran has made gains, making it possible to establish extensive areas of ceasefire, among other achievements.

In January, the Russian resort city of Sochi hosted the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, which Moscow organized to bring Syrians of every stripe together at a round table to discuss the country’s future. It has led to the formation of the Constitutional Review Commission.

Whether Assad or someone else will lead the country is up to the Syrians, not the Americans or the Europeans, to decide. The peace efforts of Russia and its allies in Syria — Turkey and Iran — have brought about tangible results. Some refugees are beginning to return from exile back to their home country — still only a trickle, but it is a beginning. Europeans have a lot to gain by contributing to the reconstruction efforts in Syria and thus easing their own local refugee burdens. For instance, the return of refugees to Syria would have boosted the popularity of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is on shaky ground back home. The EU’s attitude toward the reconstruction of Syria is another example of how Europe is sacrificing its national interests to please the United States.

***

UN Seeks «Credible» Investigation into Yemen Bus Attack

Local Editor

The UN Security Council has called for a credible and transparent investigation into the martyrdom of at least 29 children in a Saudi-led coalition attack on a bus in Yemen.

The British ambassador, Karen Pierce, who holds the council presidency, told reporters following a closed-door meeting on Friday that “if any investigation that is held is not credible, the council will obviously want to review that”.

The Ansarullah on Friday backed the UN call for an investigation into the Saudi-led coalition airstrike.

Senior Ansarullah leader Mohammed Ali al-Houthi said on Twitter that the revolutionaries were willing to cooperate in an investigation of the airstrike on Thursday in their stronghold of Saada province that hit the bus carrying civilians – many of them school children – in a busy market in Dahyan.

The US-backed coalition earlier announced that it had ordered an investigation into the airstrike that wounded at least 48 others.

The Security Council did not order a separate investigation but “will now consult with the UN and others as to how the investigation can best be taken forward,” said Pierce.

The council met at the request of five countries: Bolivia, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland and Sweden, which are all non-permanent council members.

Kuwait, also a non-permanent council member, is part of the Saudi-led coalition waging a war in Yemen.

The US, France and Britain – three of the five permanent council members – have supported the Saudi coalition in its military aggression, but have expressed concern over its heavy toll on civilians.

Before the meeting, the Netherlands stressed that the investigation must be independent, suggesting that the coalition’s decision to open up an inquiry was insufficient.

“We have seen the images of children who died,” the Dutch deputy ambassador Lise Gregoire-van Haaren told reporters. “What is essential at this moment in time is to have a credible and independent investigation.”

The council did not specify in the agreed statement to the press that the investigation should be independent – a demand that UN secretary general António Guterres made in a statement condemning the attack on Thursday.

Council members expressed their “great concern” and “called for a credible and transparent investigation,” Pierce said.

Since 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading a military campaign against Yemen.

The war has left nearly 10,000 people martyred and unleashed what the UN describes as the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis.

Yemeni health minister, Taha al-Mutawakel, on Friday put the death toll at 51 people, including 40 children, and warned that the number of victims could rise.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related Videos

The USA is a totally unsuitable place to have the UN HQ: US Refused Visa to Palestinian Officials Speaking at UN Meeting

US refused visa to Palestinian officials attending UN meeting

(MEMO— Six Palestinian officials who were scheduled to give a presentation at the UN office in New York have been denied visas by the US without any explanation. The officials were due to attend a high-level meeting on development last week to present a report on Palestinian implementation of UN goals for 2030.

In their absence, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour had to step in and make the presentation on behalf of Palestine, which has non-member observer status at the United Nations.

Mansour broke the news to reporters and said that “the Israeli occupying power complicated the matter” by refusing to allow several of the experts to go to Jerusalem to check on their visas.

Mansour said that as the host country the US has violated the UN agreement by refusing entry to a delegation from one of the members of the world body. It’s reported that he will send a letter of protest to the General Assembly committee dealing with host country relations.

In the absence of his colleagues Mansour informed the UN that the Palestinian Authority was “trying [our] best” to meet the 17 goals to end extreme poverty in Palestine but their task was hampered by the Israeli occupation.

The US is reported to be looking into the complaint. In the meantime, this incident will be judged as another example of its hostility towards the Palestinians. Relations began to sour dramatically after President Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there.

The Trump administration has also cut funds to the UN Palestinian refugee agency, leaving UNRWA struggling to fill a major budget gap for its education and health programs.

%d bloggers like this: