In this topsy turvy world, notorious human rights abusers like Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan and Gadafi's Libya
have been members of the Human rights Council. And now, the UN is seriously considering admitting as a member, an entity of
which Hamas, which has been defined as a terrorist organization by the USA
and the EU, would be a major component.
In his eloquent address to the UN on September 23, 2011 Abu Mazen (Mahmoud
Abbas), president of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) called for an independent state in all the land occupied
by Israel in 1967 including Gaza. But anyone with elementary knowledge of Middle East affairs must query his authority to
speak in the name of Hamas-ruled Gaza or indeed on behalf of Hamas members anywhere including
in the West Bank.
It is strange that no query was raised at the UN when
Mr. Abbas who has been prevented from visiting Gaza since the Hamas takeover, claimed that he was speaking on behalf
of the PLO which he described as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people including Gazans
claim is sharply contradicted by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter which states that because the PLO has adopted the idea of
a secular state it will not be fully accepted until it adopts Islam.
According to an Al Jazeera report, Alaa
al-Rifati, minister of economy in Gaza said that Hamas has not endorsed the PLO bid for statehood because they see it as a
Fatah-led initiative and Ahmed Yousef, the deputy foreign minister in Gaza told Al Jazeera, Because nobody consulted us,
we, Hamas, do not take this issue seriously,"
In the circumstances the UN must clarify whether it is competent
to impose PLO rule over an unwilling Gaza.
The Palestinian application for UN membership cannot be properly considered until several basic constitutional
issues are resolved. For example, article 5 of the UN Charter specifically requires that the admission to membership will
be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, not vice-versa as being
considered at present.
Since article 4 of the UN Charter states that membership is open to peace-loving states,
the question arises as to whether the fractured PLO-Hamas entity can be classified as a state, peace-loving or otherwise.
And since Hamas-ruled Gaza comprises a substantial component
of the Palestinian entity, the peace-loving requirement is very definitely ruled out by article 13 of the Hamas charter which
unambiguously declares, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction
to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
fact the PLO is also disqualified as a peace-loving entity by article 9 of its charter which declares bluntly that the armed
struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy.
Contrary to Mr. Abbas statement to the UN that
the PLO and the Palestinian people have renounced violence and condemn terrorism, incitement and glorification of terrorism
continue to infect Palestinian society. Children continue to be taught to hate from the earliest age. See for example
this clip and this
On March 9, 2011, Abu Mazen's advisor Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which
he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel and a few days later some inspired young Palestinians
did exactly that.
Recently a town square in Ramallah was named after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978
bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis were killed and 71 wounded It is hardly surprising that brutal terror attacks are motivated
by children attending schools named after terrorists and by popular soccer tournaments that are named after terrorists,
Mr. Abbas call for a solution to the Palestine refugee issue
in accordance with resolution 194 is strange in view of the fact that all six Arab countries then represented at the UN voted
According to an article in the China Worker by Aysha Zaki, of the Committee for a Workers
International, many refugees, who remain suspended in Lebanon without passports, democratic rights of participation
in Lebanese society, entitlement to purchase or inherit property, and banned from working in more than 30 professions, fear
the statehood bid, at best, carries no weight for their plight and, at worst, places resolution 194 in jeopardy
Since Resolution 194 is a General Assembly resolution
it is not binding, and only serves as advisory statements whereas resolution 242 is a biding Security Council resolution that
is accepted by Israel and is the basis of the majority of negotiations.
Much has been written about the implications
of resolution 242 and if we are to avoid the distortions introduced by propagandists, obviously, the most reliable source
from whom to seek clarification are the persons who drafted it. In drafting the resolution, both British Ambassador
to the UN in 1967, Lord Caradon, and American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, deliberately omitted a demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star
on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated:
would have been wrong to demand that Israel
return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just
the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice
lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."
Click here for more details
According to the article in the China worker, quoted above some Palestinians conclude that the UN bid for statehood
is not in the interests of the Palestinian people, while others believe that it can be a step towards uniting the Palestinian
people after a period of internal divisions.
Recommended reading. Palestinians Defy the U.N. Charter Co-authored by David Benjamin a former senior legal adviser to the Israel Defense Forces and David French. .