By DAVID HOROVITZ, JPOST
Shalev: Israel “only just found out” about Resolution 377; same process used in 1981 to advance Namibian independence, delegitimize S. Africa.
Israel failed to realize until recently that the Palestinian bid to win United Nations General Assembly endorsement for statehood in September might not be merely declarative, but could have profound practical consequences under the provisions of a little-known UNGA resolution, Gabriela Shalev, the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, has told The Jerusalem Post.
UNGA Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, was passed during the Korean War in 1950, at the initiative of the US, because the Soviet Union was vetoing UN Security Council action to protect South Korea.
It permits the General Assembly to recommend a range of “collective measures” to supportive states, including sanctions and even the use of force, in cases where the permanent members of the Security Council cannot reach unanimity and where “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
The existence of UNGA Resolution 377, and the precedents for its use, said Shalev, mean that “those who believe that the UN General Assembly’s deliberations are of a solely declarative importance are mistaken.”
If the Palestinians can gain General Assembly recognition for statehood under a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, she warned, “it would be a real obstacle… not just a public relations setback. This would seek to impose on us some kind of Palestinian state.”
Shalev said that Israel only “just found out about this” – thanks, she said, to research done by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi’s The Israel Project.
Palestinian officials have said repeatedly that they intend to seek UN recognition for “Palestine” by September. It is widely assumed that a resolution to that effect would not receive the binding approval of the 15- member Security Council – where it might not gain the nine “yes” votes it would need, and where, even if it did, the US would likely use its veto.
In the General Assembly, by contrast, a resolution recommending a state of Palestine would easily receive two-thirds support, diplomatic sources say.
But the assumption in Israel until recently was that while such a vote might further dent Israel’s international standing, it would have no practical consequences.
By invoking the non-binding “Uniting for Peace” resolution, however, the GA could then recommend that “collective measures” be taken by individual states in support of the statehood resolution.
Richard Schifter, a former US assistant secretary of state, noted a 1981 precedent in which the General Assembly utilized Resolution 377 to advance the struggle for Namibian independence.
That resolution called upon member states “to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People’s Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia.” And it urged member states to immediately cease “all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally.”
Its passage, said Schifter, who now chairs the board of directors of the American Jewish International Relations Institute, “was a significant step in the process of imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa and delegitimizing the country.”
May I suggest a little time in the library? (“History Section” might be a good place to start, if they still have one.)
Sorry, that is factually untrue. Granted, it’s a common misconception, but a matter may be broadly accepted and still be dead wrong.
I see.
And that’s why nobody ever makes that claim now?
A “say,” did you say?
A “member of the UN,” did you say?
All member nations of the UN are [supposed to be] entitled to take a turn sitting at the Security Council — you know, that place where they pass all those measures against Israel?
And when, exactly, was the last time an Israeli representative got to take a seat at that table?
Actually, don’t bother finding when the last time was……
I’ll be satisfied if you come with one time,
any time, EVER, in the past 63 years of the Jewish state’s existence.
All UN member nations are [reputed to be] entitled to take a turn sitting on the Human Rights Council, on appointment by the GA.
Can you point to any time the G.O.I. has ever gotten to sit down in one of those 47 seats as a member of that Council & talk things over with those paragons of civic virtue?
So far, I’m unable to see what Israel gets from UN “membership” that she wouldn’t get from “non-membership.”
All she gets is tsuris.
Sounds kinda like “Soros,” doesn’t it? (Maybe that’s why he chose it?)
For commentators urging Israel to resign from UN, that’s a total non-sense and the recepy for a later disaster. The very existance of the modern state of Israel was based and still is, on the UN vote of Nov. 29, 1947. That vote gave Israel its legitimacy. Without that vote, anybody could claim that Israel came out of the blue and “occupied” someone’s land. Only with Israel, as member of UN, can he have a claim of existance and a say!
Steve.
So what?
The GA is a debating society (and a not-very-good one, at that).
None of its resolutions are binding, or can be binding.
It can “recommend” its arse off — and its members are free to give their cooperation, OR to give the resolution’s sponsors the impudent finger.
Anything — including “collective measures” — that compliant nations can do WITH a GA resolution, the same nations could’ve done WITHOUT one.
You think Israel became a state just because she got a majority of GA members to endorse 181?
GA 181 was no more legally binding than any other GA measure.
What brought the promises of the Mandate to fruition was not law — proper law OR subverted law.
What brought the promises of the Mandate to fruition was blood.
In the end, everything else was window dressing.
“UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.”
It seems impossible for Israel to remain defiant to the world’s pressure to end the Palestinian conflict. With EU divesting from Israel, South-African-type sanctions are looming, if not inevitable.
I suggest a solution. It’s not nice, but we can take comfort that it is prescribed in the Torah: cleansing the land of our Arab Enemies!
Unlike our similar actions in the past, such a move now might bring sanctions. “Might,”because Russia can be induced to veto the UNSC resolutions at the price of Israel switching over to it from the US—if the US refuses to veto them.
Whether on the UN level or by individual countries, we should expect significant sanctions. Such an outcome is not inevitable, as Western countries have committed much larger atrocities with impunity in recent years, but it is possible and must be prepared for and dealt with.
The probability of sanctions would be lower if Israel were to act quickly, finishing the matter within a few days, before the world media started its outcry. The most important thing about sanctions is that they are temporary. Soon the sanctions will crumble as Israel searches for loopholes in the economic blockade. In a decade at most, the sanctions will be de facto repealed. Western and Arab governments don’t care about Palestinians; either a peace deal or deportation eliminate the burning problem equally well.
Any other solution would leave Israel without her core areas and with about the same troubles we have today.
Robert, nobody gives a shit about the Jews. We aren’t even allowed to defend ourselves.
Lori, you are to be commended. And to think you understood that in 2004.I wasn’t aware of 377 until now but thought that under Obama that Israel can’t count on a US veto which would put us in the same place as this scenario. R2P is another arrow in the uiver. People argued that the Gaddafi preciodent wouldn’t apply to Israel because our military is too strong but I believed that sanctions were a real possibility. I counted on Congress to not observe the sanctions. Other countries wouldn’t also. I thought that we could suvive sanctions. I still do but Israel certainly doesn’t want to go through life subject always to sanctions.
Caroline Glick stands firm in support of Israel not capitulating and so do I . I wrote to her and asked her to write another article in which she envisaged the repercussions of Israel taking unilateral steps such as extending Israel law to our communities. She wrote back simply to say they would be bad.
On balance, I am still against capitulating. We have to do what we have to do. Ein Brera.
How pathetic. I am no genius or prophet, but I wrote about R 377 back in 2004,
Published: 07/29/04, 11:08 PM
Uniting for Peace or Cut and Run?
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus
The day is approaching when a Security Council veto by the US will no longer shield Israel from the harm those recently coalesced and large voting blocs yearn to unleash. Count the votes and ask yourselves what the majority will do once the veto fetters are sliced.
“Uniting for Peace.” Sounds lovely, utopian, doesn’t it? Maybe not. Let’s see.
When the bullies in the schoolyard gang up against you, won’t pick you for any teams and jeer at your every effort to make friends, it can be awfully discouraging. But if your protector is the most powerful kid in the schoolyard, you always have an ace in the hole. No matter how many bullies try their best to pummel you, you can stay in that schoolyard, poked at, picked on, pretty unhappy, maybe, but basically safe.
Israel is that social outcast in the world’s schoolyard, known as the United Nations. The UN Charter grants permanent members of the Security Council, of which the US is one, what amounts to ultimate veto power over any UN Resolution. With this veto power, the US is able to shield Israel from the bullies in the UN who try to pulverize her through their seemingly endless supply of twisted vitriol, wrapped up and delivered in a UN Resolution.
That may no longer be true. I’ll wager that few have carefully read the densely packed and dimly reasoned advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, in which the court of kangaroos jumped on and tried to crush the exposed neck of Israel, the courtyard nerd. No surprise there. But a few paragraphs tucked away in the Opinion sent a shiver down my spine.
In a rarely utilized tool about which few are aware, there lurks a means to trump the veto power protection of the US for Israel. That tool, Resolution 377 (A)(V), is known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution. This procedural anomaly allows a majority of the Security Council members to override a permanent member’s veto of a resolution. That resolution can then be forwarded to the General Assembly for action on a measure that had otherwise – most would have assumed irreversibly – already been rejected.
Resolution 377 can be an effective vehicle to finally squash the schoolyard outcast. The tool has not yet been fully exploited, but let’s not wait too long. There is no doubt it is coming. You see, Resolution 377 provides a back door through which the United Nations General Assembly can take action on a measure despite “a negative vote of a permanent member,” when “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
In the parallel universe of the UN schoolyard, Israel is repeatedly condemned for trying to protect its citizens from endless efforts to end her existence. In this month’s decision rendered by the UN’s International Court of Justice, a misnomer if ever there was one, Israel’s passive security barrier was pronounced a “threat to international peace.” The training and letting loose of exploding humans, as we know, has never warranted official condemnation by either the UN or its puppet court.
Everyone knows that a Security Council permanent member’s “veto power” is sacrosanct, so how can this rarely used procedural maneuver be considered legitimate? And if such a tool exists, why haven’t the swashbucklers brandished it before?
Resolution 377 was conceived by the United States when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. The UN Security Council promptly voted to deploy UN troops to block North Korea’s army. But eventually North Korea’s protector, the former Soviet Union, began using its veto power to block Security Council votes relating to the Korean War.
That fall, Resolution 377(A)(V) was adopted by the General Assembly. The thinking went something like this: The primary responsibility of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. But when the veto by a lone Security Council member blocks the Council from fulfilling its primary duty to maintain international peace and security, then “the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately” and make appropriate recommendations to the GA members for collective measures. In other words, a super-majority of the Security Council members can “unite for peace” and create an alternative, novel path of action.
The distinguished academic and UN commentator, Ruth Wedgwood, described similar evolving inconsistencies as a natural evolution of cumbersome UN mechanisms. The mission-directed nature of the UN requires flexibility in its procedures so that it may achieve its raison d’etre.
The question is, who is defining the mission? What actions by which nations actually threaten international peace and security according to the United Nations? Do the bullies get to decide?
Resolution 377 was one basis upon which the ICJ rejected the lack of jurisdiction objections put forth by Israel, the US and nearly all Western democracies. But the Resolution’s invocation in the Court’s Opinion is an ominous harbinger.
The day is approaching when a Security Council veto by the US will no longer shield Israel from the harm those recently coalesced and large voting blocs yearn to unleash. Count the votes and ask yourselves what the majority will do once the veto fetters are sliced.
The bullies can smell a change in the air. The rules are about to change. It’s time to build a new school, one with a level schoolyard ruled by democracy and decency, rather than by “a majority of tyrannies.”
Av 11, 5764 / 29 July 04
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/3990
if the world does t wake up muslims or arabs feel as they can push ahead with there agenda or plan
if israel does t strike hard back the parties run the place think no one stop us we can move ahead
there for on tovia singer show we both agreed time for goverment in the knesset to wake up
europe is lost,think america can turn around.for israel might not be to late
If the Arabs declare a State in the “West Bank” based on international law, why can’t the Jews declare a State in Judea and Samaria based on international law? After all the Jews have international law on their side – The San Remo Resolution – April 25, 1920 which was ratified by the League of Nations and the United States signed onto – although not a part of the League of Nations – is grandfathered into the UN Charter. This is so in spite of the hypocrisy of the EU, the US, and the nations of the world which claim that Jewish settlements are illegal or “illegitimate”. If anything these nations should be encouraging and financing the “close settlement of the territories by the Jews”. The sad fact that the government of Israel doesn’t assert Jewish rights to the land even by “secular” international law probably is due to the influence of the Post-Zionists on the secular oligarchy that leads Israel today. The Post-Zionists themselves were indoctrinated by the German Jewish intellectuals who taught the Humanities, social sciences and law at Hebrew University – Israel’s first university (see Yoram Hazony’s The Struggle for Israel’s Soul).
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 377A worked to the advantage of the US and its allies in 1950 at the time of the Korean conflict. Within six years it was realized that this end run around the Security Council was a mistake. In November 1956 UNGA 377A was invoked by Yugoslavia at the time of the Sinai-Suez War, in order to bypass vetoes by the United Kingdom and France and allow the UNGA to create the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). The General Assembly action as well as the US fear of war in the Middle East escalating at the very time the Soviets were repressing the Hungarian Revolution, resulted in the US applying pressures on the UK, France and Israel to quit their military actions immediately and for Israel to withdraw from the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, causing the gravest crisis between the Western Allies (US, UK and France) since the end of World War II. The US quickly learned that bailing out an Arab dictator did not earn it kudos from Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who remained implacably anti-Western and anti-Israel. Thus, UNGA 377A was a dangerous precedent that may come back to haunt the U.S. and Israel as we approach the September 2011 UNGA session.
Dr. Steve Carol
Prof. of History (retired)
Associate Producer and
Official Historian of
Middle East Radio Forum
http://www.middleeastradioforum.org
Middle East Consultant
Salem Radio Network News
Last week I learned that a group of Muslim “archaeologists” were headed to the Hague to file complaints against the Jews for what they called archaeological infractions around the Temple Mount. This group had met in Ammon and were very excited about the “solid” case they had against Israel. I have heard of only a few Muslims who are archaeologists in the professional sense used in the West. They usually are politicized Muslims who lie up a storm and forge evidence to suit their needs. That’s what this group is up to.
Bill Levinson says:
What if Israel resigned from the UN and declared non-recognition of the UN’s legitimacy? Maybe other countries would follow.
I’ve said this for a long time. The UN is indeed run by a collection of Islamic dictators and other various and sundry 3rd world depots. Any reasonable fair minded person recognizes the UN for the farce it is. Israel, the profoundly unwarranted recipient of countless UN calumnies should walk out of the cesspool that is the UN. It would be commendable if Canada followed suit and perhaps such would start an exodus of civilized nations (post Hussein USA) from Turtle Bay.
Shalev’s take on the matter is very scary indeed, and I totally agree with Levinson and Sharbano. Bland Oatmeal? Wait a minute, I know many goiyim who would love to see the UN dissolved. However, you are right that a veto by the US is no longer certain– not with Obama and Hillary (and the whole left and, I’m afraid, many in the “center” in the US). The rest of your scenario? Terrifying, not impossible, but a bit far out there– I hope. And you forgot to factor in Almighty G-d. Yes, work diplomatically; yes, keep ready with military defense. But in the end, our defense is not in horses (or nukes)…
Meanwhile, anyone for annexation of Judea/Samaria now?
It is no longer a foregone conclusion, that the US will veto Arab Palestinian statehood on Israeli territory. The United Nations (which literally means, “United Gentiles”, or “United Goiim”) is Israel’s enemy. NATO is, effectively, the military arm of NATO (as Kosovo, Afghanistan and other conflicts including Libya demonstrate); and the US is the leader and backbone of NATO. With Israel-hating Barack Obama as the head of the US, the conclusion ought to be obvious:
Eventually, an anti-Israel US President, such as Obama, will convince a willing UN to authorize NATO to attack Israel. This may not happen during a US Presidential campaign year; but we can be certain that the groundwork is being laid; and recognition of a Jerusalem-capitaled Arab “Palestine” by the UN is certainly part of that groundwork. A pretense for attack can be manufactured by having Turkey militarily intervene in, and annex (Bahrain-style) Syria. If that doesn’t provoke an Israeli response, Turkey can then attempt to “intervene” in Israel itself, to protect Arab “protesters”. If Israel beats the socks off the Turks (who are NATO members, by the way), this might give the rest of the Unholy Alliance some pause; but only for a few years (say, seven, as in Ezekiel 38). Then the big thugs of NATO will move in for the kill, and Israel will exercise the Sampson option (Zechariah 14).
Give or take a tweak, this is exactly where the world is headed. To your nukes, O Israel.
When Bush first went to the UN for a resolution on Iraq in order to invade, I thought at that time this could be very dangerous for Israel. Once the UN is used for military action then what is there to stop it from using the same type of resolution on Israel. Considering the vast number of resolutions against Israel it certainly wouldn’t take much. Many used to say that UN resolutions had no teeth. Well they are growing their teeth. Now with Obama using the UN as a prelude to war the UN will begin to find a “comfort zone” in going to war. Bush set a very dangerous precedent indeed.