#u.n. membership

[odinsblog]

The United States vetoed a widely backed U.N. resolution Thursday that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for Palestine, a goal the Palestinians have long sought and Israel has worked to prevent.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions, from the United Kingdom and Switzerland. U.S. allies France, Japan and South Korea supported the resolution. (source) (source) (source)

After the vetoed U.N. membership vote, the Palestinian Ambassador, Riyad Mansour, gave an emotional speech demanding Palestinian statehood. Vanessa Frazier, the Security Council President from Malta, can be seen wiping a tear from her eye. (more)

[sayruq]

The U.S. will use its veto power against a Palestinian bid to be recognized as a member state of the United Nations during a vote at the Security Council expected to take place Thursday evening. Vedant Patel, principal deputy spokesperson for the State Department, described as premature an effort by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to gain member status at the U.N. He said there was not unanimity among the Security Council’s 15 members that the Palestinian Authority had met the criteria for membership, with unresolved questions over the governance of the Gaza Strip, where Israel is in a war to defeat and eliminate the controlling power, Hamas. “And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution,” Patel said.

Earlier it was revealed that the United States was secretly pressuring other members of the Security Council to shoot down a Palestinian state membership so the US wouldn't have to use its veto as that would lead to a wave of local and international criticism for Joe Biden.

[troythecatfish]

BY EDITH M. LEDERER

Updated 11:35 AM EDT, May 10, 2024

Share

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly voted by a wide margin on Friday to grant new "rights and privileges" to Palestine and called on the Security Council to favorably reconsider its request to become the 194th member of the United Nations.

The 193-member world body approved the Arab and Palestinian sponsored resolution by a vote of 143-9 with 25 abstentions.

The United States vetoed a widely backed council resolution on April 18 that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for Palestine, a goal the Palestinians have long sought and Israel has worked to prevent.

U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood made clear on Thursday that the Biden administration opposed the assembly resolution. The United States was among the nine countries voting against it, along with Israel.

[lavaringx]

My thoughts on Palestine

I haven't made a post about Palestine yet on Tumblr, but I feel I need to speak up on all my social media because things can't go on like this anymore. Israel's goal, or at least the goal of the governing far-right, is to deport all Palestinians to Jordan. That's why they don't see West Bank settlement expansion as a demographic threat to their country. If you've ever seen any memes by pro-Israel people that say "Jordan is Palestine," that's what they mean. Currently Palestinians live in segregated West Bank islands with no rights in Israel and no state of their own. Yes, I'm aware that there are Palestinian citizens of Israel, but there are also 3 million West Bank Palestinians and 2 million Gazans who are not. Israel cannot annex the West Bank unless it either a). Gives up its Jewish majority, b). maintains the current system of segregation with Palestinians as second class citizens or c). Orders a mass expulsion of Palestinians, which is the goal.

The only solution to this that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel is the two-state solution, which I support, but the U.S. government does not. With the exception of a few brave souls on the left end of the democratic party, most U.S. politicians are perfectly content to allow the status quo to continue, with some Republicans even openly calling for Israel to just annex the West Bank, destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque and build the third temple, Palestinians be damned. I haven't forgotten how Biden disgustingly vetoed a U.N. resolution that would have granted the Palestinians full U.N. membership, and we all know that Trump is going to be even worse. The U.S. wants a one-state Israel, regardless of what the politicians lie through their teeth.

I understand the Israeli position, I really do. You are afraid that, if given the chance, Palestinians will launch another, even bigger October 7th against your people. But you must understand that Palestinians have human rights too, and those human rights are currently being violated by Israel. I have no love for Hamas or Hezbollah. They are backed by Iran's tyrannical theocracy, which, because I am consistent in my belief in human rights, I too oppose. But Palestinian human rights are routinely violated on the dime of the U.S. taxpayer, and that's the difference. The Palestinian situation represents a moral failure on the part of the West, much like the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, that makes it hard for the rest of the world to take us seriously when we (rightfully) call out the human rights abuses of Iran, Russia or North Korea.

Things look pretty bleak right now. The only way to make Israel accept a two-state solution is to deny them aid unless they end West Bank settlement expansion, but neither party has the moral fiber necessary to make such an ultimatum. Even if we get lucky and a progressive is elected President at some point, a future Republican or Centrist Democrat could undo it four years later. It is entirely possible that under Trump, the Israeli far-right plan to expel the Palestinians in the West Bank will come to fruition, snuffing out the Palestinian cause forever. But somebody has to take a stand. Perhaps it's the Irish blood in me, but I can't just sit by and watch my country commit a gross injustice. My conscience wouldn't be able to take it if I remained silent. If the worst comes to pass, at least I tried.

Edit: I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support Hamas. The October 7th massacre was evil and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. The I'm a two-state solution believer through and through. Even many Palestinians in Gaza are rising up against Hamas. I made this post because I am frustrated with people saying that all the Palestinians should be deported to Jordan every time I ask what the endgame is for the West Bank. Deporting all Palestinians to Jordan would destabilize Jordan's Hashemite monarchy and turn Jordan into Iran 2.0.- a former pro-western absolute monarchy replaced by a terror state.

[drsonnet]

BREAKING: The U.N. General Assembly voted by a wide margin to grant new rights to the state of Palestine and called on the Security Council to revive its membership bid.

How #UNGA members voted on #Palestine :

UN votes symbolically in favor of Palestinian membership

The United Nations general assembly approved the Arab and Palestinian-sponsored resolution by a vote of 143-9 with 25 abstentions. The United States voted against the resolution, along with Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Papua New Guinea.

9 against:

US, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Papua New Guinea

قائمة الدول تشمل التسعة الرهط المفسدين الذين صوتوا ضد منح السلطة الفلسطينية #فلسطين عضوية كاملة في الأمم المتحدة..ربنا ينتقم منكم و معكم 25 امتنعوا أيضا.

update:

Here are some of the changes in status that Palestine will have a right to later this year:

To be seated among Member States in alphabetical order

Make statements on behalf of a group

Submit proposals and amendments and introduce them

Co-sponsor proposals and amendments, including on behalf of a group

Propose items to be included in the provisional agenda of the regular or special sessions and the right to request the inclusion of supplementary or additional items in the agenda of regular or special sessions

The right of members of the delegation of the State of Palestine to be elected as officers in the plenary and the Main Committees of the General Assembly

Full and effective participation in UN conferences and international conferences and meetings convened under the auspices of the General Assembly or, as appropriate, of other UN organs.

UN General Assembly presses Security Council to give ‘favourable consideration’ to full Palestinian membership | UN News

[mariacallous]

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

[soon-palestine]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

EDITH M. LEDERER at AP, via NewsNation:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States vetoed a widely backed U.N. resolution on Thursday that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for the state of Palestine. The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions. The resolution would have recommended that the 193-member General Assembly, where there are no vetoes, approve Palestine becoming the 194th member of the United Nations. Some 140 countries have already recognized the state of Palestine, so its admission would have been approved. This is the second Palestinian attempt to become a full member of the United Nations, and it comes as the war in Gaza, now in its seventh month, has put the more than 75-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict at center stage. Before the vote, U.S. deputy State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said the United States has “been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York — even with the best intentions — will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people.” Palestinian membership “needs to be the outcome of the negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians,” U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood said. It “is something that would flow from the result of those negotiations.” Anything that gets in the way “makes it more difficult to have those negotiations” and doesn’t help move toward a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace, which “we all want,” Wood told reporters. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas first delivered the Palestinian Authority’s application for U.N. membership to then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2011. That initial bid failed because the Palestinians didn’t get the required minimum support of nine of the Security Council’s 15 members. The Palestinians then went to the General Assembly and by more than a two-thirds majority succeeded in having their status raised from a U.N. observer to a non-member observer state in November 2012. That opened the door for the Palestinian territories to join U.N. and other international organizations, including the International Criminal Court. The Palestinians revived their bid for U.N. membership in early April, backed by the 140 countries that have recognized Palestine as an independent state.

This is such a disgraceful decision by the Biden Administration vetoing making the State of Palestine a full UN member.

[iphigeniacomplex]

[…] Did he really want to be a clown in such a Freudian circus as this? No. He did not. He would break it off with Myra. He would let her down gently because she was really very sweet and had had even less experience with men than he’d had with women. And then, after she had finally sailed over the horizon of his life, he could maybe take those tennis lessons he’d been thinking of for such a long time (Eddie often seems very well and happy in his physical-education classes) or there were the pool memberships they were selling at the U.N. Plaza Hotel (Eddie loves to play games) not to mention that health club which had opened up on Third Avenue across from the garage… (Eddie runs quite fast he runs quite fast when you’re not here runs quite fast when there’s nobody around to remind him of how delicate he is and I see in his face Mrs. Kaspbrak that he knows even now at the age of nine he knows that the biggest favor in the world he could do himself would be to run fast in any direction you’re not going let him go Mrs. Kaspbrak let him RUN) But in the end he had married Myra anyway. In the end the old ways and the old habits had simply been too strong. Home was the place where, when you have to go there, they have to chain you up.

IT, Stephen King (1986)

[darkmaga-returns]

The First World War went a long way to shatter that paradigm: the assassination of an aristocrat in the Balkans at the hands of a rival domestic dissident lit the match that kicked off a global war in earnest.

And, in 2025, the world is remarkably more interconnected than it was even in 1914, particularly in the oil-rich Middle East, where geopolitical interests collide.

Related: Politicians and Multinational CEOs Created America's Top Geopolitical Menace

Via Iran International, January 2024 (emphasis added):

“Iran officially became a member of the China-led BRICS economic organization on Monday, as it seeks to overcome the impact of US sanctions and overcome it isolation. In its policy of finding shelter under Chinese and Russian-dominated international organizations, Iran achieved full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in July 2022 and concurrently pursued entry into the BRICS group. Following an official invitation, Iran announced its acceptance into BRICS on August 24, 2023, with the official membership commencing on January 1, 2024.”

Given Iran’s accession to the burgeoning alternative to the neoliberal order of the West, BRICS, in January of last year, it comes as no surprise that the two juggernauts of that group, Russia and China, have expressed indignation that their staunchest ally in the Middle East faces, perhaps, existential peril.

Via Reuters (emphasis added):

“China condemns Israel's violations of Iran's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and urges Israel to immediately stop all risky military actions, China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong said, state media Xinhua News Agency reported. "China opposes the intensification of contradictions and the expansion of conflicts, and is deeply concerned about the consequences that may be brought about by Israel's actions," Fu was quoted as saying at a meeting held by the UN Security Council on the Middle East situation on Friday.”

[agentfascinateur]

Big day tomorrow for Palestine at the UNGA

The United Nations General Assembly could vote on Friday on a draft resolution that would recognize the Palestinians as qualified to become a full U.N. member and recommend that the U.N. Security Council "reconsider the matter favorably." It would effectively act as a global survey of how much support the Palestinians have for their bid

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinians-seek-un-general-assembly-backing-full-membership-2024-05-07/

It's the only reasonable way towards a two-state solution and to correct historical mistakes.

[odinsblog]

AHEAD OF THE United Nations Security Council action to consider the Palestinian Authority’s application to become a full member of the international body, the United States is lobbying nations to reject such membership, hoping to avoid an overt “veto” by Washington. The lobbying effort, revealed in copies of unclassified State Department cables obtained by The Intercept, is at odds with the Biden administration’s pledge to fully support a two-state solution.

The diplomatic cables detail pressure being applied to members of the Security Council, including Malta, the rotating president of the council this month. Ecuador in particular is being asked to lobby Malta and other nations, including France, to oppose U.N. recognition. The State Department’s justification is that normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states is the fastest and most effective way to achieve an enduring and productive statehood.

While clarifying that President Joe Biden has worked vigorously to support “Palestinian aspirations for statehood” within the context “of a comprehensive peace that would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” a diplomatic cable dated April 12 details U.S. talking points against a U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood. The cable says that Security Council members must be persuaded to reject any proposal for Palestinian statehood — and thereby its recognition as a sovereign nation — before the council’s open debate on the Middle East, scheduled for April 18.

“It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors,” the cable reads. “We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.”

“We therefore urge you not to support any potential Security Council resolution recommending the admission of ‘Palestine’ as a U.N. member state, should such a resolution be presented to the Security Council for a decision in the coming days and weeks.”

(continue reading)

[sayruq]

AHEAD OF THE United Nations Security Council action to consider the Palestinian Authority’s application to become a full member of the international body, the United States is lobbying nations to reject such membership, hoping to avoid an overt “veto” by Washington. The lobbying effort, revealed in copies of unclassified State Department cables obtained by The Intercept, is at odds with the Biden administration’s pledge to fully support a two-state solution. In 2012, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer state. The diplomatic cables detail pressure being applied to members of the Security Council, including Malta, the rotating president of the council this month. Ecuador in particular is being asked to lobby Malta and other nations, including France, to oppose U.N. recognition. The State Department’s justification is that normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states is the fastest and most effective way to achieve an enduring and productive statehood. While clarifying that President Joe Biden has worked vigorously to support “Palestinian aspirations for statehood” within the context “of a comprehensive peace that would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” a diplomatic cable dated April 12 details U.S. talking points against a U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood. The cable says that Security Council members must be persuaded to reject any proposal for Palestinian statehood — and thereby its recognition as a sovereign nation — before the council’s open debate on the Middle East, scheduled for April 18. “It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors,” the cable reads. “We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.” “We therefore urge you not to support any potential Security Council resolution recommending the admission of ‘Palestine’ as a U.N. member state, should such a resolution be presented to the Security Council for a decision in the coming days and weeks.”

[npr-stan]

Trump declares U.S. will withdraw from the World Health Organization : Goats and Soda https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/01/20/g-s1-42918/trump-world-health-organization-withdrawal

[eretzyisrael]

by LYN JULIUS

Following revelations that the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA colluded with Hamas in Gaza, 12 countries have withdrawn or paused their funding to the agency at time of writing, with more likely to come. However, there is little discussion as to why an agency set up as a temporary measure to aid refugees from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence should still be giving relief to the descendants of Arab refugees 75 years later.

Interestingly, it is not generally known that UNRWA was actually established to help refugees on both sides of the conflict—both Arab and Jewish. Initially, UNRWA defined those for whom it was responsible as “a needy person who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood.”

This definition included some 17,000 Jews who had lived in areas of then-Palestine conquered by Arab forces during the 1948 war and around 50,000 Arabs living within Israel’s armistice frontiers. Israel took responsibility for these individuals and by 1950 they were removed from the UNRWA rolls. This left some 550,000 Palestinian Arabs—according to a New York Times estimate in Dec. 1948—under UNRWA’s authority.

At the time, there was no internationally recognized definition of what constituted a refugee. In 1951, the U.N. Refugee Convention agreed on the following definition:

A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

This definition certainly applies to the 850,000 Jewish refugees who fled persecution in Arab countries after 1948 and mostly made their way to Israel.  Returning to those countries would have and still does put their lives at risk.

The burden of rehabilitating and resettling the 650,000 of these refugees who arrived in Israel was shouldered by the Jewish Agency and American Jewish relief organizations, such as the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Together with Holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe, they were shunted into transit camps called ma’abarot in appalling conditions.

At the time, the American aid earmarked for Middle East refugees was supposed to have been split evenly between Israel and the Arab states, with each side receiving $50 million. The money to take in the Arab refugees was handed over to UNRWA, while the United States gave another $53 million for “technical cooperation” to the Arab countries. Thus, in effect, the Arab nations received double the money given to Israel even though Israel took in more refugees, a large number of whom had been expelled from Arab countries.

[xtruss]

Leaked Cables Show “War Criminal White House” Opposes Palestinian Statehood

Despite Biden’s Pledge to Support a Two-State Solution, Cables Argue That Palestine Should Not Be Granted U.N. Member Status.

— Ken Klippenstein, Daniel Boguslaw | April 17, 2024 | The Intercept

An empty United Nations Security Council room ahead of a meeting on the situation in the Middle East, in NYC on April 14, 2024. Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images

Ahead Of The United Nations Security Council action to consider the Palestinian Authority’s application to become a full member of the international body, the United States is lobbying nations to reject such membership, hoping to avoid an overt “veto” by Washington. The lobbying effort, revealed in copies of unclassified State Department cables obtained by The Intercept, is at odds with the Biden administration’s pledge to fully support a two-state solution.

In 2012, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution granting Palestine the status of a non-member observer state.

The diplomatic cables detail pressure being applied to members of the Security Council, including Malta, the rotating president of the council this month. Ecuador in particular is being asked to lobby Malta and other nations, including France, to oppose U.N. recognition. The State Department’s justification is that normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states is the fastest and most effective way to achieve an enduring and productive statehood.

While clarifying that President Joe Biden has worked vigorously to support “Palestinian aspirations for statehood” within the context “of a comprehensive peace that would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” a diplomatic cable dated April 12 details U.S. talking points against a U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood. The cable says that Security Council members must be persuaded to reject any proposal for Palestinian statehood — and thereby its recognition as a sovereign nation — before the council��s open debate on the Middle East, scheduled for April 18.

“It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors,” the cable reads. “We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.”

“We therefore urge you not to support any potential Security Council resolution recommending the admission of ‘Palestine’ as a U.N. member state, should such a resolution be presented to the Security Council for a decision in the coming days and weeks.”

Experts say that without a unanimous Security Council vote, any vote from the U.N. General Assembly is largely symbolic.

“Like it or not, a General Assembly vote on this issue is of political rather than legal weight,” Richard Gowan, the International Crisis Group’s U.N. director, told The Intercept. “The Assembly can only accept a new state ‘on the recommendation’ of the Security Council.”

The diplomatic cable includes a rationale for the administration’s opposition to the vote, citing the risk of inflaming tensions, political backlash, and potentially leading to the U.S. Congress cutting U.N. funding.

“Premature actions at the UNSC, even with the best intentions, will achieve neither statehood nor self-determination for the Palestinian people. Such initiatives will instead endanger normalization efforts and drive the parties further apart, heighten the risk of violence on the ground that could claim innocent lives on both sides, and risk support for the new, reform government announced by President Abbas,” the cable says.

Asked about the cable and whether its opposition to U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood contradicts the Biden administration’s position in support of a two-state solution, the State Department did not respond at the time of publication.

“The U.S. position is that the Palestinian state should be based on bilateral agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians,” Gowan said. “It does not believe that the UN can create the state by fiat.”

A second cable dated April 13 sent from the U.S. Embassy in Quito, Ecuador, relays Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld’s agreement with the United States that Palestine should not be recognized for statehood. In cooperation with the United States, according to the cable, Sommerfeld instructed Ecuador’s permanent representative to the United Nations José De La Gasca to lobby Japan, Korea, and Malta (all rotating members of the Security Council) to reject the proposal. Lobbying of permanent member France is also mentioned.

Sommerfeld agreed, according to the cable, that “It was important any proposed resolution fail to achieve the necessary votes without a U.S. veto.” The cable says, “Ecuador would not want to appear isolated (alone with the United States) in its rejection of a ‘Palestine’ resolution (particularly at a time when the most UN member states are criticizing Ecuador over its April 5 incursion into Mexico’s embassy in Quito).” Ecuador finds itself in an escalating conflict with Mexico over its decision to arrest the former Ecuadorian vice president inside the Mexican Embassy.

Asked about the second cable, the State Department and the Ecuadorian Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

With its yearlong seat on the powerful 15-member Security Council, Ecuador holds outsized influence to vote against the Palestinian proposal for recognition.

“This really shows the extent to which the [Ecuadorian President Daniel] Noboa administration is beholden to the United States,” Guillaume Long, senior fellow at the D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research and former foreign minister of Ecuador, told The Intercept when shown the cable. “On top of this, it is quite shocking to see the United States, which condemned Ecuador’s April 5 storming of the Mexican embassy and its violation of international law … making the most of Ecuador’s isolation in the hemisphere to get it to do its bidding. Ecuador is just buying its way out of its crimes by committing more crimes. Truly shocking,” said Long, referring to Ecuador’s rejection of Palestinian membership in the U.N.

After the publication of this story, the Ecuadorian government released the following statement, which reads as translated: “Regarding the alleged leaks published by a digital portal, the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry denies the veracity of its content. The foreign policy of the National Government, including its actions as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, is clear, adhered to the principles of international law, public and transparent, as is all participation of the country and its authorities in different international forums. Citizens are called to obtain information only through official means.”

Since 2011, the U.N. Security Council has rejected the Palestinian Authority’s request for full member status. On April 2, the Palestinian Observer Mission to the U.N. requested that the council once again take up consideration of its membership application. According to the first State Department cable, U.N. meetings since the beginning of April suggest that Algeria, China, Guyana, Mozambique, Russia, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, and Malta support granting Palestine full membership to the U.N. It also says that France, Japan, and Korea are undecided, while the United Kingdom will likely abstain from a vote.

“It is important that all Security Council members hear at this stage of the process that a number of members have questions that require further study about the Palestinian Authority’s formal request for UN membership through the Council, and that if a vote is forced on the issue, you will join the United States and not support approval of the application,” the cable reads.