An Accurate History of Palestine, Israel, and the "Palestinians," Part II (1948 - Early 1950s)

PART II

War of 1948
One day after the State of Israel was born, on May 15, 1948, no less than five Arab nations invaded Israel. The new State fought against Syria and Lebanon in the north, Iraq and Transjordan (Jordan) in the east, Egypt (assisted by contingents from the Sudan) in the south, and Arabs and volunteers from other Arab countries from within. Being that Israel had just been born, these five Arab countries had superior armor, artillery, and air forces.

On May 31, the Haganah was renamed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and suffered initial setbacks, but after three weeks, they were able to halt the offensive, stabilize the front, and even initiate some local offensive operations. By mid-July 1949, Israel was able to capture the upper Galilee, the Negev in the south (which had been allotted to the Jewish State by the UN), and end the war. The Arab countries signed Armistice Agreements; first came Egypt on February 24, 1949, Lebanon on March 23, 1949, Jordan on April 3, 1949, and Syria on July 20, 1949. Only Iraq did not sign an agreement. It preferred to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to the Arab Legion of Jordan. In the end, not only did Israel eject the Arab forces, but it also took 5,000 square kilometers over and above the areas allocated to it by the United Nations.

As soon as the armistice agreements were signed, the IDF was disbanded. But it was too soon to do so. The former Arabs of Palestine (and neighboring Arab countries, in an effort to show Israel and the rest of the Arabs that they hadn't given up the war) started sending suicide troops across the ill-protected border to steal farm equipment, laying of mines, killing of individuals, and wholesale massacres. They were trained, equipped, and paid by Egyptian intelligence, but they operated from bases in Jordan (which caused Jordan to bear the brunt of the retaliation). Each time Israel would retaliate, the UN Security Council would condemn it.

Post-1948 War through the Early 1950s
Despite the refugee problem being admittedly caused by the Arabs fleeing (due to the Arab Higher Committee encouraging them to leave their lands) and the surrounding Arab states, Israel was still willing to take back the Arabs who had scattered in the hopes of an Arab victory in 1948.

On November 19, 1948, the General Assembly created the UN Relief for Palestinian Refugees, later renamed UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to dispense aid to the refugees. The Arab refugees of Palestine are the only refugee group that gets their own UN organization. All other refugees utilize the UN Refugee Agency. Regardless, UNRWA was originally given a budget of $50 million to assist the estimated 650,000-711,000 Arab refugees of Palestine (according to the UN).

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a refugee is someone who has been forced to leave a country because of war or for religious or political reasons. Recall that Israel never forced the Arabs to leave Palestine/Israel. In fact, Israel insisted and requested that they stay and help them build the country. The Arabs were the ones who rejected the Jewish request and abandoned their property.

According to the UN Refugee Agency, pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is someone "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 to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country" (emphasis added).

On another section of the UNHCR website, refugee is defined as "someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence." Again, the Jews of Palestine practically begged the Arabs to stay; the Jews were not the reason the Arabs left.

Additionally, the new Israeli government was more than willing to take the Arabs back into the country. The Arabs rejected this offer (see below).

[Note: For this reason alone, there are no Arab refugees from Palestine. For argument's sake, even if there were, the number would be limited to the original 650,000-711,000. Refugee status does not extend to additional generations. There is no international law that provides for this and no other refugee group can, or does, claim this. Despite this, Arabs from Palestine insist that their descendants are entitled to keep this label (and UNRWA supports it), thus making the number of "Palestinian refugees" an unwieldy and ridiculous five million people. And reductio ad absurdum, if you continued along these lines another 20-30 years, you would have over thirty million Arabs claiming the Right of Return to Israel.

In the history of the world, all refugees have eventually been assimilated (since WWII, 165 million). All but one -- the Arabs of Palestine. Due to the application of the definition of refugee, all numbers of refugees have declined to zero (either from absorption or from them dying off); all except the Arabs of Palestine. Their numbers have increased, despite all rules of law and mathematics.

We won't discuss here the ignored issue of the Jewish refugees, mainly because Israel absorbed them as soon as they fled and arrived in Israel.

For a more in depth conversation on the refugee issue, please refer to my already written blog, There Are No Refugees.]

According to UNRWA (now the largest UN agency, with a staff of over 30,000) and the US Department of State, from 1950-1999, the US gave $2,222,000,000.00 to UNRWA. That's over $2 BILLION (with a "B"). As of 2012, the US has given a total of $4,300,510,350.00 to UNRWA, whose only focus is the Arabs from Palestine alleged refugee problem. In 2010, the European Commission gave UNRWA $165 million. That same year, Sweden gave $47 million, the UK gave $45 million, Norway gave $40 million, and the Netherlands gave $29 million.

On December 11, 1948, the UN passed Resolution 194, which stated that, "refugees willing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so ... and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return..." (emphasis added). Those emphasized words show that the UN did not expect Israel to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem would have to include resettlement of Arabs into neighboring Arab countries. Israelis did not expect the resettlement issue to be a problem, but the Arabs were, still, unwilling to negotiate and cooperate and unanimously rejected the UN Resolution, on claimed moral and political grounds.

The only country that has assimilated, in significant numbers, the Arabs of Palestine is Jordan. No other Arab country has absorbed them or given them full citizenship despite the fact that many of them were born in those countries and have lived there for years.

The Guardians of Humanity

Human rights are commonly understood to be inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

"All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action." -Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, 12 March 2007, Opening of the 4th Human Rights Council Session

Apparently, the UN has decided that the topic of human rights is important. Sadly, this is as good as it gets. 

Here's a closer, cursory look at the 47 wonderful and humane State members of this "Human Rights Council."

The Worst Offenders

Sierra Leone, a country who went through a horrific civil war from 1991 to 2002, leaving 50,000 dead, over one million displaced, using large quantities of child soldiers. The Revolutionary United Front committed horrendous abuses, including rapes, limb amputation, and more. In 1999, the UN brokered a peace deal, but even that came under serious scrutiny because it gave amnesty to the rebel forces for their grotesque human rights violations.

Congo, another member of the HR Council, went through a civil war as well. More than 5-6 million people died since the civil war began in 1998 (nearly half the dead younger than 5 years old). If that weren't bad enough, UN peacekeepers themselves weren't interested in doing the job their name implied. Three years ago, there were mass rapes taking place in Congo just up the road from those "peacekeepers." Nothing was done. Why didn't that qualify as violations of human rights? We'll discuss that later. Another good question: Why is this extremely guilty country on the UN Human Rights Council? Sorry. I can't help you with that one.

Uganda, another of the 47 members, is the home of the Lord's Resistance Army and the infamous Joseph Kony. The LRA's "ranks are filled with boys who have been brainwashed to burn down huts and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars, as if they were grinding grain" (according to Jeffrey Gettleman, The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars, New York Times, 29 April 2007). How pleasantly appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council.

In the Ivory Coast, yet another member, the 2010 presidential election led to the 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis and the Second Ivorian Civil War. International organizations reported numerous human rights violations on both sides. In the first civil war, in 2002, child soldiers were used, often forcibly, by both sides.

Libya, a vacation destination in Northern Africa, saw such terrible human rights violations that their rights as a member of the UN Human Rights Council were suspended from March 2011 - November 2011. It was so bad that Libya's own UN delegation urged the UN to kick them out. Makes me wonder; if Libya's own delegation hadn't done so, the UN likely would never have done anything at all because...

Switzerland, one of our illustrious 47, has nominated Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the "Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize," for the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, to represent the Western group (election scheduled for September 27, 2013). He has publicly endorsed such infamous a**holes as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Colonel Mengistu, and other repressive rulers. Impressive, especially because we, in the West, always consider Switzerland as one of the 'good guys.' If you want to take action and oppose this election (as well you should), you can complete the form on this page. Perhaps someone will listen.

In the Philippines, children are recruited by rebel forces (MILF, ASG, NPA, acronyms explained below), but it is also reported that the government (Armed Forces of the Philippines) uses them in paramilitary units. It is known, even by the UN, that the rebel forces and the government subjects these kids to the most brutal violence, including killings, maimings, rapes, and other sexual assaults and human rights issues:

"There is a United Nations Security Council Report in 23 April 2010 that says that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF, yes, MILF), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), New People's Army (NPA), and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are among the groups around the world that recruit and use children. In the report, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) is not mentioned as a human rights violator.

In a separate corroborating report, the State Department of the United States of America also had a 2009 Human Rights Report and it has never mentioned MNLF as a violator.

On 28 October 2011, the Philippine Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo admitted that some members of the Abu Sayyaf are related to members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and even government officials."

I'm sure I could go into more detail about the 47 member States and their impressive human rights history, but that would turn this blog into a novel (as if it isn't approaching that already). There's no need. The two questions remain the same: 

1) Why are the aforementioned countries members of the UN Human Rights Council? 

2) Why is the UN only now looking into Syria for its human rights violations, especially when both sides (government and rebel forces) have been accused of gross, systematic, and wide-scale violations of human rights?

For as smart and clever as I am, I cannot explain or shed light into the thought processes of the UN. Perhaps they felt there were just too many offenders to have a truly humanitarian Human Rights Council. Or maybe, as I believe, they just don't give a crap and so remain intentionally blindly ignorant. As such, I'll stick to Question #2. 

Why Syria? Why now?

Russia

Russia has never stopped being a communist country (though now I suppose it might qualify as pseudo-communist), and with our crazy ex-KGB Vladimir Putin in charge, he wants to become a super power again. He has gotten our attention and wants to remind us that he's a Someone we should all be worried about. We need to remember that he is no one's friend, least of all the U.S. or Israel's.

Putin has been angling for the power card for a while now. From 2000-2010 Russia sold $1.5 billion (with a "B") worth of weaponry to its ally Syria, making Damascus its 7th largest client. During the Syrian civil war, Russia threatened to veto any sanctions against the Syrian government (yes, they do have veto power) and continued to supply them with arms.

Some may argue that Russia is concerned about an Syrian overthrow further destabilizing the region which may then affect them, but it's more realistic to remember that Syria is in the heart of the Middle East and Russia has had four decades supporting the Assad regime. Further, Putin's tactics seem to be succeeding. Obama has capitulated and is letting Putin run the show. Somehow, we are supposed to trust that Russia, who has a long-term relationship with Syria and supplied them with billions of dollars in weapons, will finally force their customer to dispose of the weapons they just purchased because of the September 14, 2013 Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons.

Chemical weapons

Other countries, as mentioned above, have horrendous human rights violations (note that I only mentioned member States, not countries who have had violations but aren't currently Human Rights Council members), but they haven't been threatened with invasion and attack by the US or UN. This is because the violations in those countries were done the 'old-fashioned' way, so to speak (say, with machetes and such). The murders and attacks were not considered as brutal or cruel as those conducted by chemical weapons, which can be considered a weapon of mass destruction (though in a separate class from biological weapons, nuclear weapons, or radiological weapons). 

We aren't talking about your run-of-the-mill mass murder... Chemical weapons are so brutal to the human body that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), held in 1993, made a legally binding worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, and international law has prohibited them since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23.

98% of the world has signed, if not ratified, the CWC. Conveniently, Syria was one of only seven states in the world who weren't a signatory (until they were forced to several days ago), though it was a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons (but is silent about production, storage, or transfer of them-- I guess they didn't have lawyers back then).

Racism

For as far as we have come in this world, I believe that the UN and others feel, though won't admit, that Blacks are less human/humane than others. That's why there was, and still is, a delay in doing anything of significance in the African countries where human rights violations and atrocities are being committed daily. Some may claim that we only go into Arab countries because it's an oil issue, but diamonds, timber, and chocolate, all vital goods that the US and the world need/want, are all produced in Africa.

No. As unpopular and controversial as this may be to put in writing, I sadly believe that the crux of the matter is that the UN, European, and Arab countries feel that Africans are more tribal than organized and that, therefore, African countries are merely glorified tribes. 
UN logic is that the Black Africans will continue to kill each other so there is no reason for the UN to go in and interfere unless it becomes so excessively brutal that they can literally no longer ignore it (e.g. against Liberia for the blood diamonds or Sudan, where it took the UN and International Criminal Court 16 years to step in, and immeasurable numbers of Darfuris are still suffering even today).

Though the Arabs are also of darker skin, they are viewed to be slightly more civilized than the Africans, and therefore, able to be manipulated (since that's what the UN tries to do anyway).

Israel

Israel isn't truly a reason but I wanted to address it since some might assume otherwise. Other than American news sources making the claim, there is no documentation proving that Israel actually asked for US assistance. In fact, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to Washington, emphasized that Israel was not pressuring or even recommending that the US engage militarily in Syria.

"Israel and the United States are sovereign countries, and whether it’s with Syria or Iran, each country has the right to determine how best to act and defend itself,” Oren said. “I think it’s important to point out that Israel has a different red line than the United States.

Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu has stated that Israel’s red line is any attempt by Syria to transfer chemical or other game-changing weapons to Hezbollah. That is our red line, and we stand by it.” 

-Sam Sokol, Michael Wilner; "Steinitz: Israel Didn't Ask For US Help in Syria." Jerusalem Post, 4/28/2013.

Additionally, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz asserted that Israel never asked the US to take military action in Syria, "never asked and never encouraged the US to take military action." Id.

In that same article, Steinitz was quoted as saying that he has had to deal with categorically untrue statements from American outlets such as the NY Times and NBC News that Israel was encouraging action.

Conclusion

It's really too bad that the Human Rights Council is a joke (not surprising, though, since it is a outshoot of the UN). 

It permits the very same human rights violators to be the watchdogs over other human rights violator countries, does a less-than-stellar job of watching over the countries who everyone knows is murdering and torturing its own citizens, and picks and chooses who it's going to "help" next.

It sets no bar for respectful countries to surpass (or even reach) and even allows so-called Western countries to make proposals that are laughable, at best.

Logic dictates that we wait it out and see how well the UN (or rather, Russia and the US) does with Syria. Then again, I haven't really been impressed with the UN's past track record, who they trust, or who they enlist as guardians of humanity.

Unfortunately, with this type of organization in charge, there's no reason to hope that the situation in Syria will turn out positively.