How UN handled affairs with racist Herzl Israel - and the racist Zionist Jewish tactics: Partition Resolution of 1947 - War of Independence - membership in the UN - Jerusalem question - Arab refugees - direct negotiations - armistice (first phase) - Sinai Campaign - armistice (second phase) - Six-Day War - resolution against anti-Semitism - Jews in Arab countries - Zionist Jewish UN bodies
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 15, col. 1544: The United Nations General Assembly special session of May 14, 1948, which relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and created the post of UN mediator on Palestine. Courtesy United Nations Department of Public Information. [[Remark: Most of the seats are empty...]]
from: Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: UN, vol. 15; Zionism, vol. 16
presented by Michael Palomino (2008)
[The United Nations since 1945]
<UNITED NATIONS (UN), a worldwide organization of states established in 1945, in the wake of World War II, with a view, primarily, to maintain international peace and security and also bring about cooperation among nations in the economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian spheres.
Most, though not all, countries are members of the UN which has become the most important international forum for states to exchange views, conduct diplomatic negotiations, and adopt resolutions calling for concerted action by the world community. As a medium of discussion and resolution, the UN has been instrumental in the process leading to the creation of the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] State of Israel, as well as in the course of Israel's ongoing struggle for survival. It has also been utilized as a forum for debates on a number of issues pertaining to the plight of distressed Jewish communities in the Diaspora, particularly Arab countries and the Soviet Union.
[[The UN are an organization of the victory states of 1945 and of the Jewish cliques in the "USA" and in racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel. The racist Zionist Jewish cliques of the "USA" are bribing systematically the UN in their sense for a big Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates according to 1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18. So, the UN are more or less a racist Zionist organization. And when there is a neutral resolution against Zionist imperialism of Israel the racist Herzl Israel government never follows and argues with bombs and rockets. Add to this the big powers "USA" and "Soviet Union" / Russia are bribing the governments of Asia and Africa in their sense]].
This article is arranged according to the following outline:
-- the Partition Resolution (1947)
--The Israel War of Independence
-- Israel Membership
-- Jerusalem
-- The Arab Refugees
-- Direct Negotiations
-- Armistice: The First Phase
-- The Sinai Campaign
-- Armistice: The Second Phase
-- The Six-Day War and After
-- Anti-Semitism
-- Jewish Communities in Arab countries and the U.S.S.R.
-- UN Bodies and Specialized Agencies
Organizations and commissions mentioned
-- Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC)
-- Regional Commission for Europe (ECE)
-- Regional Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE)
-- Regional Commission for Latin American (ECLA)
-- Regional Commission for Africa (ECA).
-- UN Refugee Fund Executive Committee (UNREF)
The Partition Resolution (1947)
[Palestine: The Mandate should become a trusteeship - the first partition plan of 29 November 1947]
At the inception of the UN, Palestine was still a *Mandate territory under the administration of the United Kingdom. In Chapter XII of the UN Charter, adopted on June 26, 1945, an international trusteeship system was established applying, inter alia, to territories subject to mandate. The founding conference of the UN, convened in San Francisco in April 1945, had before it a memorandum submitted by the *Jewish Agency for Palestine requesting that the special rights of the Jewish people under the Mandate be secured. It proposed that the Charter include a general stipulation safeguarding rights acquired under existing mandates. Despite Arab objections, a "conservatory clause" was indeed incorporated in Article 80 of the Charter, but it was circumscribed in terms of temporal applicability to the period pending the conclusion of trusteeship agreements. Article 79 made the transformation of a mandate into a trusteeship dependent on (col. 1543)
the agreement of the mandatory power. With regard to Palestine, the United Kingdom did not choose to follow the procedure envisaged in the Charter. Initially, it insisted on awaiting the report of the Joint Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry appointed to examine the question of Palestine and of European Jewry after the war. On April 2, 1947, when the United Kingdom finally transmitted the Palestine issue to the UN, it went beyond the purview of Chapter XII. Asserting that the Mandate had proved unworkable, the United Kingdom requested that the UN recommend a solution for the settlement of the problem.
A special session of the UN General Assembly, the first of its kind, was summoned in April 1947 and decided, in Resolution 106 (s-1) of May 15, to establish the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), consisting of representatives of 11 states. UNSCOP members visited Palestine, neighboring countries, and camps of *displaced persons in Europe. They heard oral testimonies, received written communications from individuals and organizations, and finally submitted a report to the General Assembly. The UNSCOP report (A/364) unanimously recommended that the Mandate over Palestine be terminated and that Palestine be granted independence as soon as possible, after a brief transition period. The majority of the UNSCOP members proposed the political partition (subject to an economic union) of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a separate City of Jerusalem. A minority of the members urged the formation of a Federal State of Palestine. (See *Palestine; Inquiry Commission).
the report was discussed by the General Assembly, at its second regular session, in the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, which, after a prolonged debate, endorsed, with modifications, the UNSCOP majority plan. Strong Arab opposition was countered by a unique alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union, supported by many smaller countries. On Nov. 29, 1947, a plenary meeting of the General Assembly adopted the Ad Hoc Committee's report (A/516) containing the scheme of the partition of Palestine, by a vote of 33 in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. This is the famous Partition Resolution N. 181 (II). (col. 1544)
[[The Zionist manipulations with the faked 6 million victim figure without mentioning the emigration movements and the high death rate in the Russian army to get the votes in the UN are not mentioned. The Arab voices and the bribes of CIA are not mentioned. But principally the "USA" and the "Soviet Union" wanted to have the racist "Jewish State" as their satellite]].
Details about the UN procedures
<THE UNITED NATIONS INVESTIGATES.
from: Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: Zionism, vol. 16, col. 1091-1096
[UN hearing of 1947]
[[The English authorities gave the case to the UN]].
[[Addition: The interests of the diverse groups in the Middle East conflict
The racist Jewish Zionists wanted to drive the Arabs away and to enslave them with a Jewish Empire from Nile to Euphrates, and the Arab leaders shouted to throw the Jews back into the Sea. And the super powers hoped to be all on the winner's side: at the one hand on the side of a new Jewish Empire - or on the other hand on the side of the Arab oil powers. The racist Zionist Jews and the super powers were gambling with Middle East. The racist Zionists wanted the Jewish Empire and the oil (the "black gold") of the Arabs, the "gold" which was promised in the racist Herzl booklet "The Jewish State". For the "USA" it was not important in which hands the oil was, and Stalin speculated for an Israel as a Communist satellite on the Mediterranean Sea. Within these conditions peaceful developments had no chance - until now (2008). And this "land" should be the new "Jewish Home" for a "Jewish nation" which was impossible because it was a religion in fact. So the "Jewish Home" in Palestine was and is a territorial and mental battlefield, nothing more...]]
Preliminary skirmishes on the subject took place at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 and at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946, when Arab representatives attempted in vain to obtain decisions prejudicial to the Jewish position. The first special session of the General Assembly met between April 28 and May 15, 1947, with the purpose of "constituting and instructing a Special Committee to prepare for the consideration of the Question of Palestine at the second Regular Session" (scheduled to open September 16). The five Arab delegations tried to alter the very purpose of the deliberations on the eve of the session by requesting to amend the subject of discussions by adding to the agenda an item entitled: "Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and declaration of its independence."
As before, the Assembly rejected their request; it also refused to exclude from its discussions the problems of displaced Jews in Europe.
For the first time, representatives of the Jews nad of Palestine Arabs were heard by the United Nations. When the question arose whether their spokesmen should be (col. 1091)
heard at a plenary meeting or at a meeting of the Assembly's political committee, Czechoslovakia and Poland, backed by the U.S.S.R., urged for a hearing in the plenary, while Britain and America viewed the committee as the appropriate place for statements by delegations that did not represent member states. The latter view prevailed. The Jewish Agency spokesmen were Ben-Gurion, Silver, and Shertok (Sharett).
The Arab Higher Committee was represented by E. Ghouri and H. Kattan.
The burden of the Jewish case was summarized by Ben-Gurion, who told the committee:
"... in Palestine you are faced not merely with a large and growing numbers of Jews, but with a distinct Jewish nation. There are Jews and Jewish communities in many countries, but in Palestine there is a new and unique phenomenon - a Jewish nation, with all the attributes and aspirations of nationhood."
The Arab case was presented not only by the spokesmen of the Higher Committee but also by the five Arab member-states and it was summarized by Ghouri:
"We only request the application to us of the principles of the democracies. We are only asking for our national rights. It is ... the determined and unequivocal will of the Arabs to refuse to consider any solution which entails or even implies the loss of the sovereignty to the whole or to any part of the country, or the diminution of such sovereignty in any form whatever."
Much of the discussion was procedural, and the great majority of the delegates avoided anything that could be seen as clear commitment to one side or the other. The representative of India (a Muslim) was one of those who did not conceal his leaning to the Arab side, nor did the representative of Turkey. The delegate of China spoke with feeling of "the tragedy of the Jewish people" which contributed so much to the world and which "deserves a national home of some sort, deserves a place it can call its own, in which it can live in happiness, free from social and political discrimination and free from the eternal fear of persecution."
Sympathy for Jewish aspirations were expressed by Czechoslovakia and Poland, but the chief surprise came when the Soviet delegate explained the stand of his government. The Soviet regime [[with it's criminal mass murder Gulag system]] had long been known for its extreme hostility to [[racist]] Zionism, but the opportunity to hasten the removal of Britain from an area of special interest to the U.S.S.R. [[with it's criminal mass murder Gulag system]] was far too important to let that stand in the way. While supporting the Jewish Agency's request for a hearing, Andrei Gromyko spoke of the sufferings of the Jewish people in Europe and said that it was "beyond description". "The fact that not a single western European state" came to the help of the Jews "explains the aspirations of the Jews for the creation of a state of their own ... It is impossible to justify a denial of this right of the Jewish people." The Mandate failed, and both Jews and Arabs call for its liquidation. The best solution would be "the establishment of an independent, dual, democratic, homogeneous Arab-Jewish state", but if that proved impossible "in view of the deterioration in the relations between the Jews and the Arabs", it would be necessary to consider "the partition of Palestine into two independent autonomous states, one Jewish and one Arab."
[Well, the Arabs should accept that the racist Zionist Jews got all the coast line and the trade on the coast line. This could never been accepted by the Arab leaders...]]
[Foundation of an UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)]
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 16, col. 1093: Speach of Shertok at the UNSCOP in Jerusalem 1947
The divergent views led to dissensions concerning the composition of the proposed U.N. mission and its terms of reference. Talk of "neutrality" and "impartiality" was found to be of little help. But it was agreed that the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was to have "the widest powers to ascertain and record facts, and to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine" and it was to conduct "investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful."
It was asked to (col. 1092)
"give most careful considerations to the religious interests in Palestine of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity" and present its report by Sept. 1, 1947. The only votes against the decision were those of the Muslim states. As to the composition of UNSCOP, it was agreed to make it fully representative of all regions of the world, and to exclude the permanent members of the Security Council and the Arab countries. Two Muslims (from Indian and Iran) were included as well as delegates from Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.
[Arab boycott movement - UN commission in Palestine in 1947 - the commission projects the partition - Arab warnings]
[[One can see that persons are speaking about Middle East now who are not at all from the Middle East, and Arabs feeled dominated again as in colonialism times. "Christian" colonialism would be exchanged by Jewish racist Zionist Herzl colonialism which was caused by the "Christians" and answered by another destructive racist colonialism against the Arabs. This was the initial point of the big Arab boycott movement]].
Arab dissatisfaction with these decisions found its immediate expression in a boycott by the Arab Higher Committee. The Arab League left the question of its cooperation open in the hope of persuading the mission not to visit refugee camps in Europe. The investigators did, indeed, postpone their decision on the subject until after the hearings in the Middle East. The latter started in the middle of June in an unusually tense atmosphere caused by numerous acts of violence, hangings, and retaliations. It also coincided with the dramatic developments concerning the fate of the refugee ship Exodus 1947 with over 4,500 men, women, and children who sailed in it to Palestine only to be returned to Germany after a bloody encounter with British forces in Haifa harbor.
Nevertheless UNSCOP (presided over by Swedish Chief Justice Emile Sandström) heard Jewish and British representatives, official and unofficial, and visited Arab areas of the country, as well as Jewish ones, spending over five weeks in Palestine. The Arabs who met the UN envoys privately repeated the demands already heard in New York. The Jewish Agency efforts were now clearly directed at achieving partition on fair terms. ON its way back, UNSCOP members visited Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan and heard representatives of the Arab states, who warned against any solution but the one proposed by them. Upon arriving in Geneva, UNSCOP decided to have a subcommittee visit Jewish refugee camps in Germany and Austria, and by the end of August it completed its work.
The UNSCOP report contained 12 general recommendations (11 of them adopted unanimously), a majority plan, and a minority plan. The majority plan, presented by Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay, called for the partition of Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state, and an internationalized Jerusalem, the three to be linked in an economic union. The Jewish state was to include eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain from a point south of Acre to north of Ashdod, and the Negev. The Arab state was to include western Galilee, central Palestine, and the Coastal (col. 1093)
Plain from Ashdod to the Egyptian border. The Jerusalem-Bethlehem area was to be administered by the United Nations under a permanent trusteeship. The Mandate was to come to an end, and from Sept. 1, 1947, Palestine was to be administered by Britain for another two years, alone or with the participation of one or more UN members, under UN auspices.
The political regimes in the new states were to be "basically democratic". The holy places and access to them were to be safeguarded according to existing rights. Furthermore, the UN was to make speedy arrangements to solve the problem of a quarter of a million Jewish refugees in Europe. With two dissenting votes, UNSCOP also expressed its view that "any solution for Palestine cannot be considered as a solution of the Jewish problem as a whole". The argument of the minority report, concurred in by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia, with Australia abstaining in the vote on both plans, was based on the assumption that "the well-being of the country and its peoples as a whole" outweighed "the aspirations of the Jews". It suggested a federal regime comprising an Arab state and a Jewish state with Jerusalem as capital of a central government in charge of defense, foreign relations, and immigration.
There was to be a bicameral legislature based on parity in one house and on proportional representation in the other, and all legislation would require majority support of both. Jewish immigration into the Jewish state was to be allowed for three years within its absorptive capacity. Arbitration was to help in overcoming any deadlock between the states. These proposals were made by less than one-third of UNSCOP and the division of views between the majority and the minority reflected the division within the UN itself, as was to be confirmed three months later.
THE UN DECISION [for partition of Palestine on 16 September 1947: British against partition - anxiety of "US", British and French armies - Weizmann's manipulation in the UN for the partition plan - Weizmann's fighting for a connection to the Red Sea for the future "Jewish State"]
The UNSCOP report occupied the center of the stage when the regular General Assembly met in New York on Sept. 16, 1947, although there were other important items on the agenda as well. The preliminary discussion on the report took place at an Ad Hoc Committee representing all member states, whose number had increased in the meantime: Yemen and Pakistan had been admitted to the United Nations, thus strengthening the Arab and Muslim front. Apart from that, no new alignments of forces were to be seen during the opening stages of the debate that lasted for over three weeks and was characterized by confusion.
The main shift that soon became noticeable was in the tactics of the British delegation, which openly and actively canvassed for the rejection of partition. Arab delegations also increased their pressure. They were outspoken in their threats to Western and particularly American, interests in their lands, and there were powerful economic and military factors in the United States, Britain, and France which could be - and were -activated in order to defeat the UNSCOP proposals. Indeed, initial American remarks on the subject were reserved and hesitant. On the other hand, threats voiced by the Arab Higher Committee of the effect that what will happen to the Jews in Palestine if the UNSCOP proposals were adopted would "exceed the horrors of Genghis Khan" had the opposite effect. It became clear to a growing number of UN members, and to great sectors of the general public opinion, that decisions must be taken which would prevent these threats being carried out.
The Jewish Agency announce acceptance of the majority plan early in the debate. [[Racist Zionist leader]] Weizmann's speech before the committee left a profound impression. His role in realizing the ultimate decision of the United Nations in favor of partition and the creation of a Jewish state was of prime importance. Though out of office, for the [[racist]] Zionist Congress in 1946 did not reelect him as president, thus symbolizing its commitment to a more activist policy, Weizmann continued to work both in (col. 1094)
London and in New York for the creation of a Jewish state. He was particularly successful in moving and impressing President Harry Truman, from whom he secured the binding promise to support the partition proposal, including an outlet on the Red Sea for the proposed Jewish state.
[[By this "outlet on the Red Sea" for the racist Zionist Herzl "Jewish state" the Arab Muslim power between Asia and northern Africa should be split definitely. The Muslim main crossing of Palestine should definitely be destroyed and racist Zionist Jewish colonialism over the Arabs should begin...]]
[Criminal racist "USA" and criminal Gulag "SU" want the Jewish State as their satellite - Arabs without chance - British block - and ending of the British Mandate on 15 May 1948]
As the discussions progressed, attitudes began to crystallize. The [[criminal racist]] United States and the Soviet Union [[with it's criminal mass murder Gulag system]] came out openly for partition. After that, the prospects of the majority plan gaining the necessary two-thirds of the votes grew. More attempts were made to find a compromise, in subcommittees and in the corridors, but the persistent Arab demands for the establishment of what could only be an Arab state with a Jewish minority at the mercy of its adversaries led to the failure of all such efforts. An ominous warning also came from Britain: while accepting UNSCOP's unanimous opinion that the Mandate be terminated, it would take no implementation of a decision that was not acceptable to the parties. This meant noncooperation. The question of implementation became of utmost importance, especially after the British refused to extend their stay in Palestine even for a few weeks beyond May 15, 1948, or to help in the transfer of power to the authorities that were to be established in the Jewish and Arab states.
[UN: Rejected Arab proposal for a unitary state on 24 November 1947 - partition resolution on 25 November 1947 - definitive partition decision on 29 November 1947 - war preparations]
The readiness of the Mandatory power to act in a way that was tantamount to sabotaging an international design for relieving it of a responsibility that had become too great to bear also had an opposite effect. It stiffened resistance to those who refused to accept the majority view. A vote in the Ad Hoc committee on November 24 rejected an Arab proposal for a unitary state by 29 to 12. On November 25 a vote was taken on the partition plan, somewhat amended by a subcommittee, and it was approved by 25 to 13. This was not yet the two-thirds majority needed in the plenary. Both sides were by now making exerted efforts to gain their objectives. After one or two postponements, which further increased the tension, the decisive vote came on November 29, and it was 33 for, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.
The wave of emotion which followed gave abundant evidence that not only the Jewish people saw the UN verdict as truly historic, but many other nations found in it an expression of the wish to right some of the wrongs of which Jews were victims, particularly the Nazi Holocaust. There were also grave warning signs. Arabs of Palestine reacted by widespread attacks on Jews; large numbers of armed men were coming in from across the borders to participate in those attacks; and Arab governments made no secret of their preparations for large-scale military action on the day of Britain's withdrawal. The UN appointed a small Palestine Commission to help in an organized transfer of power to provisional councils of government in the two proposed states, but the British refused to cooperate with it or even allow it to enter Palestine before the month of May [[1948]].
The commission also reported that while Arab and Jewish police supernumeraries were being organized in towns and villages, only the Arabs were getting arms from the British. Furthermore, while the British continued to supply arms to Arab governments, the [[criminal racist]] United Sates imposed an embargo on all such supplies to the area, thus forcing the Jews to seek other sources, mainly in eastern Europe
[[and these weapon deliveries were steered by Stalin in the hope the "Jewish State" would become a Communist satellite at the end. At the same time "US" banks were financing the recovery of the criminal Communist system...]]
[Civil war and chaos in Palestine - call for UN troops - "US" trusteeship idea on 19 March 1945 - "US" postponement suggestion rejected by the Jewish Agency]
A sense of frustration and helplessness was gradually enveloping the UN which saw the danger that its first major decision might end in failure. While the UN machinery was going through the motions (the Trusteeship Council, for instance, prepared a draft statute for an international administration of Jerusalem), reports from Palestine spoke of mounting disorder, of fighting and casualties, and of British preparations to leave in an atmosphere of what was then called "planned chaos". The implementation commission (col. 1095)
made partial progress in one sector only: in cooperation with the Jewish Agency for the establishment of the necessary authorities in the future Jewish State. The situation was repeatedly discussed in the Security Council, which had been told by the commission (February 1948) that it would not be able to fulfill its task without armed assistance. A debate started within the Council concerning its own authority: while it was agreed that it may use force for the preservation of peace, there was less agreement about the same right in respect to the enforcement of UN decisions. U.S. views were negative, and they were strongly criticized by the [[criminal Gulag]] Soviet Union. On March 19 [[1945]] the United States proposed that the work of the Palestine Commission be suspended and a temporary UN trusteeship over the country be established. The proposal had been made by the State Department in Washington without the knowledge of President Truman, as he later explained. The State Department had also been strongly urging [[racist]] Zionist leaders to postpone action on the establishment of the Jewish state for at least a few months, a suggestion that was turned down by the majority of the Jewish Agency members. Furthermore, the U.S. proposed to call another special session of the Assembly to discuss the trusteeship idea.
[[The racist Zionist madness that the Jewish religion would be a "nationality" came into real now - with all the war consequences, and nobody - as it seems - had the courage to say that racist Zionism was the fault in this affair...]]
[Trusteeship session in the UN on 16 April 1948 - civil war is already going on in Jerusalem - temporary international regime proposal failed on 14 May 1948]
The new session met on April 16, 1948, and was immediately bogged down in a procedural debate. The [[criminal racist]] United States presented a working paper outlining details of a temporary trusteeship, providing for a government and essential public services in Palestine pending further negotiations. At the same time, the Trusteeship Council was asked by the General Assembly to study measures for the protection of Jerusalem, where fighting was then going on almost without interruption.
On April 28 the Council came to an understanding with the parties concerned about a truce in the city, but reports from Jerusalem spoke of continued firing. On May 5 the Council recommended that before the Mandate expired on May 15, a special municipal commissioner for Jerusalem should be appointed by the Mandatory with Jewish and Arab consent. The candidate for the post never went to Jerusalem, as the Arabs refused to cooperate with him and there was no truce.
On May 14, the last day of the Mandate, a Franco-American proposal to establish a temporary international regime in Jerusalem failed to get the necessary support. It had also become clear that the idea of a trusteeship over the whole of Palestine stood no chance. The only outcome of the discussions on that day had been the disbanding of the Palestine Commission and the decision to appoint a mediator, for which task Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden was later chosen. With the hands of the clock moving toward 6 P.M. in New York (midnight in Palestine and the end of the Mandate), the struggle was still on. But even before the hour came, the United Nations was informed that the establishment of the [[racist Zionist Herzl]] State of Israel had already been proclaimed in Tel Aviv [[by dictator Ben-Gurion, without definition of borderlines, which meant a Jewish colonialism for the Arabs]]. A few minutes after 6 P.M. it was announced by the White House that President Truman recognized its provisional government as the de facto government of the new state. [[The racist president of the "USA" recognized a "Jewish State" without any definition of borderlines...]]
Soviet de jure recognition followed a few days later [[and by this Stalin recognized a "Jewish State" without any definition of borderlines...]].
On May 15, regular forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, including Saudi Arabian contingents, and the Arab Legion of Transjordan with its British officers, invaded [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl] Israel, and its newborn defense forces took the field against them.
[[The Arabs could not accept that a racist Zionist Jewish State without definition of borderlines could enslave the Arabs, and when there were no official borderlines there could also be no invasion. But now the eternal war trap began to function in the Middle East, the product of the mad fantasy of a "Jewish State" for a religion which never was logic and provoked new anti-Semitism by all Arab states...]]
[MO.M.]> (col. 1096)
The Israel War of Independence
[Second partition plan - "Palestine Commission"]
The State of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, however, was not "created" by the UN partition resolution. The resolution was only an important link in a chain of (col. 1544)
events that brought the state into being. Under international law, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel emerged as an independent state from the throes of its War of Independence, when it proved its viability as a legal unit by meeting the four cumulative conditions: nation, territory, government, and independence.
[[Racist Herzl Israel was founded without the definition of any borderline and did not at all fulfill the conditions of a "state" - and did not at all recognize the neighboring states by this. Of course the racist Herzl booklet "The Jewish State" which is the states philosophy of the Jewish government and which states to drive all Arabs away and to enslave all Arabs is not mentioned]].
The partition resolution was hardly a matter of record when the Arab leadership in Palestine resolved to oppose it by force. Confronted with a challenge to its moral authority, the UN convened a second special session of the General Assembly early in 1948. Some delegates felt that the partition plan could no longer be implemented and that a new approach to the Palestine problem should be sought. The United States put forward a proposal (A/C. I/277) for the establishment of a "temporary" trusteeship for Palestine, thereby discarding, in effect, the partition scheme. Initially, the new idea gained ground - against Jewish protests - and a special subcommittee (No. 9) was designated to formulate the necessary details. Still, when the establishment of the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] State of Israel was proclaimed in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 [[without the definitions of borderlines]], the United States granted it immediate de facto recognition, and the trusteeship project was abandoned.
[[By this, the white racist cliques of the "USA" had their satellite in the Middle East, and the Zionist Jewish cliques in the "USA" had their Israel. The "Soviet Union" lost the "game" and clung together with the Arab states against Zionist imperialism, and by this the war trap of the "Middle East conflict" was born]].
The partition resolution constituted a Palestine Commission to supervise its implementation under the guidance of the Security Council. The commission indeed submitted several reports to the Security Council, but on May 14, 1948, it was relieved of its responsibilities by the General Assembly in Resolution 186 (S-2). Instead, the General Assembly created the post of a UN mediator on Palestine, to which Count Folke *Bernadotte of Sweden was appointed on May 20.
The Partition Resolution requested the Security Council to take required action for its implementation, including enforcement measures within the scope of Chapter VII of the Charter. It was the consideration of the Palestine Commission's reports, however, that generated the constantly increasing involvement of the Security Council with the Palestine question. At the outset, the council proceeded cautiously and on March 5, 1948, merely made a general appeal to all concerned to prevent or reduce disorders in Palestine (S./691). By April 17, however, it had already adopted a detailed truce resolution (S/723), and on April 23 it established a Truce Commission for Palestine (S./727).
[War of "Independence" since 15 May 1948 - cease-fires]
[[The Arab side and Great Britain could not at all accept the foundation of ah racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel, but the racist Zionists did not stop]].
Following the armed attack by a number of Arab states against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel on May 15, the Security Council resumed debate. A call for a cease-fire, within 36 hours, was issued only on May 22 (S/773). After the 36 hours had passed and the Arab governments still refused to stop fighting, the council continued the discussion for several more days. It was not until May 29 that it finally adopted a strong resolution (S/801) calling for a four-week cease-fire by June 1, instructing the mediator on Palestine and the Truce Commission to supervise its observance, and, for the first time, referring to Chapter VII of the Charter, implicitly threatening sanctions.
[[The "USA" manipulated in the UN for "Israel" what they could, and England and Stalin with his "Soviet Union" clung together with the Arab States]].
The June 1 deadline was also ignored by the Arab states, which insisted that Jewish immigration to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel halt during the course of the cease-fire. After lengthy negotiations through the mediator, however, cessation of hostilities commonly known as the "first truce", was accepted as of June 11. When the four-week duration of the truce drew to a close, on July 7, the Security Council addressed an appeal to the parties to accept its prolongation (S/867). As in previous cases, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel agreed but the Arabs did not [[because the Jews in Jerusalem did not come down from their racist Zionist Herzl philosophy threatening all Arabs]], and hostilities were renewed.
On July 15 the council passed its most vigorous resolution on the war (S/902), wherein it took into account Arab rejection of appeals for the continuation of the truce; determined that the situation constituted a threat to the peace within the meaning of (col. 1545)
Chapter VII; declared that failure to comply with the resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace entailing action under that chapter and ordered a cease-fire "until a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine is reached". The renewed cease-fire, commonly known as the "second truce", took effect on July 18.
[Responsibility - Bernadotte plan - murder of Bernadotte on 17 September 1948 - armistice agreements of 1949 - mixed armistice commissions MACs]
The second truce was frequently violated, and the poignant phrasing of the resolution of July 16 had only an initial impact on the antagonists. On August 19, the Security Council passed another resolution (S/983), which is of particular interest as a precursor of things to come. It was stated that each party "is responsible for the actions of both regular and irregular forces operating under its authority of in territory under its control" and that violations of the truce on the ground of "reprisals or retaliation" were impermissible. The observance of the cease-fire was supervised by the mediator, who simultaneously attempted to propose a solution of his own to the Palestine question.
On September 16 Bernadotte presented a progress report (A/648), in which he recommended a number of crucial changes in the partition plan, e.g., that the Israel Negev "should be defined as Arab territory". The following day Bernadotte was assassinated by unknown terrorists in the Israel sector of Jerusalem. (Israel paid reparations to the UN, according to a ruling of the International Court of Justice in 1949 that the UN had the "capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims"). Ralph Bunche, a member of the UN Secretariat, was appointed acting mediator.
In October, when heavy fighting again broke out between Israel and Egypt, the Security Council adopted a resolution (S/1044; October 19) calling for restoration of the cease-fire and suggesting withdrawal of forces, as well as negotiations between the parties either directly or through the UN. The unheeded call was reiterated by the council on November 4 (S/1070), November 16 (S/1080), and December 29 (S/1169). Negotiations between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Egypt, under the chairmanship of the acting mediator, opened at Rhodes in January 1949. An *Armistice Agreement was signed on February 24, followed by a series of similar agreements between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Lebanon (signed March 22). Jordan (signed April 3), and Syria (signed July 20). All the Armistice Agreements were concluded without prejudice to territorial rights, and it was specifically stated that the armistice demarcation lines were not to be construed as political boundaries. The agreements established certain demilitarized zones and set up Mixed Armistice Commissions (MACs) to supervise the implementation of the truce. The chairman of each MAC was the chief of staff of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO).
In its role in the course of the Israel War of Independence the UN, for the first time, faced a clear-cut case of the concerted armed attack, in flagrant contravention of the Charter, but ultimately failed to discharge its peace-keeping responsibility. The collective security system structured in San Francisco remained practically a dead letter, and it was left to the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] State of Israel to defend itself as best it could.
[[The Zionist Jewish dictatorship of Ben Gurion did NOT correct the war declaration in 1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18, and did NOT sign any human right declaration but the racist Herzl booklet "The Jewish State" continued to be the state's philosophy of Israel with the aim to enslave all Arabs - and this destructive Jewish state could not be accepted]].
In the Security Council, protracted discussions replaced action, and as the number of resolutions increased, the specific weight of each decreased. When agreement was finally reached between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and the Arab states, it was almost entirely due to Arab defeat on the battlefield and to negotiations between the parties.
Israel Membership
[The blocks in the UN]
[[Now the racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl State of Israel is admitted as member of the United Nations because the "USA" does not want to loose the new satellite state, and because the "Soviet Union" is still hoping to get Israel as a satellite state. And the racist Zionist Jewish government wants the money from both sides to install a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates (1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18). See what are the actions in the UN here]].
Israel applied for admission to membership in the UN in November 1948 (S/1093). Under Article 4 of the Charter, such admission is effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, but the latter did not initially (col. 1546)
endorse Israel's application. In February 1949, however, when [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel requested renewed consideration of the matter (S/1267), recommendation was granted by the council (A/818). The General Assembly considered the issue at great length and finally accepted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to the fold, in Resolution 273 (III), on May 11, 1949.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel soon perceived that as a result of the bloc system permeating every facet of life in the UN, it could scarcely take a major part in the institution's affairs. Being beyond the pale of all blocs, in its two decades of membership [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel failed to get elected even once to any of the UN councils: the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, or the Economic and Social Council.
[[The reason is clear: Racist Zionist with the aim of a Jewish Empire and to enslave all Arabs could never be accepted in the UN councils]].
The most important elective office that [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel ever held in the UN framework was the vice-presidency of the General Assembly during the eighth session in 1953 (the position was held by Abba *Eban). Resolutions sponsored by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel were practically doomed to failure, and even cosponsorship was not sought by other states, since Arab opposition would ensure almost automatically. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel did extend aid to developing countries through the UN and did receive technical assistance from the organization, although regional cooperation with the Arabs proved impossible.
[[Regional cooperation could not be granted to racist Zionist Jewish government with the aim of a Jewish Empire...]]
In the beginning, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel enjoyed at least a relative degree of support on the part of both the United States and the U.S.S.R. [[because both wanted Israel to be their satellite]]. In a short while, however [[when it was clear that the racist Zionist Jewish government would cooperate with CIA]], the U.S.S.R., trying to gain a foothold in the Middle East, began to support the Arab cause, putting its veto power in the Security Council and its significant bargaining position in every UN organ at the Arabs' disposal [[to protect the Arabs from a Zionist Jewish invasion and enslavement as it was describes in Herzl booklet "The Jewish State"]].
According to Soviet policy, as of the mid-1950s, the Arabs could do no wrong against [[when it was clear that the racist Zionist Jewish government would cooperate with CIA]] Israel and [[when it was clear that the racist Zionist Jewish government would cooperate with CIA]] Israel could almost never do right. Not one single pro-Israel resolution was passed by the Security Council subsequent to 1951 [[because racist Zionists could not be accepted on the international scenery]]. Although [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel made impressive efforts to win friends and influence new states and was consequently able to thwart many pro-Arab resolutions aimed at undermining its political independence and stifling its economic development, the atmosphere in the UN became increasingly hostile to her, and, particularly after the *Six-Day War (1967), [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel found itself frequently isolated and even ostracized [[because the racist Zionist Jewish regime claimed that the new occupations were another step for a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates]].
Israel's political insulation in the UN had its psychological impact on many of the organization's officials (especially within UNTSO), some of whom flaunted their partiality to the Arab cause in a variety of ways. As a result, Jewish public opinion, which in 1947 deeply believed the UN to be an objective moral arbiter in international affairs, became disenchanted in the 1950s and defiant by the late 1960s.
[[In all that time the racist Zionist Jewish government of Israel did NOT give up it's racist philosophy of Herzl and the borderlines from the Nile to the Euphrates. How stupid the racist Jewish Zionists are, and they have not given up their Empire fantasies until today. It seems to be strange that Encyclopaedia Judaica does not tell any word about the racist Jewish government philosophy...]]
Jerusalem
[UN wants the internatinalization of the city - racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel and Jordan don't accept]
The partition resolution prescribed a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, to be administered by the UN through the Trusteeship Council. Thus in December 1947, the Trusteeship Council appointed a working committee on Jerusalem to elaborate a statute for the city. The committee formulated a draft, which the council discussed and modified, but had not completed by the end of April 1948. During the War of Independence, many UN debates revolved around the fate of Jerusalem and the need to protect the holy places. At the second special session of the General Assembly (April and May 1948), a special subcommittee (No. 10) was established to consider the question of Jerusalem. A resolution dealing with the temporary administration of the city was adopted by the subcommittee, but failed to be carried by the General Assembly. Specific clauses relating to the protection of Jerusalem were incorporated in the Security Council's cease-fire resolutions of May 29 (S/801) and July 15 (S/902) 1948. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of Dec. 11, 1948, declared that "in view of its association with three world religions", (col. 1547)
Jerusalem should be placed under an international regime. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Jordan, however, were equally opposed to the corpus separatum concept. Since the city was in effect divided between them by the War of Independence, the Armistice Agreement stabilized the situation along the lines of the status quo.
In 1949 the fourth session of the General Assembly adopted Resolution 303 (IV), which restated the case for an international regime in Jerusalem, and in 1950 the Trusteeship Council resumed its work on the statute for the city and approved a new text (A/1286). Nonetheless, Jordan and Israel's united opposition to the internationalization scheme was so strenuous, and the actual state of affairs so removed from the atmosphere prevailing in the UN, that the efforts toward internationalization began to flag.
A proposal to initiate further study on the subject by the Trusteeship Council was introduced at the fifth session of the General Assembly, and approved by the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/1724), but did not obtain the required two-thirds majority in plenary. A Philippine amendment endorsing "the principle of the internationalization of Jerusalem" (A/L 134) was submitted in plenary at the seventh session of the General Assembly in 1952, but once more fell short of the necessary majority. During the next 15 years, the issue of Jerusalem remained dormant in the General Assembly.
[Debates in the UN about violations of armistice: Jordan]
[[It's clear that the racist Zionist Jewish philosophy for a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates with all Arabs as slaves provoked Arab aggressions. Jewish aggressions against Arabs - violations of women, concentration camps, Arabs driven away - are not mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Judaica article]].
In the Security Council questions pertaining to violations of the Armistice Agreement in Jerusalem engendered several debates over the years. As early as 1950 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel complained about Jordan's noncompliance with Article VIII of the agreement, which had accorded to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel rights of access to holy places, normal functioning of the institutions on Mount Scopus (the Hebrew University and the Hadassah Hospital), and free movement of traffic on vital roads. The Security Council, however, adopted only a noncommittal resolution (S/1899), and the article was never implemented by Jordan. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel renewed the complaint in 1957 (S/3883), but to no avail. The UN did help in supervising the observance of a special agreement for the demilitarization of Mount Scopus, concluded between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Jordan on July 7, 1948. The agreement provided for supplies to be brought to Mount Scopus by special convoys, and occasionally Jordan suspended the line of communication. Late in 1957 Secretary-General Dag Hammerskjöld paid a special visit to the Middle East and in 1958 appointed a number of personal representatives to conduct negotiations between the parties with a view to the full implementation of the 1948 agreement.
[Debates in the UN about violations of armistice: Jordan and Jerusalem questions]
In 1957 Jordan brought the issue of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel activities in the zone between the demarcation lines in Jerusalem before the Security Council, which called for their suspension (S/3942). In 1961 Jordan complained that [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel planned to hold a military parade in Jerusalem on Independence Day despite the prohibition against heavy armaments in the city under the Armistice Agreement. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel pointed out that the equipment was brought into Jerusalem for ceremonial purposes only and that military parades had been conducted in the city earlier by both sides. The Security Council refused to accept Israel's explanation and urged it to comply with a MAC decision upholding Jordan's position (S/4788).
The question of an Independence Day military parade was again raised in the Security Council in April 1968 (after the reunification of the city [[under Zionist Jewish dictatorship with the occupation of all land to the Jordan]]). In Resolution 250 (1968) the council called upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to refrain from proceeding with the parade. When [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel ignored the call, and held the event, the Security Council adopted another resolution (No. 251; 1968) deeply deploring that action.
[[This military parade was one more step for a racist Zionist Jewish Empire, and 1000s of Palestinians had fled to Jordan and are not allowed to come back until today (2008)...]]
[Debates in the UN about Jerusalem after Six-Day War after 1967]
[[The aim of the racist Zionist Jews was now to destroy all Arab institutions in Jerusalem, above all the Al Aqsa mosque - for reconstruction of a Jewish temple...]]
The reunification of Jerusalem after the Six-Day War revived UN interest in establishing an international regime (col. 1548)
in the city. The idea was espoused in a Latin American draft resolution submitted in June 1967 to the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly (A/L. 523), but it was not adopted, having failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority. On July 4, the General Assembly nevertheless, approved a Muslim-sponsored resolution, No. 2253 (ES-V), calling upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to rescind and desist from any measures to alter the status of Jerusalem and considering such steps invalid. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel did not participate in the vote and ignored the call.
On July 14, the General Assembly voted in favor of a second resolution, No. 2254 (ES-V), deploring Israel's noncompliance and reiterating the demand. In May 1968 the Security Council adopted a resolution of its own (No. 252; 1968) in the same vein and in July 1969 it approved resolution 267 (1969), which censured "in the strongest terms" the measures taken by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. In September of that year, after the arson committed at the Al Aqsa (Aqṣa) Mosque, the Security Council adopted resolution 271 (1969), condemning [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel for its failure to carry out any of the previous pronouncements. In the midst of the spate of resolutions, the secretary-general sent Ernesto A. Thalman of Switzerland to Jerusalem in August 1967 as his personal representative. Thalman's report (S/8146) tried to reflect impartially the conflicting viewpoints about a complicated matter, but it was swept aside by the descent of one-sided attacks against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. Israel's stand was that Christianity and Islam, like Judaism, have legitimate claims to their holy places in Jerusalem, and the concern of the UN, representing the world community, with the fate of the city is understandable. Yet the UN kept silent for 15 years, when Jordan totally disregarded the rights guaranteed [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel by the Armistice Agreements, and the general desecration of Jewish holy places by Jordan's army and population occurred.
[[Well, the Arabs saw the racist Jewish violence when 1000s of Palestinians fled to Jordan, and the Palestinians were without any passport and were treated as animals on the Israeli border. The Jordan action was nothing to this...]]
It can, therefore, hardly expect [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel automatically to submit to its sudden concern for law and order in Jerusalem when the city became reunited under [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that since the reunification, Muslim and Christian religious rights have been scrupulously observed, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel had often voiced its readiness to guarantee these rights by special legal arrangements.
[[But the racist Jewish regime in Jerusalem has never given up it's Herzl philosophy to enslave the Arabs - and has never given up the plan for a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates. These are the general plans of the Zionists...]]
The Arab Refugees
[[You can see here how racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel is politically playing with refugees and arranging the affair in a way so there is no solution - and all property from Arab refugees gets into Jewish hands]].
[Arab hatred against Israel is a problem - Jewish hatred against Arabs is not mentioned]
The problem of the Arab refugees (see State of *Israel, Arab Refugees) was spawned by the War of Independence and augmented by a myopic and self-deluding approach to the subject by Arab governments. The General Assembly, in the pace-setting paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III), dated December 11, 1948, proclaimed that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."
The Palestine Conciliation Commission (P.C.C.), established by the same resolution, was instructed to facilitate repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation, and compensation.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, having admitted back tens of thousands of Arab refugees on the basis of a reunion of families project and having agreed in principle to the admission of others (sometimes the figure of 100,000 was used), always emphasized that, on the whole, the solution to the problem lay in resettlement rather than repatriation. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel pointed out that the Arab refugees, far from willing "to live at peace with their [Jewish] neighbors", have been subjected to a continuous propaganda campaign, beginning in primary schools, based on hatred for [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, and have always been regarded by the Arab states as a means to bring about the disintegration of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel from withing. In addition, it raised the issue of Jewish refugees, from Palestine as well as from Arab countries, which also emanated from the War of Independence.
[[The systematic hatred in Jewish schools generally thought against the Arabs is not mentioned in this article]].
[Property and money questions of the refugees of 1948 are never solved]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel (col. 1549)
always expressed its readiness to contribute to the payment of compensation for Arab property abandoned in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, though it has also drawn attention to the seizure of Jewish property in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and indicated that a balancing off is in order. As a gesture of good will, it agreed to release frozen accounts of Arab refugees. At times [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel insisted on dealing with the problem of the Arab refugees only as part and parcel of a comprehensive settlement with the Arab states, but on other occasions it agreed that solution was not contingent on an overall reconciliation. The Arab states, on the other hand, consistently repeated that repatriation of the refugees, as distinct from resettlement, is their only goal, and as of 1948, they turned this essentially humanitarian issue into their main political weapon against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. Since then not a single year passed without an acrimonious debate on the subject in the UN.
[[Stupid racist Zionist Israel is not giving the Arab possession of the refugees, and is not correcting the stupid racist Bible with the borderlines of a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, and is not giving up it's stupid racist Herzl philosophy, and hatred against Arabs was not stopped in the Jewish school system. How should one trust to such a Jewish state of madness?]]
In the beginning, hectic negotiations relating to the Arab refugees were held between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and the Arab states under the auspices of the P.C.C. In 1949 the latter set in motion an Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, headed by Gordon R. Clapp of the United States, which suggested that the immediate constructive step was to give the refugees an opportunity to work in their new locations (A/AC. 25/6). The Arabs rejected the idea, and for a long time the P.C.C. was inactive. then, at its 15th session in 1961, the General Assembly requested the P.C.C. (in resolution 1604 (XV)) to renew efforts to secure the implementation of paragraph II of resolution 194 (III). Accordingly, the P.C.C. appointed Joseph E. Johnson of the U.S. its special representative and sent him to the Middle East. The mission, however, did not bear fruit, and Johnson resigned in 1963.
For many years the P.C.C., through its Technical Office, conducted a program of identification and assessment of individual parcels of immovable refugee property left in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. It was hoped that, once concluded, the project could serve as a basis for the initiation of a compensation scheme; however, in as much as the Arabs were interested in repatriation only, the endeavor faded out.
["Palestine refugees" since 1949: Palestine Jewish refugees - Palestine Arab refugees]
In resolution 212 (III) of 1948 the third session of the General Assembly decided to appoint a director of UN relief for Palestine refugees. In 1949 the assembly's fourth session established the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Resolution 302 (IV). The term "Palestine refugees", used in the definition of UNRWA's mandate, covered not only Arabs but also Jews displaced as a result of the War of Independence, and originally UNRWA dealt also with thousands of cases of Palestine Jewish refugees. These, however, were quickly absorbed in the economic life of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and needed no further assistance from the UN. The problem of the Palestine Arab refugees, on the other hand, kept inflating, with children and grandchildren of 1948 refugees, born and reared outside [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, automatically joining the lists.
[Arab refugees since Six-Day War of 1967 - for many Arabs it's the second flight already]
The Arab refugee problem did not expand as a result of the Sinai Campaign of 1956, but the Six-Day War of 1967 caused many Arabs - some of them already refugees, others displaced for the first time - to leave the territories coming under [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel control. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel permitted many thousands of them to return, and some of them, but not all, availed themselves of the opportunity. At its 23rd session (in 1968), the General Assembly adopted resolution 2452 A (XXIII), which called upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to take effective steps for the immediate return of those inhabitants who had fled the occupied areas since the outbreak of hostilities. This call was renewed at the 25th session in 1970 in resolution 2672 (XXV).
Perhaps the greatest impact of the Six-Day War on the (col. 1550)
Arab refugee problem is reflected in the fact that most of the refugees (in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) found themselves under [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel administration for an indefinite period of time. Instead of returning to their old homes in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, Israel control reached their new ones. At long last [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was given a chance to prove in practice that resettlement, rehabilitation, and compensation were a valid alternative to repatriation. Due to the more urgent requisites of the "war after the war", however, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel has not of yet found its way to exploit the unique opportunity.
[[The refugees were partly driven away a second time. This was the signal what would happen when the racist Zionist Jewish regime would set up a Jewish Empire: the Arabs had to flee step by step, and every time with every war more Arabs would be affected]].
[UN rejecting protection of the Arab refugees]
In the 1960s the Arabs endeavored to have the General Assembly pass a resolution safeguarding the property rights of the Arab refugees, as well as appointing a custodian to administer and protect them. Draft resolutions along these lines were submitted to the Special Political Committee but were not pressed to a vote
(-- A/SPC/L.90 at the 17th session in 1962;
-- A/SPC/L.99 at the 18th session in 1963)
or were rejected by the committee
(-- A/SPC/L.116 at the 20th session in 1965;
-- A/SPC/L.128 at the 21st session in 1966;
-- A/SPC/L.168 at the 23rd session in 1968).
On other occasions the drafts were approved by the committee but not put to a vote in plenary (A/SPC/L.157 at the 22nd session in 1967) or failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority in the final vote (A/SPC/L.61 at the 15th session in 1961; A/SPC/L.81 at the 16th session in the same year).
All these drafts, designed implicitly to undermine the sovereignty of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, proved abortive.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel principally was not a sovereign state because it never gave any definition of any borderline, but the racist Jewish Zionist regime wanted a Jewish Empire, and in this Empire there were no Arabs needed. By this any question of Arab refugees was not important...]]
[UN recognition for the "people of Palestine" in 1969 - Encyclopaedia Judaica confirms that Palestine is "no longer existent"]
At the 24th session of the General Assembly in 1969, however, an explicit resolution (No. 2535 (XXIV)) reaffirming "the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine" and requesting the Security Council to take effective measures against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, was accepted. At the 25th session, in 1970, two resolutions (2672 (XXV) and 2628 (XXV)) were adopted, declaring that respect for the rights of the people of Palestine was indispensable for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Still another resolution carried in the same session (2649 (XXIV)) condemned unnamed governments for denying the rights of self-determination of peoples, including, expressis verbis, the people of Palestine Resolution 2535 (XXIV) thus created a new trend, which probably reflects Israel's greatest defeat at the UN in more than two decades. The problem of the Arab refugees was transformed into the problem of the so-called people of (the no longer existent) Palestine. Resolution 2535 (XXIV) and its sequels are the antithesis of Resolution 181 (II).
Direct Negotiations
[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel wanted "direct negotiations" - and no Arab government wanted to speak with the racist Zionists]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel always insisted on direct negotiations with the Arab governments as the only way of arriving at a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
[[But with the Herzl racism and the plan of a Jewish Empire the Arab governments never could accept any racist Zionist for negotiations]].
The Armistice Agreements were in effect an outcome of such negotiations, albeit under UN auspices. In 1950 Israel submitted to the Ad Hoc Political Committee of the General Assembly, at its fifth session, a draft resolution (A/AC.38/L.60) urging direct negotiations upon the parties concerned. The draft was withdrawn prior to a vote, but the resolution finally adopted (No. 394 (V)) did call upon the parties to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either through the P.C.C. "or directly". At the seventh session of the General Assembly, in 1952, the Ad Hoc Political Committee endorsed a resolution (A/AC.61 / L.23 / Rev.4) urging, the parties "to enter at an early date, without prejudice to their respective rights and claims, into direct negotiations", but the required two-thirds majority was not obtained in plenary.
At the 16th session of the General Assembly, in 1961, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel canvassed sponsors for a draft resolution appealing for direct negotiations and managed to get 16 states, most of them from Africa and Latin America, to submit the resolution to the Special Political Committee (A / SPC / L.80). Although the resolution failed in the vote, the initiative was renewed (col. 1551)
with 21 sponsors at the 17th session, in 1962 (A / SPC / L.89). 19 sponsors at the 18th session, in 1963 (A / SPC / L.100), and the sole sponsorship of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel at the 20th session, in 1965 (A / SPC / L.115), but another confrontation on the floor of the committee was avoided.
Following the Six-Day War, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel revived the demand for direct negotiations, but in 1967, when the secretary-general appointed (in keeping with the instructions of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)) Gunnar V. Jarring of Sweden as his special representative to the Middle East, Israel was willing to cooperate. Jarring traveled extensively on several missions to the capitals of Israel and her neighbors, and submitted a number of reports, but at first he could not bring the Arabs to accept anything remotely like negotiations on a peace settlement with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, while [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, in spite of its adherence to the principle of direct negotiations was ready to agree to an initial stage of indirect talks under Jarring's auspices.
However, in March 1971, after Nasser's death and the secession of the right-wing Gahal (Gaḥal) from the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel government, a certain change seemed to occur in the attitude of both Cairo and Jerusalem. To a questionnaire of Jarring Cairo in principle agreed to sign a peace settlement with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, but demanded complete withdrawal of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel forces from all territories occupied in the Six-Day War, according to the Arab-Soviet interpretation of the Security Council resolution of Nov. 22, 1967.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel for its part responded to Jarring's questionnaire by reiterating its readiness to negotiate with Egypt on all outstanding issues "without any preliminary conditions", but refused to answer in the affirmative Jarring's question, whether, in exchange for a signed peace settlement and agree d security arrangements in Sharm el-Sheikh, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel would evacuate all Egyptian territory and withdraw its forces to the previous international boundary between Egypt and Palestine (which excludes the Gaza strip from Egyptian territory). [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel stressed that the withdrawal should be effected to "secure and recognized" frontiers, not identical with any previous line of demarcation, to be agreed upon between the parties in unconditional negotiations. Egypt regarded this response as a "total rejection" of its "peace offer".
[[And the racist Jewish Zionists have not changed their philosophy of Herzl and of 1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18]].
Armistice: The First Phase
[Armistice of 1949 - negotiations - Russian veto - escalation to the Suez Canal affairs]
[[Israel is not a state which could be accepted by the Arabs with a Herzl philosophy to enslave all Arabs and with imperial Jewish Empire plans which are never given up according to 1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18, and officially without borderlines]].
The P.C.C. [[Palestine Conciliation Commission]] entered upon its task of looking for ways and means of reconciling Israel and the Arab states with a great deal of zeal. Its essay culminated in a conference convoked at Lausanne on May 12, 1949, when a rather ambiguous protocol (A/927) was signed separately by the parties. In 1951, at another conference convened in Paris, the P.C.C. suggested that a declaration of pacific intentions be accepted. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel agreed in principle, but the Arabs refused, and when further attempts to bring the adversaries together failed, the P.C.C. reached the conclusion that it was unable to discharge its duties (A / 1985). Nevertheless, the sixth session of the General Assembly 1952 decided (in Resolution 512 (VI)) to keep the P.C.C. alive. Similar resolutions were passed in later years, but to all intents and purposes the P.C.C. ceased to be a factor in the political picture of the Middle East.
Once the armistice agreements were signed, in 1949, the Security Council relieved the acting mediator of his assignment, and the supervision of the truce was entrusted to UNTSO [[UN Truce Supervision Organization]] (1 / 1376). UNTSO and the MACs [[Mixed Armistice Commissions]], however, could not maintain the armistice, mainly because their senior officers often tried to appear scrupulously "neutral" by "balancing" the number of infringements from the both sides against each other or, in some cases, showed pro-Arab bias and declared [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel's retaliatory self-defense measures as aggressive acts, while ignoring infiltrations of saboteurs and terrorists which provoked them. Thus, many meetings of the Security Council were monopolized by the Middle East question.
In 1950 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel complained to the council (col. 1552)
about Egypt's interference with passage of goods destined for [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel through the Suez Canal. On Sept. 1, 1951, the Security Council resolved that such practice was illegal and called upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions imposed on Israel-bound shipping (S/2322). This is perhaps the only unequivocally pro-Israel resolution to have emerged from that body.
When Egypt refused to conform and even extended its interference beyond the canal to the Gulf of Akaba, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel renewed its complaint to the Security Council in January 1954. A New Zealand draft resolution (S/3188), noting "with grave concern" Egypt's noncompliance and calling for the implementation of the 1951 resolution, foundered on a Soviet veto in March. In September 1954 when the Israel vessel Bat Gallim was seized by Egypt at the entrance to the Suez Canal, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel again complained to the Security Council, which was still unable to surmount the obstacle of the veto. On Oct. 13, 1956, after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, the Security Council adopted a resolution (S/3675) stating that any settlement of the Suez question should meet six "requirements", including "free and open transit through the Canal without discrimination, overt or covert". These requirements were accepted by Egypt, but access to the Suez Canal nonetheless continued to be denied to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Israel-bound shipping until the canal's closure during and after the Six-Day War.
In the early 1950s a pattern began to be formed in the Security Council. Backed by the U.S.S.R., the Arabs seized the initiative and started to submit a spate of complaints about violations and alleged violations of the armistice by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. Israel also turned to the council occasionally, but was generally rebuffed. Many of the disputes before the Security Council related to the demilitarized zones, which thus became a source of friction, instead of fulfilling their intended role as a buffer.
[Case: Huleh (Ḥuleh) marches 1951-1954]
In 1951 fighting erupted between Syria and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel concomitant to the drainage of the Huleh (Ḥuleh) marshes. The matter was brought before the Security Council, which first issued a directive of cease-fire (S/2130) and then, in effect, called upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to desist from all operations in the demilitarized zone (S/2157). In 1953, when [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel began to construct a Jordan canal as part of a hydroelectric project, the Security Council quickly called for the temporary suspension of operations in the demilitarized zone (S / 3128). The suspension became indefinite as a Western draft resolution (S/3151 / Rev.2), containing a compromise formula, encountered a Soviet veto in 1954.
[Case: "Qibya retaliatory raid" of 1953 - Gaza raid of 1955 - Lake Kinneret raid of 1956]
In 1953, after an [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel retaliatory raid on the Arab village of Qibya, as a reprisal for terrorist attacks on [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel territory emanating from there, the Security Council expressed "the strongest censure" of Israel's action (S/3139 / Rev.2). This was the first among many resolutions in which the council tried to curb [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel reprisals without dealing explicitly with the terrorist Arab attacks that had motivated them.
[[It seems strange that the U.N. never forced racist Zionist Israel to give up it's Herzl philosophy]].
Israel reprisals were again condemned by the council in 1955, subsequent to the Gaza raid (S/3378), and in January 1956, following reprisal on terrorist bases east of Lake Kinneret (S/3538).
[No armistice any more since 1956 - the escalation to the Sinai Campaign of 1956]
[[By this one part of 1st Mose chapter 15 phrase 18 was fulfilled: the borderline on the Nile]].
By 1956 it became clear that the armistice structure was crumbling. In March of that year, at the request of the United States, the Security Council took up the general issue of compliance with the Armistice Agreements and its own resolutions. In April it requested the secretary-general to arrange with the parties for the adoption of certain measures designed to reduce the tension (S/3562). Dag Hammarskjöld visited the Middle East and submitted a progress report (S/3594). In June the council called for reestablishment of full compliance with the Armistice Agreements, and requested the secretary-general to continue his good offices (S/3605). Hammarskjöld returned to the region in July and transmitted to the council two more reports (S/3632 and S/3659). Conditions (col. 1553)
continued to deteriorate, however, and murderous fedayeen raids into Israel territory increased, mainly from the Gaza Strip and Sinai, which in turn provoked [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel retaliation. On Oct. 29, 1956, the *Sinai Campaign began, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel announced that the Armistice Agreement with Egypt was no longer valid.
The early 1950s thus represented a constant deterioration of the conditions on the Israel-Arab armistice lines and proved the inadequacy of the UN as a peace and law-enforcing agency. Not once did a Security Council resolution refer specifically to the operations of the fedayeen. Hardly any distinction was made between aggressor and victim. In fact, judging by the peculiar attitude of the UN members, who treated measures which Israel regarded as self-defense as more criminal than the aggression which provoked them, it would appear that it was [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel who continuously motivated trouble in the Middle East and endangered world peace.
[[The Herzl philosophy and 1st Mose chapter 15 phrase 18 - the main base of Zionist Jewish racism - are never mentioned in this article. Remind that the Arab refugees lost all their values in Israel because Israel always insisted on a "comprehensive settlement". Would you accept a neighbor whose philosophy is to enslave you, to occupy you and wants a "comprehensive settlement" only until the next war?]].
The Sinai Campaign
[Veto of France and England against withdrawal of the Jewish troops of 1956 - UN emergency force UNEF - "SU" resigns to UNEF - financial crisis]
[[The racist colonial powers France and England of that time wanted to use the Jewish occupation also for their purposes]].
The UN, which was slow to react in 1948 to the War of Independence, showed remarkable alacrity when the Sinai Campaign and the Anglo-French Suez War began. This time the two superpowers, the United States and the U.S.S.R., acted initially in full harmony. By Oct. 30, 1956, the Security Council was already in session. The same evening a vote was taken on a U.S.-sponsored draft resolution (S / 3710) calling for immediate withdrawal of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel troops and urging other states not to assist [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. The resolution was vetoed by France and the United Kingdom, but an emergency special session of the General Assembly was convened forthwith. On November 1 [[1956]] the General Assembly met and the following day in Resolution 997 (ES-I)), restating the case more strongly, was approved on November 4 [[1956]]. Still another resolution (1002 ES-I), again urging immediate withdrawal of Israel troops, was taken on November 7.
New ground was broken at the emergency special session with the adoption of Resolution 998 (ES-I), originally introduced by Canada, on November 4 [[1956]]. It requested the secretary-general to present a plan for the creation of a UN emergency force, and he quickly responded to the idea. The UN Emergency Force (UNEF) was established on November 5 by Resolution 1000 (ES-I). Its purpose was "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities". Resolution 1001 (ES-I), dated November 7 [[1956]], approved guidelines proposed by the secretary-general for the functioning of UNEF.
The formation of UNEF was carried out against strong protests from the U.S.S.R., which adhered to the view that only the Security Council, as distinct from the General Assembly, was empowered to take such action. The U.S.S.R., as well as several other countries, refused to participate in covering UNEF's expenses, and in time this refusal precipitated a financial and political crisis for the UN. (The question was eventually brought before the International Court of Justice, which, in 1962, in the matter of Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Charter), gave an advisory opinion to the effect that these were "expenses of the organization" within the meaning of Article 17 of the Charter).
[No withdrawal of Jewish, French or British troops - pressure by the "USA" for withdrawal]
The 11th regular session of the General Assembly continued the deliberations begun in the first emergency special session. On November 24 [[1956]], in Resolution 1120 (XI), it noted "with regret" that no withdrawal of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, French or British troops had been effected and reiterated its call to comply with former resolution on the subject. In Resolution 1121 (XI), adopted the same day, it noted the "basis for the presence and functioning" of UNEF in Egypt, in line (col. 1554)
with points made by the secretary-general in an aide-mémoire (A/3375). The aide-mémoire, based on the secretary-general's conversations in Cairo, contained a clear Egyptian undertaking to be guided by Resolution 1000 (ES-I) and enable UNEF to operate until its task had been completed. The first UNEF contingents arrived in the Middle East within a matter of days.
Throughout this period [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was subjected to intense pressure by the United States and the secretary-general (in person) to commence withdrawal. Dag Hammarskjold was a strong and active secretary-general who interpreted his secretary-general who interpreted his authority in a way that permitted him to play a direct and major role in the affairs of the Middle East. Gradual withdrawal of Israel troops started late in November, but [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and the secretary-general were in constant disagreement over the schedule of the evacuation of Sinai and the Gaza Strip.
On Jan. 19, 1957, pursuant to a report by the secretary-general, the General Assembly in Resolution 1123 (XI), noted "with regret and concern" that withdrawal had not yet been completed, and lent its support to the secretary-general's uncompromising stand. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel then put forward an aide-mémoire (A/3511) indicating that withdrawal from *Sharm el-Sheikh must be accompanied by related measures ensuring free navigation in the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Akaba. Furthermore, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel propounded that certain steps be taken to ascertain that the Gaza Strip would not again be used as a springboard for attack and raised practical questions pertaining to the conditions for the termination of UNEF's functions.
The secretary-general continued to insist on total and immediate withdrawal (A / 3512). Debate in the General Assembly resumed, and on February 2, in Resolution 1124 (XI), the assembly deplored Israel's noncompliance with former resolutions and urged the completion of withdrawal without delay. In a complementary resolution (No. 1125 (XI)), adopted on the same day, the General Assembly also called for the scrupulous observance of the Armistice Agreement. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel then had a new round of exchanges with the secretary-general (A/3527 and A/3563), and on March 1 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel announced that it was prepared to proceed with full withdrawal on the basis of certain "assumptions", founded in part on statements made by the U.S. government.
Withdrawal followed suit. During the Sinai Campaign and immediately thereafter,r the UN suddenly reawakened as a peace-keeping organization. Its energetic pursuit of the goal of cease-fire and withdrawal had no precedent in the Middle East conflict. the same UN members, who remained aloof during weeks of bloodshed in 1948 and who totally ignored the activities of the fedayeen in subsequent years became agitated when the pace of Israel's withdrawal from Sinai was not rapid enough, and, under pressure from the UN and the United States, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel complied.
Armistice: The Second Phase
[Armistice 1956-1967 - problems with Syria]
The presence of UNEF [[UN Emergency Force]] contributed to the relative stability that characterized the southern border of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in the decade following the Sinai Campaign, but the attention of the Security Council was frequently drawn in the same period to clashes between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Syria (which, for a while, formed part of the United Arab Republic). Most of the disputes again involved the demilitarized zones.
In 1958 and 1959 the Security Council convened to discuss complaints by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel against Syrian violations of the armistice (S/4123 and S/4151), but no resolution could be reached because of Soviet intransigence. Conversely, in 1962, when [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel again retaliated against Syria in the Lake Kinneret area, the council adopted a resolution (S/5111) reaffirming the January 1956 condemnation of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel (S/3538) and determining that the recent reprisal constituted a "flagrant violation" of that decision. In 1963, after (col. 1555)
terrorist bloodshed at Almagor, a Western draft resolution condemning the "wanton murder" of Israel citizens (S/5407) was once again vetoed by the U.S.S.R. IN 1964, when fighting erupted around Tel Dan, the Security Council rejected an Arab-sponsored draft resolution condemning Israel (S/6085), whereupon the Soviets cast their veto on a Western text which deplored the renewal of military action on both sides (S/6113). In July 1966, following a flare-up of fighting as a result of Syrian support of terrorist activities and attempts to divert the source of the Jordan River, another Arab-sponsored draft resolution condemning [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel (S/7437) was rejected by the Security Council. In October of that year [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel complained about the Syrian-backed terrorist attacks. A Western resolution calling upon Syria to prevent the use of its territory by the terrorists (S/7568) was not even put to a vote. A weaker and broader draft (S/7575) was vetoed by the U.S.S.R. In November 1966, subsequent to the Israel reprisal action in the village Ai-Samu' (Ai-Samū), in Jordan territory, the Security Council approved resolution No. 228 (1966), which, for the first time, "censured" Israel for its action and emphasized that such retaliation "cannot be tolerated" and may entail "further and more effective steps".
[Problems with Egypt: UNEF ousted in 1967 - the manipulations for a new war]
[[The steps into the Six-Day War seem to be manipulated. The article blames the UN for "its complete ineffectiveness as a peace-keeping organ". But the secret services always knew how strong the armies were, how effective the leadership would be, and how prepared racist Zionist Israel's army was for a new step to occupy new territory]].
The decade of relative quiet between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Egypt came to an abrupt end in May 1967. On May 16 Egypt demanded the withdrawal of UNEF [[UN Emergency Force]] from observation posts along the border. By May 18 Egypt insisted on the total evacuation of UNEF from Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Secretary-General U Thant immediately conceded that UNEF could remain in Egypt only as long as that country consented to its presence. On the same day he issued instructions to UNEF to withdraw and merely reported his decision to the General Assembly (A/6669), without requesting permission from the General Assembly or the Security Council; without consideration for Israel's views; and without serious study of the legal rights of Egypt unilaterally to terminate the presence of UNEF (in the light of the agreement reached in 1956 in Cairo with Secretary-General Hammarskjöld (A/3375) and endorsed by General Assembly Resolution 1121 (XI)). UNEF was ousted at the moment when its presence was most needed.
On May 19, after issuing the withdrawal instructions, the secretary-general submitted a further report to the Security Council (S/7896) and left for consultations in Cairo. On May 23, while UThant was in Egypt, Canada and Denmark requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to examine the deteriorating situation.
In the ensuing debates, held on May 24, the council proved its complete ineffectiveness as a peace-keeping organ, particularly when the U.S.S.R. and other pro-Arab states regarded the situation as favorable to Arab aggression against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. The representatives of the U.S.S.R. and Bulgaria claimed that events in the Middle East were over-dramatized and that there was no reason for an urgent meeting of the council in the first place. Other representatives, from Asia and Africa, also contended that the discussion was untimely. A draft resolution, submitted by Canada and Denmark (S/7905), merely requesting all member states to refrain from steps which might worsen the situation, was not even put to a vote. On May 26 the secretary-general returned from Cairo and issued a new report (S/7906). On May 29 the Security Council reconvened, and ineffective discussions continued, until the canons began thundering in the Middle East.
The Six-Day War and After
[[Addition: Probably manipulation of the war
The Six-Day War seems to be an absolute manipulation with the number "six", which is the symbol for the "devil", to the contrary of number "nine" which is the symbol for "heaven". There are other examples for the "six" used in the Zionist Jewish history, e.g., 6 million victims of the Holocaust which are not right and had been claimed in 1944 already by Katznelson etc. All in all the war seems to be arranged and the Arab officers seem to have been bribed. The article of Encyclopaedia Judaica wants to give the picture of a poor Israel which was in danger, but this was never the case...]]
[The official immediate UN resolutions against the racist Zionist Jewish invasion]
The Security Council met in emergency session on June 5, nearly as soon as the news of the outbreak of fighting reached New York. The United States was immediately willing to adopt a resolution calling for the cessation of hostilities, but, inasmuch as it was not yet clear which side had the upper hand in the battle, the (col. 1556)
U.S.S.R. preferred to await developments. Only on June 6, when the Egyptian military debacle became obvious, was the Security Council in a position to adopt resolution 233 (1967), calling for an immediate cease-fire. On June 7 a second resolution, No. 234 (1967), urging the cessation of all military activities (particularly between Israel and Jordan) was approved. On June 9 resolution 235 (1967) demanded that hostilities between [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Syria come to an end immediately. On June 11 the Security Council (in resolution 236 (1967)) condemned all violations of the cease-fire. On June 14 (in resolution 237 (1967)) it called upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to ensure the security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations had taken place and urged the governments concerned to respect the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and protection of civilians. However, a Soviet-sponsored draft resolution (S/795 Rev.2) condemning [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel as the aggressor and demanding immediate withdrawal was rejected by the Security Council the same day.
[The resolutions against the occupations of the Zionist Jewish army all fail - complicity of "USA" and GB with racist Zionist Israel]
Having failed to achieve the denunciation of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in the Security Council, the U.S.S.R. took the initiative to convene the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly. The session opened on June 17, and two days later the chairman of the council of ministers of the U.S.S.R., Aleksei Kosygin, personally presented a draft resolution to the effect that the General Assembly vigorously condemn [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel; demand immediate withdrawal of Israel troops, as well as compensation for damages inflicted on Arab countries; and appeal to the Security Council to take effective measures to eliminate all the consequences of Israel's aggression (A/L.519). This proposal was rejected by the General Assembly on July 4. A similar draft submitted by Albania, which also condemned the United States and United Kingdom for their complicity in the aggression (A/L.521), was voted down on the same day.
Yugoslavia introduced another text, ultimately sponsored by 17 (mostly African and Asian) states, which generally restricted itself to a call for immediate withdrawal (A/L.522 / Rev.3). An alternative Latin American draft resolution, sponsored by 20 states, also made a request for withdrawal, but coupled it with a call for an end to the belligerency, a request that the Security Council look into the question of navigation and Arab refugees, and reference to the issue of Jerusalem (A/L.523 / Rev. 1). The Yugoslav and the Latin American proposals met the same fate on July 4, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The only resolution adopted by the General Assembly on that day (No. 2252 (ES-V), like Security Council Resolution 237 (1967), related to the need for respecting humanitarian principles.
By July 1967 it was already necessary for the Security Council to convene to examine complaints about breaches of the cease-fire along the Suez Canal, but no formal resolution was voted upon. The discussion resumed in October, after the sinking by the Egyptians of the Israel destroyer Eilat. On October 25 the council approved Resolution 240 (1967), generally condemning all violations of the cease-fire.
[Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967]
On November 22 the reconvened Security Council adopted the famous Resolution 242 (1967), initially proposed by the United Kingdom, which affirmed that the establishment of "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" was based on both withdrawal of Israel forces and termination of belligerency, as well as respect for the right of every state in the area "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries". The resolution further affirmed the necessity for
(1) guaranteeing freedom of navigation;
(2) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; and (col. 1557)
(3) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the region (col. 1557-1558).
Finally, the resolution requested the secretary-general to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle East in order to promote a settlement between the parties. This resolution became a milestone in the period following the Six-Day War. Its precise meaning, however, was controversial, and its validity in later years, in view of the disintegration of the cease-fire on which it was based, was often subject to doubt. It also reflected the low-water mark of Arab postwar efforts to bring about the adoption of unequivocally one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. From that point on, the tide of resolutions, which practically challenged Israel's right to self-defense and self-preservation, became an almost routine performance, losing much of its political and moral impact.
[Karameh battle of March 1968]
In March 1968, after the Karameh battle (in which [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel attacked the main Arab terrorist base in Jordan), the Security Council adopted Resolution 248 (1968), condemning the military action launched by Israel "in flagrant violation" of the Charter and the cease-fire and declaring that it would have to consider more effective steps to prevent the repetition of such acts. The Security Council was reconvened almost immediately for further debate on new violations of the cease-fire along the Israel-Jordan line, but no formal resolution was taken. The discussion resumed in August, when the council approved Resolution 256 (1968), again condemning [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and reaffirming the warning that more effective measures might be taken.
Once more, the deliberations continued in March and April 1969, and the council accepted Resolution 265 (1969), adding still another condemnation of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to the record, while repeating the same warning.
In September 1968 the situation along the Suez Canal was brought up before the Security Council, which insisted, in Resolution 258 (1968), that the cease-fire "must be rigorously respected". In November 1968 the discussion recommenced, but no vote was taken.
[[It seems strange that the refugees are not mentioned. The Palestinians had no chance and 1000s fled to Jordan. A resistance organization PLO with it's base in Lebanon was found against the Zionist Jewish terror of occupations and ethnic cleansing. It seems strange that the Zionist and Herzl philosophy was never theme in the UN and Zionist Israel was never forced to give this racist imperialist Zionist and Herzl philosophy up - and the 1st Mose chapter 15 phrase 18 as well. Palestinians were never heard in the UN until 1974, so there was only the guerrilla fight for them which is shown in the next lines. The article never mentions PLO]].
[PLO attacks on El Al airplanes since 1968 - attacks against PLO bases in Lebanon - UN resolutions]
In December 1968, after the attacks of Arab terrorists based in Beirut, on El Al planes in Europe, the pendulum swung to Lebanon, and the Security Council met to examine Israel's reprisal action against the international airport in Beirut. The Security Council (in Resolution 262 (1968)) condemned [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, adding "a solemn warning" about further steps that might be taken. The question of Lebanon was also raised in August 1969, when [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel attacked terrorists operating from Lebanese territory and the council (in Resolution 270 (1969)) condemned [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel again.
In May 970 the same problem produced a similar resolution (S/9807), including condemnation of [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and reiteration of the "solemn warning". It is notable that the (actual) cease-fire within a (technical) cease-fire, agreed upon for a period of three months in August 1970 - and extended for an equal length of time in November of that year - was brought about as a result of a U.S. rather than UN initiative. In November 1970 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2628 (XXV), recommending the extension of the cease-fire. This resolution, however, was totally unbalanced against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in its thrust and formulation. The advent of the second series of talks with the parties, conducted by the secretary-general's special representative, Gunnar Jarring, early in 1971, was again due to U.S. diplomatic efforts.
Anti-Semitism
[UN resolutions against anti-Semitism]
[[It seems ridiculous that this article about racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel claims that there was anti-Semitism in the world 1945-1970 considering the racism in the Israel school system and ethnic cleansing of the racist Zionist Jewish army in Palestine which was performed step by step]].
At its first session in 1946 the UN General Assembly confirmed the principles of international law introduced by the legislation of the International Arbitrary Tribunal in Nuremberg and later embodied in the *Genocide Convention (resolutions 95 (I), 96 (I)), thus outlawing the worst anti-Semitic crimes ever committed in the history of mankind. After that the UN for years ignored the issue of anti-Semitism.
[Cases of "swastika epidemic" in 1956-60]
In 1959-60 a "swastika epidemic" (col. 1558)
swept through large parts of the world. Consequently, several members submitted to the UN subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at its 12th session (in January 1960) a draft resolution condemning manifestations of anti-Semitism and other religious and racial prejudices (E/CN. 4 / Sub. 2 / L. 159). There was a consensus in the subcommission that it was necessary to take action against anti-Semitism, but some members had qualms about the explicit use of that term in the resolution.
Finally a decision was taken to condemn anti-Semitism without resorting to euphemisms, and the subcommission recommended that its parent body, the UN Commission on Human Rights do the same (Resolution 3 (XIII)). The Commission on Human Rights, followed the recommendation, in a somewhat altered form, in Resolution 6 (XVI), adopted at its 16th session (in March 1960). The matter was discussed later in the year in the Third Committee of the General Assembly. The General Assembly in Resolution 1510 (XV) condemned all manifestations of racial, religious, and national hatred, but deleted a specific reference to anti-Semitism. The item of "manifestations of anti-Semitism and other forms of racial prejudice and religious intolerance of a similar nature" was placed on the agenda of the subcommission at its 13th session (in 1961). The subcommission studied material on the subject obtained from governments (E/CN.4 / Sub.2/208) and nongovernmental organizations (E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.216), and discussed the nature of the manifestations of anti-Semitism, as well as the causes of the swastika epidemic. It also examined public reaction to the incidents ans measures taken by governments.
Objections were again raised to the specific reference to anti-Semitism in the emerging resolution. Finally the term was relegated to the preamble of Resolution 5 (XIII); the operative paragraphs were of general character and dealt with the need to combat racial, religious, and national hatred.
[[In the Jewish school system of racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel the hatred against Arabs was systematically thought and partly is thought until now (2008)...]]
[Resolution against anti-Semitism without the word anti-Semitism...]
At the 17th session of the Commission on Human Rights (in 1961) manifestations of anti-Semitism were further studied, but Resolution 5 (XVII) almost entirely ignored anti-Semitism as such. The Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC) continued the trend in Resolution 826B (XXXII) of that year, calling for the eradication of racial prejudice and religious intolerance wherever they exist. The General Assembly debated the subject at its 17th session, in 1962, when another resolution, No. 1779 (XVII), was adopted along the same lines.
As an outcome of the deliberations on the subject in the Third Committee, in 1962 the General Assembly also resolved to initiate the drafting of a series of declarations and conventions on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (Resolution 1780 (XVII)) and religious intolerance (Resolution 1781 (XVIII)). The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Resolution 1904 (XVIII)) was adopted by the General Assembly at its 18th session, in 1963.
[[So, racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel should give up the racist Herzl Zionist philosophy to enslave all Arabs since 1963, and should correct the stupid racist Bible with it's aggressive war declaration of 1st Mose, chapter 15, phrase 18 with a definition of borderlines of a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, and the Zionist regime - not important which party is on power - should give a definition of borderlines. But this did never happen until now, and that's why this wild racist Israel in this Zionist political form cannot be accepted (2008)...]]
In the course of drafting the accompanying convention, at the 20th session of the Commission on Human Rights, a representative of a Jewish nongovernmental organization (see below), the Agudat Israel World Organization, suggested that a specific condemnation of anti-Semitism be incorporated in the document. The United States embraced the idea and officially proposed that Article 3 of the draft prepared by the subcommission, condemning "racial segregation and apartheid", be amended to include a condemnation of anti-Semitism as well. Objection to the proposal was voiced on the ground that Article 3 dealt exclusively with segregation and apartheid, and that anti-Semitism was out of place in this context. The United States therefore withdrew the amendment and offered the addition of a new article instead:
"States parties condemn anti-Semitism and (col. 1559)
shall take action as appropriate for its speedy eradication in the territories subject to their jurisdiction" (E/CN.4L.701, later revised). The U.S.S.R., for its part, proposed to expand the new article to cover Nazism also (including Neo-Nazism) and genocide (E/CN.4/L.710).
[[This genocide proposal would affect also the criminal racist "USA" with the genocide against the natives]].
["SU": Zionism = Nazism - all "isms" are deleted - Libya: "Nazism, Fascism and Zionism" - no mention at all]
Most members of the Commission on Human Rights endorsed, in principle, the concept of the condemnation of anti-Semitism, but since the United States and the U.S.S.R. could not reach a mutually accepted formula,it was decided to transmit both versions to the General Assembly. The Third Committee debated the issue only at the 20th session, in 1965. By that time, opposition to the express mention of anti-Semitism had grown and congealed, particularly among Arab and Soviet bloc delegations. The U.S.S.R. was no longer satisfied merely with the joint listing of anti-Semitism and Nazism and now insisted on adding Zionism to the same category (A/C.3/L.1231).
Many other delegations wanted to avoid a confrontation on the subject, inasmuch as they had reservations even about the direct reference to anti-Semitism. Therefore, at the suggestion of Greece and Hungary (A/C.3/L.1244), the Third Committee decided, by an overwhelming majority, not to insert in the convention "any reference to specific forms of racial discrimination", i.e., to delete from the text all the "isms" (the condemnation of apartheid in Article 3 was left intact).
Thus, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 2106 (XX), does not condemn anti-Semitism in so many words. However, the interpretation that anti-Semitism is covered by the general injunctions of the convention, is based on good authority (see Schwelb, "The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination", Internatinal and Comparative Law Quarterly, 15 (1966), 996, 1011-5).
Whereas progress in the UN codification on racial discrimination was very quick, many obstacles have impeded the drafting of the instruments regarding religious intolerance. The declaration was in effect abandoned in the Commission on Human Rights in favor of a convention, and the prospects that the latter will be quickly adopted by the General Assembly do not appear to be good. In the process of drafting, however, at the 22nd session of the Commission on Human Rights in 1966, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel proposed to add in Article 5 (later enumerated as No. 6) of the text prepared by the subcommission a specific reference to anti-Semitism (E/EN.4/L.791).
This amendment was subsequently withdrawn in favor of a similar draft submitted by Chile (E/CN.4/L.797). The Chilean formulation was accepted by the Commission on Human Rights, which, once more, was not sufficiently sensitive to the atmosphere prevailing in the General Assembly. In the 22nd session of the General Assembly (in 1967) Libya proposed (in the Third Committee) adding the words "Nazism, Fascism and Zionism" after anti-Semitism (A/C.3/L.1461). Before discussion of Article 6 as a whole was about to begin, however, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2295 (XXII), which decided not to mention "any specific examples of religious intolerance" in the convention. Thus specific mention of anti-Semitism, past or present, has become a taboo in UN resolutions [[and racist Zionism was not mentioned officially either]].
The closest that the UN ever came to denouncing the Nazi Holocaust was in a 1960 Security Council resolution in the case of Adolf Eichmann (S/4349). In response to an Argentinian complaint against Israel's abduction of Eichmann, the council noted, with Soviet support, "the universal condemnation of the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis" and concern that Eichmann should be brought to appropriate justice for his crimes. However, it nonetheless requested [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel "to make appropriate reparation".
Jewish Communities in Arab Countries and the U.S.S.R.
[Jewish groups in Arab states - only debates, no resolutions]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, as the only Jewish member state of the UN, has always felt itself duty-bound to raise the issue of oppressed, sometimes silent, Jewish minorities in Diaspora countries. The same sense of responsibility has been shared by some Jewish nongovernmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. The greatest efforts to appeal to the conscience of the world were made on behalf of Jews in Arab lands and in the U.S.S.R. The plight of Jews in Arab lands, directly affected by the Middle East conflict, was first brought to the attention of the UN early in 1948 by the World Jewish Congress, which initiated the adoption of two rather bland formal resolutions on the subject by the Economic and Social Council (Resolutions 133 (VI)H of March 1948 and 214 (VIII)B of February 1949). The Jewish nongovernmental organizations and the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] State of Israel later found it impossible to have formal resolutions placed before the United Nations. The campaign was therefore confined to the debating ground.
[[The plight of the Palestinian refugees is mentioned by the UN, and racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel mentions Jewish plight in Arab states. But Zionist Herzl racism and 1st Mose chapter 15 phrase 18 are never mentioned. This seems absolutely strange...]]
[Jews hanged in Iraq in the 1950s]
[[There is no reason indicated why the Jews were hanged...]]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel used the opportunity of the annual General Assembly discussion on the subject of the Arab refugees to air in public the grievances against the Arab governments' maltreatment of Jews. Occasionally more dramatic action was taken, and at the sixth session of the General Assembly (in January 1952), [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel publicly withdrew from meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (47th meeting) and the Third Committee (398th meeting) as a protest against the hangings of Jews in Iraq following useless appeals for UN intercession on their behalf. When other incidents of hanging Jews in Iraq occurred early in 1969, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel proposed to the Commission on Human Rights (at its 25th session) that it dispatch a special communication to the Baghdad government in an effort to prevent further summary executions. The commission was unresponsive, even though the year before, when Arab houses connected with terrorist actions were blown up in Israel-administered territories, a telegram appealing to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel "to desist forthwith from indulging in such practices" had been promptly adopted at its 24th session.
[Persecution of the Jews in Egypt after Six-Day War in 1967]
The Sinai Campaign compounded the plight of the Jewish community in Egypt, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel brought the matter up in detail before the 11th session of the General Assembly. The Six-Day War ignited an anti-Jewish campaign of unprecedented dimensions throughout the Arab world, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel strove to mobilize world public opinion on behalf of the persecuted Jews. A special representative of the secretary-general, Nils G. Gussing, was nominated in July 196, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 237 (19967), relating to respect for humanitarian principles by "the Governments concerned", and sought to obtain information with regard, inter alia, to the treatment of Jewish minorities in Egypt and Syria (A/6797).
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel requested that the condition of Jewish communities in the whole area of the conflict, including Iraq and Lebanon, be investigated by a projected second mission, but the Security Council (in Resolution 259 of September 1968) called upon [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel alone to receive a special representative of the secretary-general to examine the situation in the territories under its control. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel insisted that the assignment of the special representative include the issue of Jews in Arab countries, and when this demand was denied, it refused to cooperate with any new mission. For the same reason, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel also expressed its unwillingness to cooperate with a Special Committee to Investigate Israel Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established by General Assembly Resolution 2443 (XXIII) in 1968 (renewed in Resolution 2546 (XXIV) in 1969 and in Resolution 2727 (XXV) in 1970), as well as a special Working Group of Experts set up by Commission (col. 1561)
on Human Rights Resolution 6 (XXV) in 1969 (and renewed in Resolution 10 (XXVI) in 1970).
["About 3,000,000 Jews in the U.S.S.R. ("Soviet Union") - Russian anti-Semitism mentioned since Stalin's death since 1953 - denouncements in the 1960s]
[["Soviet Union" had an anti-Jewish policy since 1948 because racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel was a satellite of the "USA" and Stalin felt encircled by "US" satellites (Europe, racist Israel, India, Japan). Add to this Zionism is a racist ideology and the Jews in the "Soviet Union" performed demonstrations for racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, so they were punished for showing racism]].
The plight of about 3,000,000 Jews in the U.S.S.R. was generally not raised in the UN during the Stalin period. An exception was made in 1953, just before Stalin's death, when [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel castigated in the First Committee of the General Assembly, at its seventh session, "the libel of an alleged world Jewish conspiracy" underlying the notorious *Doctors' Plot. With the advent of the 1960s, however, the UN gradually became an important arena for exposing the suffering of Soviet Jewry. First Jewish nongovernmental organizations, then [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, and eventually many other states from all continents raised their voices denouncing the denial of Human rights and fundamental freedoms to the Jews of the U.S.S.R. Initially, the accusations leveled at the U.S.S.R. were muted and circumspect, scarcely mentioning that country by name; but in time, a systematic and sustained offensive developed. It has covered, under a variety of agenda items, almost every possible session of the subcommission, the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly. Since 1967 even debates in the Security Council have served as a forum for the topic.
The campaign for Soviet Jewry in the UN served to enlist world opinion in exerting moral pressure upon a government defaulting the human rights of an oppressed minority group to persuade it to mend its ways. Most of the critical statements at the UN have hinged on the U.S.S.R.'s violations of fundamental freedoms proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related instruments:
-- communal Jewish activities that were not permitted [[because of racist Zionist activities]];
-- synagogues that were closed down [[because of espionage and selling racist Zionist material in synagogues]];
-- Jewish schools, religious facilities, publishing houses and cultural institutions that were practically nonexistent [[they were closed down step by step because of racist Zionist activity]]
-- reunion of families torn asunder by World War II that was not made possible [[because the reunion would be with racist Zionists]].
[Russian publications against racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel since Six-Day War since 1967]
After the Six-Day War (1967) the focus shifted from charges of discriminatory practices to protests against the virulent anti-Semitic propaganda, thinly disguised as attacks against [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and "world Zionism", which spread over the U.S.S.R. and practically revived the paranoiac concept of the Protocols of the *Elders of Zion.
[[This paranoia was not a paranoia, but the racist Zionist regime in Jerusalem wanted to realize a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, and this was published by the "Soviet Union". This is not "anti-Semitic propaganda" as Encyclopaedia Judaica claims]].
On a number of occasions, special emphasis was placed on the poisonous writings of the Ukrainian anti-Semite Trofim Kichko. His first book, Judaism Without Embellishment, was strongly reprehended by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and other delegates at the 20th session of the Commission on Human Rights in 1964. His later book, Judaism and Zionism, and, for that matter, the whole phenomenon of "Kichkoism" was rebuked by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel at the 25th session of the commission in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in 1969.
[Zionist claims for Jewish emigration from "Soviet Union"]
[["Soviet Union" did never want to support racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel because it was a satellite of the "USA". By this any emigration to racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel was prohibited]].
As of November 1969 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel has publicly raised the demand that Soviet Jews be permitted to go and settle in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, and circulated in the UN official communications on the subject - the first one containing a letter addressed to the Israel government and various UN bodies by a group of 18 families in Soviet Georgia who expressed the wish to settle in the Jewish homeland (A/7762).
Soviet response to the statements made at the UN on behalf of Jews in the U.S.S.R. was uneven. Soviet representatives tried to muzzle such statements, contending that they were irrelevant to the agenda under discussion. They took strong exception to Israel's circulation of official documents on Soviet Jewry and claimed that the procedure constituted "a gross violation" of the Charter, inasmuch as it intervened in the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. (A/7787). The U.S.S.R. accused those who spoke out on behalf of Soviet Jews of slander and distortions, of creating a smokescreen to conceal their own violations of human rights, and even of an attempt to undermine the Soviet system. At times the U.S.S.R. also responded with (col. 1562)
elaborate statements, replete with statistics and quotes, designed to disprove any discriminatory practices against Soviet Jews. However, the fact that the Soviets, who consistently denied the existence of anti-Semitism in their country, became the standard-bearers of the fight against the condemnation of anti-Semitism at the UN, voided their statements of any moral content. Often, the debate on anti-Semitism at the UN became synonymous with a debate on Soviet policies.
[[And racist Zionist Herzl philosophy with the projected enslavement of all Arabs and 1st Mose chapter 15 phrase 18 with borderline definition from the Nile to the Euphrates are never mentioned in the article...]]
See also *Israel, State of, Historical Survey and Foreign Relations; *Anti-Semitism, In the Soviet Bloc; *Russia, The Struggle for Soviet Jewry.
[Y.DI.]
UN Bodies and Specialized Agencies
[Racist Zionist contribution in UN bodies and agencies]
[[It's natural that the claims of racist Zionists with a racist Herzl philosophy and with a plan of a Jewish Empire from the Nile to the Euphrates cannot be taken earnest, resp. the membership of racist Zionist Jews was more a danger than a factor of stability...]]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel's participation and activities in the framework of the various UN bodies and specialized agencies has been relatively fruitful and in some cases even outstanding, mainly in view of her role as a source of aid to other developing countries.
[[Principally this "aid to other developing countries" was an aid to destruct structures and to set up new markets for Jewish products - as this was also the principal of all other "aid" by the European countries. In Eritrea the racist Zionist policy supported the regime of Ethiopia against Eritrea]].
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL.
At the sessions of the Economic and Social Council, which consists of 27 members elected b the General Assembly, Israelis participated as observers and frequently raised the issue of discrimination against the Jews in the U.S.S.R.
Regional Commissions.
Due to Arab refusal to cooperate with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in regional bodies, no Regional Commission for the Middle East, similar to those for Europe (ECE), Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), Latin American (ECLA), and Africa (ECA), was established. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, however, sent observers to the ECA, ECAFE, and ECLA, some of whose sessions had to be transferred from cities closed to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel (e.g., Karachi, Algiers, or Kabul) to those open to her (Bangkok or Addis Ababa). In the framework of these commission, [[racist Zionist]] Israel experts took part in development schemes, as, e.g., in the Mekong Delta Development Project in the Far East, regional development in Upper Volta, and various projects in Latin America.
Functional Comissions.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was an active member in the functional commissions elected by the Economic and Social Council. As a member of the Commission for Human Rights (from 1957 until 1959 and from 1965 until 1970), [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, together with other delegations, incessantly raised the issue of Soviet Jewry and was active in drafting the Convention on the Right of Asylum. The problem of Soviet Jewry was also raised by [[racist Zionist]] Israel members, as well as by members from other countries, in the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, where Israel's membership lasted from 1966 until 1968. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was also a member of the Social Commission; the UN Refugee Fund Executive Committee (UNREF), the Technical Assistance Committee; the Population Commission; the commissions for Social Development, on the Status of Women, on Housing, Building and Planning; the Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development; and the International Law Commission. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was a member on the Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioners' Program (1970).
Other Bodies.
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel played an outstanding part in the International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), not only as a member of the Executive Board from 1957 but also as its vice-chairman (in 1957-58) and member, and several times as chairman, of its Program Committee. Israel's representative, Zena *Harman, received on UNICEF's behalf the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1965. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] was active in extending aid through UNICEF by participating in the establishment of the plant for sterilized milk, of centers for mothers, and care for prematurely born children. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel became a member of the High Commissioners' Advisory (col. 1563)
Committee on Refugees in 1951, the rapporteur in 1952, and chairman of the session in 1954.
AD HOC COMMITTEES
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was also a member of a number of ad hoc committees, appointed by the General Assembly, such as the Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons; the Special Committee on the Methods and Procedures of the General Assembly for Dealing with Legal and Drafting Questions; the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction; the Special Committee on Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments; the Peace Observation Committee; the Panel for Inquiry and Conciliation; several committees of the UN Trade and Development Board, e.g., the Committee on Manufactures, the Group on Preferences, etc.
SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
International Labor Organization (ILO)
ILO's director general from 1948 to 1970 was an American Jew, David *Morse.
[[Many "American" Jews were non Zionists but had nothing to say after 1948...]]
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel joined the ILO in 1949 and signed 36 of the 130 conventions drafted by it, including the convention against forced labor. Arab and Soviet representatives failed in their attempt to establish that the *Nahal (Naḥal) (in the [[racist Zionist]] Israel army) is a form of forced labor. The [[racist Zionist]] Israel government is represented in the ILO by its Ministry of Labor; [[mostly socialist orientated]] Israel workers by the *Histadrut; and employers by the Manufacturers' Association. The Histadrut delegate was elected in 1954 as workers' deputy member, and the [[racist Zionist]] Israel government delegate was elected in 1960-61 as government group deputy member. ILO assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, from her early days, in establishing a vocational school network and workers' training courses for developing countries in cooperation with the Histadrut. [[Racist Zionist]] Israel experts were sent by the ILO to developing countries (e.g., Cyprus) to assist in trade union organization.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel joined the FAO in 1949 and until 1953 belonged to its Near Eastern Region. In view of the Arabs' refusal to attend regional conferences of FAO with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel, the latter moved to its European Region in 1954. IN 1967-68 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was a member of the FAO's Council. FAO assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in matters of irrigation and the drainage of underground water, e.g., in Nahal (Naḥal) Shikmah. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel cooperated with the FAO in establishing courses in poultry raising, irrigation, multi-seasonal crops, food production, etc. for developing countries. [[Racist Zionist]] Israel contributes to the World Food Program of the FAO.
World Health Organization (WHO)
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel joined WHO in 1949 and at first belonged to its Eastern Mediterranean Region, together with Cyprus, the Arab states, Pakistan, Iran, and Ethiopia. Arab refusal to participate together with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in regional activities prevented the convocation of its meetings until 1953. In 1954 WHO decided to split the regional organization into two subcommittees, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel belonged to subcommittee B, together with Iran, Cyprus and Ethiopia; these, however, gradually seceded from it, and the subcommittee ceased to exist. Despite Arab opposition, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel continues its participation in the region and in 1961-64 was represented by the director general of its Ministry of Health on WHO's Executive Board. On WHO's initiative, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and Arab states cooperated in combating rabies and venereal diseases. WHO assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in establishing medical courses and nursing courses, as well as postgraduate medical courses in various fields for students from developing countries. WHO also assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in sending experts and equipment to other countries for combating malaria and producing vaccine against tuberculosis.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Israel joined ICAO in 1949, and on her initiative the organization adopted a resolution in 1970 against plane hijacking.
Universal Postal Union (UPU).
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel joined UPU in (col. 1564)
1949, but Arab states refused to maintain mutual postal services with [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel.
International Telecommunication Union (ITO)
[[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel joined WMO in 1949, and [[racist Zionist]] experts were sent by WMO to African states. WMO experts and equipment assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in establishing a meteorological station at Beit Dagon.
Israel also participates in the following specialized agencies of the UN:
-- the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), from 1958;
-- the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), from 1954;
-- the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from 1954;
-- the International Financial Corporation (IFC), from 1965;
-- the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), from 1962.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was joined by [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in 1957, and Israel's Atomic Energy Commission maintained close contact with it.
UNESCO
[Israel in UNESCO institutions]
A particularly fruitful cooperation developed between the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. Léon *Blum played a prominent role in UNESCO's foundation in 1946, and the opening sentence of its constitution ("since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defense of peace must be constructed") is attributed to him. Israel joined UNESCO in 1949 and was a member of its Executive Board, represented b Moshe Avidor, from 1962 until 1970. Until 1967 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel belonged, in most fields of UNESCO activity, to the organization's Asian region. Later UNESCO's regional organization became more specified, and [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel's participation in the Asian region greatly diminished; [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel is now the only developing country that does not belong to any regional sector of UNESCO. UNESCO experts, equipment, and scholarships assisted [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in many fields of education, science, and cultural activities. UNESCO international conferences on adult education, the social sciences, and science instruction in elementary schools took place in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel. [[Racist Zionist]] Israel professionals and scientists are often invited by UNESCO to participate in expert meetings, panels, and study groups on specific issues, such as hydrology, racialism, sociology, communal integration, adult education, etc. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel raised the issue of discrimination against Jewish education in the U.S.S.R. at UNESCO's general conferences from 1964. In 1964 the UNESCO conference adopted a [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel-proposed resolution demanding education toward tolerance and against racialism in kindergartens and elementary schools. In 1960 [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel was active in drafting the Convention against Discrimination in Education.
[Hatred against racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herz Israel in Arab school books - Jewish hatred against Arabs not mentioned - Syria: "sacred emotion"]
In November 1967, after the Six-Day War, [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel raised the issue of using textbooks containing material of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate and incitement in UNWRA-UNESCO schools.
[[At the same time the racist Zionist Jewish school system in racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl Israel was spreading hatred against Arabs since 1948 without interruption, with claims like "Death to the Arabs" etc. ...]]
In 1968, in accordance with a decision by its Executive Board, the director general of UNESCO appointed a committee of outside experts to examine the textbooks in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt, and it confirmed [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel's complaint.
[[The Zionist Jewish racism against the Arabs in school books and songs and claims is not mentioned...]]
After prolonged negotiations, these states undertook to expurge the objectionable passages from the textbooks. Syria refused to abide by UNESCO's Executive Comittee's decisions, declaring that "the hatred we instill in our children from birth is a sacred emotion".
[Gaza strip since 1967 - claims for historical sites - claim to preserve East Jerusalem from racist Zionist excavation and town planning activity]
In 1969-70, under UNESCO auspices, matriculation examinations, according to the Egyptian curriculum, were held in the Israel-administered Gaza Strip.
In 1967, in accordance with the Convention on Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed (col. 1565)
Conflict, applied for the first time, UNESCO sent general commissioners to [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel and her neighbors. The Arabs accused [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel of destroying historical sites, but the reports of UNESCO's general commissioners denied this charge. The Arabs also failed in their attempt to have UNESCO denounce [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel for the fire in the Al-Aqsa (Al-Aqṣa) mosque in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Arabs succeeded in having UNESCO adopt a resolution which called on [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel to refrain from archaeological excavations and town planning in East Jerusalem in order to preserve its specific character. [[Racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel did not vote and declared that the status of Jerusalem is not within UNESCO's sphere of responsibility.
UNESCO published books and pamphlets on Jewish topics in several languages, as well as anti-racialist literature, such as
-- Israel Ancient Mosaics (prefaced by Meyer Shapiro with an introduction by M. Avi-Yonah, 1960);
-- Social Life and social Values of the Jewish People, in: Journal of World History, 11 (1968/69);
-- Leon Roth: Jewish Thought as a Factor in Civilization (1961);
-- Claude Levi-Strauss: Race and History (1961);
-- Cyril Bibby: Race, Prejudice and Education (ed. by Z. Adar, Jerusalem, 1962);
-- Arnold M. Rose: L'Origine des Préjugés (Jerusalem, 1963);
-- Harry L. Shapiro: The Jewish People: A Biological History (1963).
[[It seems strange that there is no book about Zionist Herzl racism and the Zionist Jewish state's philosophy of "Greater Israel" between Nile and Euphrates...]]
UNESCO's monthly Courier began to appear in [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] Israel in 1968 in a Hebrew edition called Eshnav la-Olam ("Window to the World").
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (N.G.O.)
Six hundred and eighteen nongovernmental organizations have a consultative status on the Economic and Social Council and other UN bodies, as well as on regional bodies outside the UN framework. The following among them are Jewish:
Jewish N.G.O.s in UNESCO
Name of N.G.O.
Consultative Status
B'nai B'rith International
UNESCO, Council of Europe (CE), Organization of American States (OAS)
Agudas-Israel World Organization
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), UNESCO, UNICEF
Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations (consisting of Alliance Israélite Universelle, Anglo-Jewish Association, Canadian Friends of Alliance Israélite Universelle)
ECOSOC, ILO, UNESCO, UNICEF, CE
Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (consisting of B'nai B'rith, Board of Deputies of British Jews, South African Jewish Board of Deputies)
ECOSOC, ILO, UNICEF, CE
International Council of Jewish Women
ECOSOC, ILO, UNICEF
International Council of Jewish Social and Welfare Services (consisting of American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Central British Fund for Jewish Relief and Rehabilitation, United HIAS Service, World ORT Union, Standing Conference on European Jewish Community Services)
ECOSOC, FAO, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF
Women's International Zionist Organization (WIZO)
ECOSOC, UNICEF
World Jewish Congress
ECOSOC, ILO, UNESCO, UNICEF, CE, OAS
World Union for Progressive Judaism (consisting of Central Conference of American Rabbis, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Jewish Religious Union (England), Jewish Religious Union (Bombay)
ECOSOC, UNESCO, UNICEF
World Union of Jewish Students (col. 1566)
N.G.O.s delegate observers to the meeting of the bodies with which the have a consultative status and distribute written material on the topics under discussion. The Jewish N.G.O.s were active in various fields, such as denouncing racialism, discrimination of all kinds, anti-Semitism, oppression of minorities, as well as demanding freedom of religion, and particularly persisting in defending the rights of the Jewish communities in the Soviet Union and the Arab countries.
In 1968 the Arab and Soviet delegations opened an intensive campaign to oust the Jewish N.G.O.s that have consultative status on the Economic and Social Council, arguing that their "Zionist" character deprives them de facto of their nongovernmental character, since they are closely linked with the [[racist Zionist Free Mason CIA Herzl]] State of Israel. Their main target was the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations. At its spring session in 1970, the ECOSOC decided not to change the status of the Jewish N.G.O.s.
[A.M.L.]
Bibliography
-- R. Higgins: United Nations Peacekeeping 1946-1967: The Middle East (1969)
-- A. Lall: The U.N. and the Middle East Crisis (1967)
-- Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Israel and the United Nations (1956)
-- A.G. Mezerik: The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the UN: The 1967 Round: Prelude, June War, Jarring Mission (1969)
-- J. Robinson: Palestine and the United Nations (1947)
-- P de Azcarate: Mission in Palestine 1948-52 (1966)
-- D. Brook: Preface to Peace... (1964)
-- N. Safran: The United Nations and Israel (1963)
-- E. Lauterpacht: Jerusalem and the Holy Places (1968)
-- M. Sharett: Be-Sha'ar ha-Ummot 1946-1949 (1958)
-- Y. Dinstein, in: St. John's Law Review, 44 (1970), 466, 476-82
-- Y. Lador-Lederer: International Non-Governmental Organizations and Economic Entities (1963)
-- B. Akzin, in: N. Feinberg and J. Stoyanovsky (eds.): Jewish Yearbook of International Law (1948), 87ff.
-- E. Elath: Yoman San Francisco (1971).> (col. 1567)
Sources: UN
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1543-1544
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1545-1546
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1547-1548
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1549-1550
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1551-1552
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1553-1554
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1555-1556
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1557-1558
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1559-1560
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1561-1562
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1563-1564
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1565-1566
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 15, col. 1567
Sources: Zionism
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 16, col. 1091-1092
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 16, col. 1093-1094
Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971: United Nations, vol. 16, col. 1095-1096
![Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 15, col. 1544: The United Nations General Assembly special session of May 14, 1948, which relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and created the post of UN mediator on Palestine. Courtesy United Nations Department of Public Information. [[Remark: Most of the seats are empty...]]](EncJud_UNO-u-Herzl-Israel-d/EncJud-UN-band15-kolonne1544-UNO-vollversammlung-14-mai1948.jpg "Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 15, col. 1544: The United Nations General Assembly special session of May 14, 1948, which relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and created the post of UN mediator on Palestine. Courtesy United Nations Department of Public Information. [[Remark: Most of the seats are empty...]]")
