The UN Has Established a System of Apartheid against the Jewish People

The United Nations was founded on two principles: 1) all nations must be treated as equals and judged by the same standards, and 2) no UN member nation is permitted to declare war on another existing member. The UN charter states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” And, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Unfortunately, the UN has failed in both missions when it relates to the Jewish State.

The word, “apartheid,” was first applied in South Africa when they established laws segregating the white-European population from the black-African population. Apartheid can also apply to any system of segregation which favors one group based on ethnicity. The UN has effectively created a system of apartheid by perpetually violating these two foundational principles in regards to Israel. The UN has created a system which rewards Arab violence and punishes the Jewish people for defending themselves.

Eight examples will be enough to demonstrate that the UN has created two sets of standards to deal with Arabs and Jews: 1) The 1948 War, 2) The 1967 War, 3) the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, 4) the nonchalant way that Muslim countries threaten to annihilate Israel, 5) the recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state while both the PLO and Hamas charters declare war on Israel, 6) the creation of eternal Palestinian refugees, 7) the singular condemnation of Israeli “settlements,” and 8) the fact that Israel has been condemned by the UN more times than all other countries combined.

First example of apartheid: The UN system of apartheid against the Jews began with The 1948 War. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence. Immediately, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia attacked the nascent state. On May 11, 1949, the State of Israel was granted membership in the UN. The UN established a precedent that the Arabs states would not be punished for attacking the Jews. Professor Ruth Wisse explains, “Had the U.N. lived up to its charter, it would have expelled the belligerents from membership or placed them on probation for contravening its terms. But here is the logic of aggression against Jews: The secretariat and supporting nations would not risk the U.N.’s coherence to protect one of its smallest members against antagonists with huge demographic, market, resource, and political advantages on their side. Ignored as a parochial issue, the Arab war against Israel safely violated the liberal ideals of the United Nations by appearing to oppose only Jews.”

Second example of apartheid: This same double standard continued in The 1967 War when Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria. After the war, the, “Arab League Summit,” convened in Khartoum, Sudan and issued the, “Khartoum Resolution,” which called for continued war against Israel. The group of Arab states also issued what became known as, “Three No’s” – “No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel.” This declaration of continued war on an existing UN member should have led to their immediate expulsion from the UN, but again, the UN took no action.

Third example of apartheid: In 1975, the Arab states helped the UN General Assembly to pass the nefarious resolution declaring, “Zionism is Racism.” Although, the resolution was revoked in 1991, it did not erase the unique hatred aimed at the Jewish people. Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people. By condemning Zionism as racism, the UN essentially declared that only the Jewish people do not have the right to self-determination. This humiliation is nearly without precedent against any other nation in the history of the UN. The resolution essentially declared that Jewish people should be expelled from the family of nations, this act was reminiscent of centuries of mass Jewish expulsions.

Fourth example of apartheid: Another indignity reserved for Israel is the nonchalant acceptance of calls from Muslim states to annihilate Israel. The UN Charter specifically states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat,” of force, but it is commonplace for countries like Iran to declare that they are going to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel. When Israel raises concern, they are treated as being overly sensitive.

Fifth example of apartheid: Recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state while both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas Charters declare war on Israel. In 1964 the “Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)” was founded. The PLO was given enormous help by the Muslim states. “The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)” consists of fifty-seven member States. The PLO is like the first born son of the OIC. The OIC helped the PLO to obtain “observer status” in the UN. The OIC helped establish, “The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” The OIC helped Palestine to be accepted as a full member of, “The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” In 2012, all of the work of OIC laid the groundwork to grant Palestine a non-member observer state status at the UN.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is an offshoot of the PLO, which was supposed to renounce all violence. Yet, The PLO Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel by means of, “Armed struggle.” Despite some statements by Yasser Arafat renouncing violence, which became empty lip-service, the PA has never renounced the charter. Likewise, Hamas is an acronym for the, “Islamic Resistance Movement.” The 2017 Hamas Charter reaffirms the call to destroy Israel. All of this means that both the PA and Hamas have charters which declare war on Israel. But it is not just words contained in their Charters – both groups also engage in acts of war, largely against innocent civilians.

The PA pays hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries to Palestinians who stab Jews. Meanwhile, Hamas is constantly firing rockets into Israel and instigating violent riots on the border. All of this means that the UN granted the Palestinians a non-member observer state status while they are waging war on an existing UN member. This is a clear case of two sets of standards: the UN established a principle that a new observer state can be admitted, even while it is actively waging war on an existing member – so long as it is Israel.

Sixth example of apartheid: The creation of eternal Palestinian refugees. There are only two organizations in the UN which deal with refugees. The first is the, “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),” which deals with all of the refugees in the world. The second is an organization which was created solely for the Arab refugees from The 1948 War, called the, “United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA).” The UNRWA website explains, “the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees.” According to the standard criterion produced by the UN, refugee status does not pass down from the parent to the children. However, UNRWA succeeded in creating a different criterion for one to be considered a refugee. The sole exception is a definition created for the Palestinians, which allows the descendants of the Arab refugees from The 1948 War to inherit refugee status from their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents. This is why the number of Palestinian “refugees” keeps growing by the millions. The UNRWA website explains, “Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.”

Clearly, it does not benefit the Palestinians to be turned into eternal refugees, instead the creation of a second criterion to be considered a refugee was done to harm Israel. If the Palestinians are defined as eternal refugees from Israel, then the Arab states can pressure Israel to grant all of their descendants citizenship forever. If Israel is pressured to grant millions of Palestinians citizenship, then it would transform Israel into a Palestinian state. Through UNRWA the UN has created a multi-billion dollar institution on the ground to transform the Palestinians into a living weapon against Israel.

Seventh example of apartheid: The singular condemnation of Israeli “settlements.” In 1967, Israel gained control of the West Bank in a defensive war. Since that time, Israeli citizens have moved into the area and are often referred to as, “settlers.” The movement of settlers into the West Bank has been brutally condemned by the UN for two reasons. First, because many claim that Jewish-Israelis moving into the West Bank will prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. Second, the supposed crime is a violation of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Allegedly, Israel is in violation of a prohibition which forbids its own citizens from moving into the occupied territory. The Geneva Convention states the, “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Eugene Kontorovich is a Professor of Law at George Mason University. He produced a comparison study of, “the international community’s treatment of settlers in all situations governed by the Geneva Conventions, to test the broad view of 49(6) advanced in the Israeli context against state practice regarding the rest of the world.” The comparison study found the following three points: 1) the movement of citizens into a territory that is occupied exists in every case, 2) the UN has not criticized this practice as violating the Geneva Convention 3) the sole exception is Israel, which has been condemned unceasingly.

Kontorovich writes, “Article 49(6), which prohibits what is colloquially known as settlements in occupied territory, is ubiquitously invoked in relation to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Golan Heights. Yet, the scope and meaning of the underlying Geneva Convention rule remains a mystery. No national or international criminal tribunal has ever applied the rule.” And the study, “finds that the growth of settler populations is a ubiquitous feature of long-term occupations.” But, “no international actor or body has described any of this activity—which has occurred in a wide variety of places, geopolitical contexts, and times—as a violation of Article 49(6).” The sole exception is Israel. The study, “has shown that, outside the context of Israel, Article 49(6) is not invoked by the international community in reaction to settlement enterprises in occupied territories.”

Israel is not just singled out, it is savagely condemned, “Legal discussions of Article 49(6), however, are almost invariably centered on the Israeli case, and do not examine its potential applicability elsewhere. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) (2016, VI–VII) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel.” In summary, the study found that the UN does not condemn the practice of citizens moving into an occupied territory, unless it is Israel. In addition, Jewish-Israelis moving into the West Bank does not prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. There is no reason why the Palestinian Authority cannot offer Jewish people citizenship in a future Palestinian State. Indirectly, this singular condemnation of Jewish people moving into the West Bank is a means to support the creation of a Judenrein Palestinian State.

Eighth example of apartheid: The UN has condemned Israel more times than all other countries combined. According to UN Watch, “From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86%).” Israel is about the size of the state of New Jersey. Is it possible to believe that Israel has committed more acts of evil than all other nations combined? No, of course not. The truth is that The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is made up of 57 Muslim member states, who relentlessly pass resolutions against Israel.

The endless attacks on Israel serve two political purposes. First, it helps to glue the Muslim states together. In 1920, The Ottoman Empire collapsed and quite a few of the Arabs states were formed in the aftermath. In 1945, The Arab League was founded. The truth is that the Arab states are not as closely allied as they pretend to be. There have been many conflicts between powerful families and wars over territory. In 1945, even before the creation of Israel, the Arab states organized a boycott against the Jewish settlements in the territory of the Mandate of Palestine to prevent them from creating a Jewish state. The declaration read, “Products of Palestinian Jews are to be considered undesirable in Arab countries.” The Arab states needed something to help bind them together, so they turned Israel into their arch enemy and the symbol of evil in the Middle East. Second, the Arab states have virtually no democratic freedoms. By forming committees to attack Israel, the Arab states are able to deflect attention away from their own human rights violations. Thus, the exorbitant number of resolutions condemning Israel is not because Israel actually commits so many crimes, but rather because the Arab states hatred of the Jews helps to bind them together and helps to distract attention away from their own crimes.

Clearly, these eight examples are sufficient to demonstrate that the UN has created a system of apartheid dehumanizing the Jewish people. The UN has granted the Arab states and the Palestinians permission to attack the Jewish people with no consequences. The solution is to undo the structure of apartheid that has already been created. Moral countries must challenge the institutional racism which has developed in the UN. Until these changes are made, the UN remains guilty of establishing a system of apartheid against the Jewish people.

About the Author
Daniel Swindell is a Zionist. He has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Missouri, and has studied in Yeshiva.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments