It was only yesterday when I heard Ms. Caroline Glick mention it, during the Europe-Israel panel debate at the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in Jerusalem, that I was made aware of such a Resolution.
Unlike UN General Assembly resolutions that are considered more matters of political expedience than matters of law, the UN Security Council resolutions are serious matters, matters that can lead to sanctions and even military response.
Under the terms of Resolution 1373, the UN Security Council “decided that all States should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts. The funds, financial assets and economic resources of those who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts and of persons and entities acting on behalf of terrorists should also be frozen without delay.
The Council also decided that States should prohibit their nationals or persons or entities in their territories from making funds, financial assets, economic resources, financial or other related services available to persons who commit or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts. States should also refrain from providing any form of support to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts; take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts; deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, commit terrorist acts and provide safe havens as well.”
Why, then, is this Resolution, unanimously accepted, still one of the best kept secrets around?
For if it is not a secret, then how come the world continues to funnel billions of dollars to terror entities such as Hamas? Why does the UN continue to embrace countries like Qatar, like Turkey that provide a safe haven to known terrorists and support organizations that facilitate terrorist groups? And why is it that no one talks about the obvious, that country after country is doing its best not to comply with binding International Law they find inconvenient?
One could assume that perhaps the fault rests with the language in which the Resolution is written which might lend a basis for misinterpreting or misunderstanding it, though the language is quite clear and comprehensive, or perhaps the voting abstention of some members could be an excuse, but there were none.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that in today’s world, the inconvenient truth dictates that such a Resolution continues to be kept in the drawer where it has been safely tucked for the last 13 years. Exposing it, enforcing it might undermine the status quo of a politically correct world run and guided by some fearful, spineless leaders who are terrified of ruffling the feathers of those very same entities against whom this Resolution has been so carefully crafted.
It is also the same dread of the inconvenient truth that has led the blind world to make up, as Ms. Glick further states in that debate, “imaginary international laws” that “require” it to sanction Jewish projects on Jewish land in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem.
George Orwell (“1984”) would laugh to see his thoughts reflected in the behavior of the International organization founded to promote peaceful resolution to international problems choosing to redefine everything to appease the world’s bullies, equating Jews trying to live in peace, building homes, with terrorists murderers launching 1000’s of rockets to kill Jewish civilians — In Orwell’s words that apply to our reality today “war is peace” “freedom is slavery” and Jews wanted to pray quietly at their holiest place on the planet is “aggression”.
The dilemma is, why do we spend millions of dollars each year supporting an organization that passes Resolutions but never takes the time to implement them yet makes up imaginary laws and spends millions of dollars on enforcing them?
I think I know the answer. I believe you, the readers, know it too.