Over 90 nations demand Israel lift sanctions on Palestinians

Israel must withdraw the sanctions it levied against the Palestinian Authority (PA) for seeking assistance from the world court, over 90 nations have declared in a signed statement.

“We express our deep concern regarding the Israeli government’s decision to impose punitive measures against the Palestinian people, leadership and civil society following the request by the General Assembly of an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice,” the nations said in the statement they signed.

They referenced the UN General Assembly vote to ask the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on whether Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was legal. The ICJ opinion will also cover Gaza, which is under Hamas control and east Jerusalem, to which Israel applied sovereignty in 1967.

The UN resolution passed with the support of 87 nations out of the 193-member General Assembly, 16 countries voted against it and 53 abstained.

But some of those countries which opposed the vote or abstained argued that it is wrong for Israel to punish the PA over the vote.

Among those that signed the text were 24 out of the 27 European Union nations. The only three EU countries that refrained from signing were Austria, Croatia and Hungary. Even countries that are enormously supportive of Israel in international forums such as the Czech Republic and Germany signed that statement.

“Regardless of each country’s position on the resolution, we rejected punitive measures in response to a request for an advisory opinion by the ICJ and more broadly in response to a General Assembly resolution and call for their immediate reversal,” the statement said.

“As member states of the UN, we reconfirm our unwavering support for the ICJ and international law as the cornerstone of our international order, as well as well as our commitment to multilateralism,” it added. 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also expressed his concerns over the sanctions imposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government which came into power at the end of last month, just as the UNGA vote was held. 

One of its first steps was to deduct from the tax fees it collects on behalf of the PA a sum equal to the amount of money the PA spends on monthly stipends to terrorists and their families.

It also removed NIS 139 million from those fees and gave them to Israeli victims of Palestinian terror. Other steps included halting all Palestinian development in Area C of the West Bank, which is under IDF military and civilian control and the denial of PA VIP cards.

Israel Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan dismissed the groundswell of global sentiment against the PA sanctions, explaining that the request for an ICJ advisory opinion was an act of political terrorism against the Jewish state.

“This is a meaningless declarative statement and every country that signed it only added fuel to the fire of Palestinian incitement and terror, and removed any chance of reconciliation.”

 

United States succumb to Israel pressure

Biden administration abstained, but did not reject a General Assembly resolution affirming the right of return for Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israel. In doing so, it broke with the voting pattern on Israel set by former US President Donald Trump in which all such texts received an automatic "no" vote.

Obama administration, however, had traditionally abstained from this particular text, which comes annually before the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

"This year, the United States returns to a position of abstention on the text 'Assistance to Palestine Refugees,'” American Deputy Ambassador Richard Mills told the UNGA's Fourth Committee late Tuesday afternoon.

He spoke as the committee gave initial approval to six anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian draft resolutions that will come up later this year at the UNGA plenum for a final vote.

Three of those texts affirmed the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which services 5.7 million Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

All three of those resolutions call for the right of return for Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israel or for their receipt of compensation for the property they lost when they fled their homes.

Out of the three, the resolution titled "assistance to Palestinian refugees" is considered to be the most benign. 

Canada similarly abstained on the text called assistance to the Palestinian people, while Australia supported it. The US and Canada joined Israel in rejecting the other two resolutions on UNRWA. Australia abstained on one of those and rejected the other.

The European Union supported all three UNRWA texts. Only Israel totally opposed the text "assistance to Palestinian refugees" which passed 160-1, with nine abstentions.

The other countries that abstained on the "assistance to Palestinian refugees" resolution were Cameron, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papa New Guinea and Uruguay.

The Trump administration had opposed UNRWA and cut US funding to the organization. Both the Trump administration and Israel have charged that textbooks used in the agency's schools are antisemitic and incite against Israel. 

They opposed the UNRWA policy of applying refugee status to the descendants of Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948; a move which they explain creates an ever-increasing population of refugees.

Prior to Tuesday's vote, an Israeli representative spoke out against UNRWA at the UNGA Fourth Committee meeting.

"We cannot stand idly by when a UN humanitarian agency promotes a political agenda under the guise of true assistance," the Israel representative said.

"UNRWA must be accountable for the hateful indoctrination of children in its classrooms. It must put an end to the spreading of antisemitic lies by its employees and it must show a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability," the Israeli representative said.

She added that UNRWAA resources and infrastructure must not be hijacked by Hamas in conducting acts of terror," she added.  

Israel has also opposed the right of return for Palestinians to sovereign Israel, a move which it argues would destroy the country's identity as the ethnic-national homeland for the Jewish people. It has explained that in the essence of a two-state resolution to the conflict, Palestinians would have a right of return solely to a Palestinian State, much like Jews would have a right of return solely to Israel.

The Biden administration, however, has restored US funding and support for UNRWA.

"As many members know, under President Biden, the United States announced it would restore its financial support to UNRWA, which we do believe is a vital lifeline to millions of Palestinians across the region," Mills told the UNGA. 

"Since April, the US government has provided more than US$318 million to UNRWA in Fiscal Year 2021, including critical support for education, health and social services benefiting millions of Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA," he said.

The US, he said, has noted that some changes were made to the text of the resolutions on the agency "that reflect our priorities in line with strengthening UNRWA," adding that "the United States will continue to work with UNRWA; work to strengthen the Agency’s accountability, its transparency, and its consistency with UN principles."

Mills called on UN member states to support the agency financially, noting that many of those who voted in favor of the three UNRWA resolutions were not willing to spend money on the organization.

"I would also like to take a moment to point out the overwhelming support from member states for these resolutions voted here today, compared with the relatively few member states that financially support UNRWA," he said. 

"In light of the Agency’s urgent shortfall, the United States urges member states to support UNRWA’s services for Palestinian refugees not only in word but in action – and to do so on an expedited basis," Mills said.

The resolutions were voted on in advance of a donor pledging conference for UNRWA scheduled to take place in Belgium on November 16.

Angry Americans Hysterical Reactions

After Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi virtually addressed the 76th United Nations General Assembly, many political analysts commented on the contents of his speech. However, what is interesting is that the authors of the JCPOA are crying over an empty coffin. 

To examine this issue, let’s review what the president told the UN General Assembly.

“Sanctions are the US new way of war with the nations of the world,” Raisi said at his speech. 

Is this a remark that anyone can object it? No. The fact is the United States has imposed crippling sanctions against Iran cannot be denied. Even the American or hardliner Israeli analysts admit this. As the Iranian president rightfully said, sanctions against the Iran started “not with my country’s nuclear program; they even predate the Islamic Revolution and go back to the year 1951 when oil nationalization went underway in Iran…”

The United States went too far in its illegal sanctions on Iran to the extent that strict financial sanctions even impeded the import of medicine and medical equipment to Iran at the time of the global Coronavirus pandemic. There is little doubt that the Americans committed medical terrorism against the Iranian people. Raisi also pointed to this fact in his speech.

“Sanctions, especially on medicine at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, are crimes against humanity,” he said.

He also emphasized, “I, on behalf of the Iranian nation and millions of refugees hosted by my country, would like to condemn the continued illegal US sanctions especially in the area of humanitarian items, and demand that this organized crime against humanity be recorded as a symbol and reality of the so-called American human rights.”

Soon after the speech, a network of analysts and commentators started bashing Raisi, as well as screaming over a revival of the JCPOA. Since Raisi administration took the power in early August, Iran started to patiently evaluate the situation to return to the negotiations table. In a phone call on 14th September 201 with former British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said that Iran is in the process of “consultations on how to continue the Vienna talks,. He reiterated to welcome negotiations that have tangible results and secure the rights and interests of the Iranian people.”   

This is what the Iranian president had previously touched on during first TV interview on 5th September.

“Negotiation is an option as a tool for diplomacy, but negotiation under pressure and threats is not acceptable at all,” Raisi insisted.

After Raisi’s speech, Ali Vaez, Director of Iran Project and Senior Advisor to the Crisis Group tweeted, “.@raisi_com’s speech at #UNGA was one of the most anti-American speeches I’ve heard from an Iranian president in years.” 

Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, replied to Vaez’s tweet, saying, “As harsh as @Ahmadinejad1956 but more coldly rational. Did you notice at the end, #Raisi said #Iran wanted 'large scale economic and political cooperation with all countries of the world? We need to remember, as well, that he is only the front man, not the decider.” 

Yet, the most predictable strategy was outlined by the CEO of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Mark Dubowitz.

He tweeted, “Raisi’s new negotiating team will ask for total sanctions relief and give less than the JCPOA. @USEnvoyIran @Rob_Malley will give them 97% and then pretend that they held the line and that there’s a “longer and stronger” deal to be had.”

It seems that the thinkers, who helped draft the JCPOA, don’t agree with the text anymore, as it ostensibly contradicts their desires. The plan is now clear. Bashing Raisi and his foreign policy team with every tool in order to write a “longer and stronger” deal to satisfy desires is not helpful at all. But what is really a longer and stronger deal? 

The United States has always been interested in dragging the Iranian missile program into the negotiations. For eight years, since the intensive negotiations started, Iran has made it crystal clear that its defensive capabilities are not up for negotiations. Yet, the United States is using various pressure tools to impose a deal on Iran. Iran has always reiterated that it will only go back to the original 2015 JCPOA text, if and only if the US verifiably lifts all sanctions. 

As for Raisi’s speech, he condemned US terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, asked for the lifting of all sanctions, and restated that Iran will return to the Vienna talks were intended to revitalize the nuclear deal.

If this is too harsh for the Crisis Group, then it shows that the JCPOA revival is not their concern. Had it been so, they would not have objected to a rational speech in which Raisi insisted on the need to lift sanctions. It is advised that the thinkers would not shed crocodile tears over the JCPOA revival. 

Can India take credit of Maldives election as President UN General Assembly?

This time, President of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has to be elected from the Asia-Pacific region. In the election, held on 7th June 2021, Abdullah Shahid, Foreign Minister of Maldives defeated his only rival, the former Afghan Foreign Minister, Dr. Zalmani Rassoul, by a wide margin, 143 to 48, in a total of 191 votes, with no abstentions. 

Afghanistan had held the post as back as in 1966-67.

The election of Shahid as the 76th President of UNGA could not have come at a more opportune time for the island nation. It must be a moment of glory for Maldives as its foreign minister wins the position of UNGA President. Shahid brings with him vast and varied experience as the Foreign Minister under two regimes— Presidents Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (2007-08) and now under President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, since 2018.

On his election India was prompt in taking credit saying, ‘from a larger neighborhood perspective, election of Shahid and elevation of Maldives in the international arena is a silent acknowledgement of the deployment of India’s soft power at the UN without being an all-important P-5 veto power, as yet. It is this kind of support that neighbors expect from India, given their own inherent inadequacies in terms of size’.

Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar was amongst the first to congratulate his counterpart Shahid. “Heartiest felicitations to Foreign Minister of Maldives Abdulla Shahid on his election as President for 76th UN General Assembly,” wrote Jaishankar in a twitter post. “This is a testimony as much to his own stature as to the standing of Maldives. We look forward to working with him to strengthen multilateralism and its much-needed reforms,” he said further.

India claims also to be the first nation to endorse Shahid’s candidacy as early as November last year. In Maldives on an official visit, Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla publicly reiterated the “commitment made by our External Affairs Minister earlier during the Virtual Meeting with Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid that India will support his candidature”. Secretary Shringla also said that with his “vast diplomatic experience and leadership qualities, Foreign Minister Shahid has the best credentials to preside over the General Assembly in these tumultuous times”.

But, it is on record that India-Maldives bilateral relations suffered recent setbacks despite months of multilateral cooperation on multiple developmental projects in the archipelago, under the Solih stewardship. The avoidable controversy over the Indian decision on tourism development, amongst others, in the remote island territory of Lakshadweep, is one irritant.