"Revoking Israel’s UN Membership."

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/12/revoking-israels-un-membership.html

Excellent article written by two Swedes calling for the revocation of
Israel’s UN Membership. Snorre Lindquist is a Swedish Architect of,
among other things, the House of Culture in front of the Nativity
Church in Bethlehem on the West Bank. — Lasse Wilhelmson is a
commentator on the situation in the Middle East, and is a member of a
local government in Sweden for 23 years, four of which in an executive
position. Lasse Wilhelmson is of Jewish origin and an internet friend.
The other writer’s origin in no known by me but that fact should be
irrelevant.

Ed CorriganStockholm — The
Gaza Strip is now the largest concentration camp in the world. The
situation grows steadily more insufferable for the 1.5 million
Palestinians who live there. Deliveries of food, medicine and fuel are
made difficult or stopped altogether. Child malnutrition is increasing.
Water supplies and drainage have ceased to function. Children die for
lack of healthcare. Tunnels to Egypt, dug by hand, are the only
breathing space. Journalists and diplomats are denied entry. Israel is
planning more military efforts. The Palestinians in Gaza are now to be
starved into surrender and become an Egyptian problem.

The UN
should use the word apartheid in connection with Israel and consider
sanctions with the former South Africa serving as a model. Miguel
dةscoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly, conveyed this
message at a meeting on November 24th 2008 with the UN General
Secretary Ban Ki-moon present.

The 1976 Nobel peace prize
laureate, Mairead McGuire from Ireland, recently suggested a popular
movement demanding that the UN revoke Israel’s membership. The
international community now needs to put tangible pressure on Israel in
order to stop its war crimes.

Not once, during the past 60
years, has Israel shown any intention of living up to the requirements
stipulated by the UN, in connection with the country’s membership in
1948, namely that the Palestinians who had been evicted from their
homes should be allowed to return at the earliest possible opportunity.
Moreover, Israel holds the hardly flattering world record of ignoring
UN resolutions.

It can be questioned from the aspect of human
rights legislation whether Israel is a legitimate state. Established
practice between states usually requires borders that are legally
maintained and a constitution, neither of which Israel has. These
requirements are also named in the UN resolution (181) Partition Plan
for Palestine, approved by the General Assembly in November 1947. The
plan was accepted by the Zionists Jews in Palestine but rejected for
excellent reasons as unjust by the Arab states. Only decisions made by
the UN Security Council are mandatory. Later on, Israel unilaterally
laid claim to a considerably larger portion of land than that suggested
by the UN.

The eviction of eighty per cent of the Palestinians
who lived west of the 1947 armistice line, and Israel’s refusal to
allow them to return is the human rights argument for expelling Israel
from the UN. Not only has Israel played the Partition Plan false but
has, by its actions, thwarted the grounds – fragile from the start –
for its UN membership.

Israel makes use of various strategies to
achieve its goals, the same goals as for over a hundred years ago: As
few and as well controlled and weakened Palestinians as possible in
areas as small as possible between the Mediterranean and the River
Jordan. And to try and get acceptance worldwide for the theft of land
that is vital to the “state” that calls itself “Jewish and democratic”.
This obviously bears no similarity to a peace process.

Why does
nobody ever comment on the fact that Israel’s prime minister never
misses an opportunity to harp on about how important it is that the
rest of the world and the Palestinians recognise Israel, not as a
democratic country for all its citizens, but as a “Jewish state”?

What
would we have said if South Africa’s Prime Minister, in a similar way,
had demanded recognition of South Africa as a “white and democratic
state”, thus de facto accepting the racist apartheid system that
allowed non-whites to be classified as lesser human beings?

In
the article The end of Zionism, published in the Guardian on September
the 15th 2003 the Jewish dissident and former speaker of Knesset,
Avraham Burg wrote:

“Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central
pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out … We cannot keep a
Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think
ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be
democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as
Jew … The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly:
Jewish racism or democracy.”

No support can be found in The UN
recommendation concerning a Jewish and a Palestinian state for unequal
rights for the citizens of each country. Neither is there any
indication as to how a “Jewish” state could become Jewish. There is
support, however, for the intention that demographic conditions should
be held intact at partition. Interpreting into the text an intention
concerning characteristics of a “Jewish state” tailored to the ideology
of Zionism is wholly in contradiction with the text of the resolution.

Even
the Balfour Declaration, which entirely lacks human rights status,
notes that the Jewish national home in Palestine should in no way
encroach upon the rights of the Palestinians. Neither did US President
Truman recognise Israel as a Jewish state. On the contrary, he ruled
out precisely that formulation before making his decision to recognise
Israel.

Thus, the legitimacy of a “Jewish state” so urgently
sought by Israel lacks support in international documents that concern
the building of the state. Israel’s government is, of course, fully
aware of this. Why else would it keep on searching for this recognition?

The
UN should now embark on a boycott of the apartheid state of Israel and,
with the threat of expulsion from the UN, demand that Israel allows the
evicted Palestinian refugees to return in accordance with the UN
resolutions 194 and 3236.

With this done, meaningful peace talks
can proceed and various solutions be reached for co-habitation with
equal rights for all people between the Mediterranean and the River
Jordan. No such solution can be compatible with the preservation of a
Jewish apartheid state.

– Snorre Lindquist is a Swedish
Architect of, among other things, the House of Culture in front of the
Nativity Church in Bethlehem on the West Bank. — Lasse Wilhelmson is a
commentator on the situation in the Middle East, and is a member of a
local government in Sweden for 23 years, four of which in an executive
position

UN’s "Security Council" won’t revoke "israel’s" UN membership

http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/uns-security-council-wont

By Exilem

An article by Snorre Linquist and Lasse Wilhelmson calling for the
Revocation of “israel’s” membership in the UN, has been recently posted
here in PM, by Telma.
http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/revoking-israels-un-member…

Israel’s UN membership should have never happened in the first place,
given that they are in breach with every fundamental charter principles
of the organization. Today’s transnational web of corruption and
coercion does not exclude the UN, its members, and its core. This call
of revocation is therefor merely symbolic, but has the merit to raise
the question, and to arouse the dulled down mindless public opinion. It
is the right thing to do, but it simply "ain’t gonna happen".

a few excerpts of the UN CHARTER
(emphasis mine)

in Article 3, Chapter II, MEMBERSHIP:
" 1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states
which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in
the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out
these obligations."

in Article 5:
"A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may
be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of
membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the
Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council."

in Article 6:
"A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. "

in UN SECURITY COUNCIL’s Membership page:
"The Security Council is composed of five permanent members
— China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States
and ten non-permament members…"
— Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Lybian AJ, and Croatia. The 2
years term expires for Belgium, Indonesia, Italy, Panama and south
Africa, and will be replaced in January 2009 by Austria, Japan, Mexico
and Turkey

in RULES OF PROCEDURE:
"Each Council member has one vote. … Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power"

in Article 39, Chapter VII: Action with respect to
THREATS and BREACHES TO the PEACE, and ACTS of AGGRESSION
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations…"

The governments of USA, France and United Kingdom, that is 3 out of
the 5 permanent members of the "Security Council" (what a misnomer) are
literally political offsprings of the occupying, terrorizing,
war-mongering, aggressing entity called "israel", and will not
engage in "nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five
permanent members" to sanction their zionist owner, to the contrary,
they diligently vote to promote the zionist owner and given this
context, the following short Article 49 has chilling implications.

Article 49
"The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual
assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security
Council"

The worm is in the can.

We must face the reality, such propositions and reflections about UN
membership of "israel" are necessary, but they do not have the
detonating energy to free us from the growing internment walls
gradually suffocating humanity. The Zionist entity has hijacked the
system and we have the choice: either we create a tangible movement
destined to tear apart every arcane of their biocidal and ubiquitous
power web and we re-install a civilized system, OR we just give up and
offer our unconditional submission to the World Zionist Order
Organization

For me, the latter is not an option.