Middle East

One of the issues in the wake of the labeling of Israeli products from Judea and Samaria ("The West Bank"), is the double standard of the European Union refusal to label products from occupied territories such as Cyprus (occupied by Turkey) and the Western Sahara (occupied by Morocco).

Now we read that Palestine Supports Morocco’s Sovereignty Over Western Sahara:
Palestine reiterated its support for Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara on Thursday at a diplomatic meeting between both countries, held in Rabat.


...USFP leader Driss Lachgar discussed the Moroccan Sahara with Abbas Zaki [Mahmoud Abbas], member of the Fatah Central Committee.

According to the daily, both leaders agreed that “the issue of the Moroccan Sahara and that of Palestine will now be at the center of their diplomatic cooperation.”Abbas meeting with King Mohammed VI of Morocco. Credit: Morocco World News
The United Nations does not recognize the Moroccan attempt to annex the Western Sahara and a report to the UN Security Council in 2006 noted that "no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty" (paragraph 37) -- a status that has not changed.

None of this stops Moroccan Minister El Maliki, who assures us that “There is no need to make any comparison between the Palestinian cause and the Moroccan Sahara issue.” -- though he doesn't quite have an explanation as to why no comparison should be made.

Neither the US, nor the EU nor any other democratic state supports Morocco's illegal occupation of the Western Sahara, nor its practice of settling Moroccan settlers in the occupied territory. But it is the hypocrisy of requiring separate labeling of "West Bank" products but not of Moroccan products from the occupied Western Sahara territory that allows this Palestinian hypocrisy to pass without blinking.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Morocco and Western Sahara and Occupation.

Stephen M. Flatow writes about the Palestinian Authority’s dirty little secret:
A Palestinian terrorist who escaped from an Israeli prison 25 years ago is now being given shelter in the PA’s consulate in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria.

The terrorist is Omar Nayef Zayed, who was convicted in 1986 of murdering an Israeli yeshiva student. He started a hunger strike in 1990, which resulted in the Israeli authorities admitting him to a hospital in Bethlehem. He escaped from the hospital, slipped out of the country, and made his way to Bulgaria.

Palestinian terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed  is being given shelter in the
Palestinian Authority consulate in Sofia, Bulgaria's capital. Credit: Facebook.
This of course is par for the course. Flatow points out that according to the Oslo II agreement [Annex IV, Article 2, Par.7(f)(1)] that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the PA signed in 1995, the PA is obligated to comply with every Israeli request for extradition.

Meanwhile, the expected excuses -- and outright deceptions -- are being utilized on Zayed's behalf.

Zayed's brother makes Omar Zayed's murder out to be a political act:
Zayed is "a political fighter who defended the Palestinian cause" and he "poses no danger" to Israel today, Hamza added.This is a theme that Samidoun, which calls itself the "Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network", goes to town on. Samidoun neglects to mention that Zayed is a murderer:
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network emphasizes that this is a political attack on former Palestinian prisoners. It should not be seen as an individual case only, but an attempt by the Israeli state to persecute former Palestinian prisoners and invade Palestinian communities throughout Europe. Like all Palestinian prisoners, Omar’s case is a political case and not a “criminal case.” Extraditions for political offenses are not legitimate and should be denied.Whatever excuses apologists for the terrorist Omar Nayef Zayed make, whatever emotional appeals these terrorist sympathizers make, the question still remains: Why it is that around the world and throughout history it is only the Palestinian Arabs who praise and celebrate murderers of unarmed civilians as freedom fighters.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Omar Nayef Zayed and Palestinian Terrorism.

Breitbart is one of those reporting that after his term as president is over, Obama has plans to become the next Secretary General of the UN. It seems though that the idea of Obama pursuing that goal is not nearly as newsworthy as the idea that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to stop him.

So the emphasis in the Breitbart story is Netanyahu Working to Block Obama Bid for U.N. Secretary-General:
Israel National News describes a Kuwaiti newspaper’s report about President Barack Obama’s post-presidential plans as “somewhat far-fetched,” but apparently plausible enough to bounce through publications around the world.

According to the Al Jarida report, President Obama wants to be appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the White House, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to thwart his ambitions.

Al Jarida has Netanyahu exclaiming, “Is it not enough that we have had to live through eight years of Obama’s rule, in which he ignored Israel? Now he wants to be in a position to cause us difficulty in the international arenas?”Putting aside the accuracy of the Al Jarida report, is Obama even eligible to become Secretary General of the UN?


Apparently, no citizen of one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) can become Secretary General.

The UN site does not seem to address this question.

Looking around the internet -- and this includes Wikipedia, it turns out that the main source for who is qualified for the position of Secretary General is not the UN website, but the PBS website:
Q. Who elects the Secretary-General?

A. The Security Council nominates a Secretary-General to the General Assembly which then votes to appoint the Council's choice. The Security Council is barred from nominating an individual that is from one of Security Council's five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, U.S.). (emphasis added)That is not 100% correct, since the very first Secretary General -- even before Trygve Lie -- was Gladwyn Jebb:
Hubert Miles Gladwyn Jebb, 1st Baron Gladwyn GCMG GCVO CB PC known as Gladwyn Jebb (25 April 1900 – 24 October 1996), was a prominent British civil servant, diplomat and politician as well as the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations for a little over three months. (emphasis added)So are members of the P5 barred or not?

Another non-UN website may actually be closer to the truth. According to a blog dedicated to the question Who Will Be The Next UN Secretary General:
In addition, informal rules often influence the selection process. The best known is that nationals of permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom or the United States - cannot be considered for the post, as such would invest an unwise amount of leverage over international decisions in one government, notwithstanding the statutory independence of the office. Less commonly known, and perhaps more questionable, is the informal requirement that candidates for UNSG must be fluent in English and French, which, while the dominant languages of international relations, are only two of the UN's six official languages. (emphasis added)The question then becomes whether an informal rule in practice would be stand in the way of Obama.

Of course, there is also the question of whether any countries would actually want Obama as Secretary General.

Finally, of course, does Obama really want the position?

I don't know.

But Obama does seem comfortable with the idea.

Are 2 terms as UN Secretary General in Obama's future? Credit: fox2now.com
Hat tip: LR, OC

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Obama and United Nations and Secretary General.

Fox News addresses the issue of media bias in its reporting of the Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis.

Watch:




-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Palestinian Terrorism.

So John Kerry sat down and had a conversation Professor Graham Allison
And I think you know what always perplexes me is, I mean, we’ve been through Oslo, Wye Plantation, Madrid, countless negotiations. Most people I talk to have a pretty damn good sense of exactly what has to be done and where it goes. It’s a question of making the judgments and having courage to go there. And so we’re not finished. We have another 16 months in this Administration, and I can assure you we’re going to stay engaged and continue to try to work through these issues, because there are options and there’s a better other side of the current conflict that we’re witnessing.But while Kerry informs us that he is one of those who know exactly what has to be done, and what peace should look like, one really has to wonder.

Keep in mind that Kerry is coming off an "understanding" with Iran that is based on a variety of unilateral concessions that the US and the West have made to Iran.


Is that the kind of deal that Kerry sees Israel making with Abbas?

After all, like Iran, Abbas is not known for keeping his agreements. Just recently, Abbas conveniently found the Oslo Agreement to be null and void -- after pocketing the gains.

The troubling thing is that when you think about it, there are some questions that need to be asked of Kerry about what seems to feel are relevant to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs -- and what isn't:

• Is terrorist group Hamas going to be part of this peace deal? If not, is Abbas really going to go ahead with this. And will Hamas really just sit back and watch?
  
  
• Speaking of Abbas, does Kerry's vision of a peace agreement really depend on Abbas, who is in the 11th year of his 4th year term as president of Palestine.
  
  
• And does peace really include a peace partner who names stadiums after terrorists who kill Israeli civilians?
  
  
• Under a peace agreement, will Abbas be required to stop spending millions on stipends for Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons?
  
  
• Can Kerry point to any sign that Abbas has actually encouraged peace with Israel during all these years -- that would be helpful, no?
  
  
• Even putting aside the current Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis, can Kerry point to any indication that the Arabs living in the West Bank want peace? Are there any polls that indicate a sizable majority view the idea favorably?
  
  
• As mentioned earlier, is Israel really supposed to make those hard choices Kerry talks about for an agreement with someone who arbitrarily chooses to abrogate the Oslo Agreement that helped bring him to power null and void?

Just What Does John Kerry's Idea of Israel-Palestine Peace Look Like?
 Credit: Business Insider
Is Kerry just going to rush -- once again -- into an agreement where there is no foundation or preparation to ensure its success?

Or was the Iran Deal just practice for another huge concession to the Islamists?



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Abbas and Iran.