In the News

Ambassador Schifter Letter to the Editor, Washington Jewish Week

In “UNWRA’s corruption runs deep” (Editorials, Aug. 15), you have correctly pointed to the problem of UNRWA corruption and noted that it is not likely that this problem will be solved soon, given present conditions in the UN system.
A point needs to be added concerning the very reason for UNRWA’s continued existence. With strong support from the U.S., the UN created the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in 1949. As its name implies, UNRWA’s purpose was to provide relief and “works” for the Palestinian refugees. “Works” were construction projects that would help integrate the refugees into their new surroundings. Given the fact that they were in Arab territory in which the population was of the same ethnicity, spoke the same language, and adhered to the same religion, that should not have been difficult.
But integration, the process initiated by the UN for millions of other refugees, was not what the Palestinian refugees or their hosts wanted. They rejected the works programs that would lead to integration. UNRWA tried to make progress with resettlement programs, but failed.
By 1960 the UN officials in charge of UNRWA had given up on the goal of integration. UNRWA’s leading officials then made a fundamental change in the initial UNWRA goal. They moved to a deliberate program of keeping Palestinian refugees segregated, providing them with social and health services, and above all educational services. All these segregated services, but particularly the educational services, were designed to have the original refugees and their descendants to continue to consider themselves as Palestinians and claim what they call their “right of return”, their mass migration to Israel. The goal of that migration is to reduce the Jewish population of Israel to a minority and end the existence of the State of Israel. This claim of a “right of return”, supported by UNRWA, has been and remains the major obstacle to an Israeli/Palestinian peace. UNRWA engages in a continuing effort to use its school system to instill hatred of Israel in its students.
It is worth noting that the proposal submitted to the recent Bahrain Conference would call for a program of economic development in the Arab territory adjacent to Israel that would foster the integration, at long last, of the Palestinian “refugees”, 99% of whom are the descendants, including the great-grandchildren, of the original refugees. The Palestinian leadership has rejected that proposal.
Richard Schifter

From the Jewish Policy Center: The UN General Assembly as an Obstacle to Peace

Ambassador Richard Schifter

 

At the Bahrain Conference of last June, the United States recommended approval of a program that would invest $ 50 billion in the improvement of the economies of the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.  The major beneficiaries of this program would be the more than 5 million people living in the area whom the UN lists as “Palestinian refugees” and the more than 2 million Palestinian Arabs living in these five territories and states who are not on the refugee list.  A large proportion of these more than 7 million people is in desperate need of economic assistance.  Yet the Palestinian leadership rejected the U.S. proposal.  Why?

The answer is obvious.  Since the end of Israel’s war of independence in 1949, Palestinian leaders have emphasized a single goal: the end of the existence of the State of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state “from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.”  They believe that this result, the one-state solution, can be reached through the mass migration of about 5.5 million “Palestinian refugees” to Israel, which would result in the Jewish population being in a minority, and would then lead to the dissolution of the State of Israel.

What needs to be fully understood is that a better standard of living for their own people is not the foremost goal of the Palestinian leadership.  They are committed to an ideology which puts the extinction of the State of Israel at the top of their agenda.  If their own people have to suffer as a result, that is the price that they have to pay to attain the result desired by their leaders.  The Bahrain proposal was rejected because it provides help for people of Palestinian descent in the places where they now live.  It does not contemplate their mass migration to Israel.

Who are the Palestinian Refugees?

To answer this question, we need to go back to 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 181(II), which proposed the partitioning of the UN Mandate of Palestine, administered by Great Britain, to create a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a corpus separatum, consisting of Jerusalem and environs.  The effort to persuade the Arab leaders to negotiate a partitioning failed.  They had been heavily influenced by the anti-Jewish ideology of the Grand Mufti al-Husseini and were not prepared to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Near East.

It was in light of that fact that the British decided to end their administration of the Mandate of Palestine.  On May 15, 1948, as the British were getting ready to leave, the Jewish community in the Mandate created the State of Israel.  Israel was promptly attacked both by Arabs in the Mandate and by the neighboring Arab states.  At the very outset of the war, the message was sent by the Arab states to Arabs living in the areas of intense combat to move quickly to Arab territory.  Many followed that advice.  To be sure, there were also those who were expelled or forced to flee as a result of Israeli military operations.

By 1949, when the military conflict ended and armistice agreements were signed, an estimated 700,000 Arabs who had been residents of what had become the State of Israel found themselves in Arab territory.  Under the armistice agreements, the West Bank was administered by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt.  For many of the Arabs who fled from their homes in the new State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza were their places of refuge, but others had fled to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as well.

Most of the Arabs that fled from Israel in 1948 found places of refuge in countries in which the long-time residents were of the same ethnicity as the refugees, spoke the same language, and were of the same religion.  As a matter of fact, in many instances they were back in the country in which they or their ancestors had lived.

There were also Jewish refugees.  To start with, there were 17,000 from East Jerusalem and the West Bank, who had been expelled by Jordan.  They were quickly resettled in Israel.  But there were many more.  Beginning with the outbreak of the conflict with Israel, the Arab states compelled Jews to leave.  As distinct from the Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate, many of whom had been recent arrivals at the Palestinian Mandate from neighboring areas, the Jews in the Arab states descended from families that had been residents of these states for centuries.  The number of those expelled was about 800,000.  They soon found new homes, about 600,000 of them in Israel.  Many from Northwest Africa settled in France.  Others settled in the United States.

General Help for Refugees

The number of people displaced in the Middle East as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict did pose a humanitarian problem, but it was much smaller than the problem posed in Europe by the millions of Germans, Poles, and Ukrainians who were expelled from the areas in which they had made their homes for generations.  Germans were expelled from areas which had been predominantly German for many centuries.  Poles were expelled from East Galicia, Ukrainians from West Galicia.  All of these refugees were resettled among people of the same ethnicity.  There were also Jewish refugees who had survived the Holocaust and did not want to go back to the countries that they had come from.  They were resettled as well.

The United States had been in the lead at the United Nations in the post-World War II period to deal with the refugee problem.  Organizations with broad mandates were created.  It led to the establishment of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, created in 1950.  Before establishing the High Commissioner’s Office, the UNGA, acting in December 1949, adopted Res. 302(IV), which established the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  (It is today the largest organization within the UN system, with about 30,000 employees, 99% of whom are Palestinian.)

The initial assumption on the part of the major financial contributors to UNRWA, particularly the United States, was that the Agency would lay the economic foundation for the integration of the refugees into the countries in which they were living.  That is what was being done with the great majority of other refugees.  UNRWA, as its name indicates, was to provide not only relief, but “works,” namely economic opportunities in the places in which the refugees lived.  It would help them get resettled.

From 1951 to 1963 UNRWA was under the leadership of three Directors, all of them U.S. citizens.  Two of them had had experience working on the Marshall Plan.  The third had been an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.  They tried their best to use their experience to encourage economic development for the benefit of the refugees.  But as the years passed, it became clear that UNRWA would not be able to discharge its economic development mission.  The 1960 UNRWA Annual Report contains the following observation: “Ten years of UNRWA history bear out the fact that major development projects designed with the specific purpose of resettling refugees are unacceptable to refugees and host governments alike.  It is the Director’s opinion that major development projects in the Middle East should proceed independently of UNRWA and without direct reference to the resettlement of refugees.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The Role of the UN in Preventing an Israeli/Palestinian Peace Agreement

It was thus in 1960 that UNRWA, which had been created to make a major contribution to peace, gave up on that goal.  By 1960 it had become clear that Palestinian refugees could not be resettled in the countries in which most of them lived.  They were a unique exception from the generally successful resettlement effort that had been undertaken for the millions of refugees of the late 1940’s.  Given that realization, UNRWA gave up the goal of providing economic assistance and committed itself to the creation of a system of segregated governmental services for the Palestinian refugees.  These services were to be provided in the fields of education, health, relief and social services and were to be completely separated from the services provided to the fellow-Arab population among whom they lived.  That program of segregated services was the program to which the United States was the major contributor until 2018.

Special attention needs to be paid to UNRWA’s educational services.  They were designed to instill in “refugee” children early in life the basic concept that the State of Israel does not have a right to exist, that they had a “right of return” and needed to be ready to migrate to Israel and help end the State’s existence.

As the years passed, the people exercising influence over UNRWA became concerned that as the refugee population got older, it would start shrinking and thus become less of a demographic threat to Israel.  It was to deal with that issue that the term “Palestinian refugee” was re-defined in 1965 to include not only the children of refugees but the grandchildren along the paternal line as well.  In 1982, the demographic issue was considered once again, and the decision was made that Palestinian refugee status would be inherited along the paternal line in perpetuity.  That is how we got to the present 5.5 million.  (Mahmoud Abbas claims it is 6 million.)

The UN General Assembly Endorsement of the Claim of a “Right of Return”

Though the UNRWA leadership had by 1960 reached the position that its activities would be based on the proposition that Palestinian refugees should be helped to exercise a “right of return” to Israel, this had not been the UN system’s formal policy until 1974.  An entirely new developments at the UN took place in 1974 as the result of an informal and carefully hidden understanding reached between Fidel Castro of Cuba and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, under which they would work together to use the Non-Aligned Movement to create a majority coalition at the UNGA, a coalition that would pursue the goals of weakening the international position of the United States (Castro’s objective) and ending the existence of Israel (Qaddafi’s objective).

It was in keeping with that new approach that the UNGA, at its 1974 session, granted the Palestine Liberation Organization observer status, and then invited the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, to address the Assembly, which he did, at great length, on November 13, 1974.  In his speech he declared that “Zionism is an ideology that is imperialist, colonialist, racist.”  He also made it clear that he was committed to the one-state solution, the end of the State of Israel.  Nine days later the UNGA adopted Res. 3236 (XXIX), which declared it to be “the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted” and called for their return.  The reality is that the UNGA does not have the legal authority to establish a “right.”  The UN Charter provides in Article 10 that the UNGA may only “make recommendations.”  Thus Res. 3236 just pretends to establish a legal right.

In 1975 the UNGA, under its new de facto leadership, adopted the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, Res. 3379 (XXX), which attained a great deal of attention.  But it also adopted Res. 3375 (XXX), the resolution which established the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which did not receive the attention it deserved.  It was Res. 3375 which institutionalized within the UN system the commitment to end the existence of the State of Israel through the mass migration to Israel of all Palestinian refugees living in adjacent territory.  Although not legally binding, it has since 1974 served as a recommendation to the UN Security Council to accomplish that result.

To make sure that the Committee would be able to get its message out internationally, the UNGA established in 1977 the Special Unit on Palestinian Rights in the UN Secretariat, which was enlarged in 1979 to become the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN Secretariat.  The Division, consisting of close to twenty UN employees, has the function to get the pro-Palestinian message out to the international community in the name of the United Nations.

The Information Note on the UN website articulates explicitly the position CEIRPP and thus of DPR states with regard to the engagement of CEIRPP and thus of DPR: “The Committee considers that a durable solution to the Palestine refugee problem can only be achieved in the context of the inalienable right of return to the homes and property from which the Palestinians have been displaced over the past decades.”

The establishment of CEIRPP and DPR in 1975 made it clear that the UNGA was not committed to an effort to help Palestinian refugees but was committed to ending the existence of the State of Israel.  To make sure that this commitment would not be affected by a shrinking of the Palestinian refugee population through the death of the original refugees but would in effect be expanded, the original definition of Palestinian refugees, which included their children, was initially changed to include grandchildren, but was in 1982 expanded to cover descendants along the paternal line in perpetuity.  That is how we get to 5.5 million in 2019.

Most observers of international affairs are well aware of the fact that the United Nations system has for many years engaged in programs to defame and delegitimize one of its member states, the State of Israel.  But very few of them are aware that the UNGA has gone beyond that.  It has created and has maintained an apparatus that contravenes the efforts to attain an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement.  In violation of the basic principles of the UN Charter, the UNGA has endorsed the one-state solution.  That goal is to be achieved through the exercise of the so-called “right of return”, compelling Israel to accept the mass immigration of more than 5,500,000 Arabs of Palestinian ancestry, people now living in states and territories adjacent to Israel.  Their arrival in Israel would reduce the Jewish population to a minority and thus end the existence of the State.

How can the “Right of Return” Obstacle to Peace be Overcome?

The fact that the UNGA has created and continues to renew annually the mandates of the apparatus that seeks the end of a Jewish-majority state is not generally known, even by some of the officials responsible for votes cast by their countries in the UNGA.  But it is certainly well known to the Palestinian leadership.  How can these leaders be expected to engage in serious peace negotiations with Israel, when they are well aware of the fact that the UNGA has endorsed and continues to endorse annually the claim of a “right of return,” a claim to end Israel’s existence?

There is no doubt that there are member states of the UN that want to see an end to the existence of the State of Israel.  There are others that vote for CEIRPP and DPR, motivated by a desire to oppose the US position.  But there are many states whose heads of government would be surprised or even shocked if they were made aware of the fact that their country has voted Yes or has voted Abstain on resolutions that commit the UN to ending the existence of Israel through the mass migration to Israel of 5.5 million residents of the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

Adoption of CEIRPP and DPR resolutions require a two-thirds vote because the resolutions have budgetary consequences.  The two-thirds majority would not be there if heads of government that have no animus against Israel or the United States were fully aware of the fact that they are failing to oppose UN resolutions that seek to end the existence of Israel.  There may not even be a simple majority. That is why it is so critically important to get the message to these high-level decision-makers, state by state, that they are allowing the UN to place a major obstacle on the road to an Israeli/Palestinian peace and thus cause the UN to violate the very principles on which the UN was founded.  Given their friendly outlook toward Israel and the United States they need to give instructions for a change in their countries’ votes.

Amb. Richard Schifter chairs the American Jewish International Relations Institute and is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and special assistant on the National Security Council.  

 (Reprinted from the Jewish Policy Center Website)

Link: https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2019/08/13/the-un-general-assembly-as-an-obstacle-to-peace/

Ambassador Schifter in the Times of Israel: The Bahrain Conference and the “Right of Return”

 

Richard Schifter
Times of Israel
July 3, 2019

The Bahrain conference: What many have overlooked

The PA has no interest in the $50 billion of aid to Palestinians if it means giving up their claim of ‘right of return’

 

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner talks to the audience during the opening session of the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop in Manama, Bahrain, on June 25, 2019. (Bahrain News Agency via AP)

Discussions of last week’s Bahrain conference have stressed the point that the conference was designed to deal only with economic issues. It was to be followed by a conference that would be attended by representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority at which the political issues would be discussed and, hopefully, a peace agreement would be reached.

What appears to have been overlooked is that the Bahrain conference directly addressed the most important political issue in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, an issue that must be resolved if peace is to be attained: the Palestinian claim of a “right of return.” That is the claim that calls for the mass migration to Israel from the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria of about 40,000 surviving Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 Arab wars against Israel plus about 5,500,000 children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Palestinian refugees. All of them are now served by the UN Relief and Works Agency, which keeps them classified as Palestinian refugees, who are deliberately segregated from other members of the Arab communities among which they live. Their mass migration to Israel would end Israel as a majority-Jewish state and thus end the existence of the State of Israel. The claim of a “right of return” is thus designed to attain the long-term objective of the anti-Zionists: the end of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

The goal of the Bahrain conference was to make a major initial contribution to the cause of peace. That would be done by providing significant help for the economic development of the above-mentioned five political entities, West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.  New job opportunities would be created through investments, totaling $50 billion, that would help all their residents, including the “Palestinian refugees,” who would become fully integrated into the communities in which they have lived for all or most of their lives.  

Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues in the Palestinian Authority leadership have rejected the proposed assistance program. They have made it clear that they are not interested in a program designed to provide a better life for the millions of Palestinians who are classified as “refugees” if it means giving up their plan to end the existence of the majority-Jewish state through mass immigration.

On the other hand, it appears that the leadership of some Arab states and also some Palestinian businessmen are sympathetic to the Bahrain conference proposals and are indeed prepared to accept the existence of the State of Israel in the Middle East. The question that is open now is whether these supporters of economic progress will be prepared to assert themselves in the period ahead, help keep the basic concept of a two-state solution alive and ultimately lead to its implementation. We’ll have to wait a while and see whether the Bahrain conference does have such positive results.

What is clear, however, is that there is no point to entering into a discussion now of borders, the status of East Jerusalem, and other political issues, if the Palestinian Authority continues to insist on its claim of a “right of return.” It should be quite obvious that no government of Israel will sign a peace agreement that embodies a program to end Israel’s existence as a State.

It so happens that in the Camp David negotiations of 2000, in which Prime Minister Barak and PLO leader Arafat represented the two sides, President Clinton, in his “Clinton Parameters,” came up with a similar proposal for the “right of return” issue, a proposal which also called for a program of substantial financial assistance to the “Palestinian refugees.”  The Parameters made it clear that the proposed peace agreement would not compel Israel to accept Palestinian immigrants based on the “right of return,” but that President Clinton would help get the cooperation of a number of countries throughout the world that would accept Palestinian refugees as immigrants and that he would seek to raise the billions needed to resettle the migrants. As we know, Arafat did not accept the Clinton proposal, which would indeed have provided the two-state solution.

In analyzing the problem that we continue to face in any effort to attain an Israeli/Palestinian peace, we need to note that it was close to a hundred years ago that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini developed the ideology of most emphatic rejection of Jewish migration to the Palestinian Mandate. The State of Israel has now been in existence for 71 years, but the Palestinian leadership continues to adhere to al-Husseini’s ideology: no Jewish-majority state. As we in AJIRI have noted, this outlook, which rejects peace, is supported by the UN General Assembly through its annual enactment of the resolutions that extend the mandates of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) and the Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR). CEIRPP and DPR are committed to advancing the Palestinian claim of a “right of return.” How, indeed, can we expect the Palestinian leadership to give up a claim that the UNGA endorses year after year?

What the outcome of last week’s Bahrain conference demonstrates is that it is critically important for all relevant decision makers on the international scene to understand that to attain an Israeli/Palestinian peace we need a Palestinian leadership that accepts the existence of the State of Israel and gives up the idea of ending Israel’s existence through a large-scale population transfer. Votes against the CEIRPP and DPR would play an important role in achieving that result. That would be an important step forward in realizing the promise of the Bahrain conference.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Former Ambassador Richard Schifter, Chairman of the Board of the American Jewish International Relations Institute (AJIRI), has had a distinguished career as a lawyer in Washington, D.C. and in government. Since 2005 he has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of AJIRI.

AJIRI #63: More Information About UNRWA’s Role As An Obstacle to Peace

February 2019
After having provided funding for UNRWA ever since it was founded, thus for close to 70 years, the United States has recently ended its financial support of this UN agency.  It has for many years been crystal-clear that the work of UNRWA undermines efforts to conclude an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement.  Here, in a State Department report that has just been released, is more evidence of that reality.

Continue Reading …

AJIRI #62: Abbas’s Goal: The One State Solution

January 2019
On April 9, Israelis are expected to go to the polls to elect the next Knesset. After that election, we anticipate publication of the U.S proposal for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is generally expected that this “Deal of the Century” will call for a two-state solution. Possible provisions of the proposal that are now being widely discussed have focused on the status of East Jerusalem, the boundaries of the two states, and the security guarantees for Israel.

Continue Reading …

AJIRI #61: The Hamas Resolution

December 2018

On December 6, 2018 the UN General Assembly took a very unusual step: it voted on a pro-Israel resolution. What is more, a majority of the votes cast, 60.4%, were cast for the resolution. Those unfriendly to Israel have minimized this reality because the resolution did not get the support of 66.7%, a two-thirds majority, but that does not change the reality that the votes on the resolution were 87 for and 57 against. It is a significant step forward.
Continue Reading …

AJIRI #60: The UN’s Key Role in the Effort to Destroy the State of Israel

October 2018

Introduction
What is generally understood is that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the Jewish State by force. What is generally notunderstood is that the so-called “moderate” Palestinian leadership, stemming from the Fatah movement, has the same ultimate goal, an end to the State of Israel, to be attained through the “right of return.” What is also not generally understood is that the reason why these “moderate” leaders continue, after 70 years, to refuse to enter into meaningful peace negotiations is that the UN has provided full support for the effort to destroy the majority-Jewish state.

Continue Reading …

AJIRI #59: At Long Last: Recognition of West Jerusalem as Part of Israel and as Israel’s Capital

December 2017

The True Meaning of the White House Statement
On December 6, 2017, the White House released a statement on Jerusalem that had two principal features: (1) It noted that the government of Israel has been located in Jerusalem, its capital, for the past 70 years and that the United States would now recognize that fact.  (2) It also made clear that such recognition did not mean that the United States was “taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem.”
In other words, nothing contained in President Trump’s statement suggested that he intended to make a change in the U.S. position regarding the status of any part of Jerusalem outside of West Jerusalem.  The statement did no more than confirm, at long last, that West Jerusalem was part of Israel.

Continue Reading …

Jerusalem, Capital of Israel

Illustration on Jerusalem by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Illustration on Jerusalem by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

– – Sunday, December 24, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The current debate over Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in the aftermath of President Trump’s decision to recognize it as such, is sorely lacking in historical context.

In 1947, after Great Britain announced its intent to relinquish its mandate over Palestine (which dated from 1917), the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was formed to investigate and recommend a fair disposition for the territory, claimed by Jews and Arabs. The result was the U.N.Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, which recommended the division of Mandatory Palestine into three entities. To start, an Arab and a Jewish state were to be established. But the partition resolution went on to provide a special dispensation for the city of Jerusalem:

“The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum (separate body) under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.”

When the Arab states refused to accept the concept of the creation of a Jewish state and the British were about to end their engagement in the Mandate area, the Jewish Agency for Palestine established the State of Israel in May 1948. Overruling Secretary of State Marshall, President Truman decided to recognize the State of Israel within days following the establishment of the state.

Israel was immediately attacked by the neighboring Arab states, but won the war. The war came to an end in 1949 with the conclusion of armistice agreements between Israel and the Arab states which had attacked it. The armistice agreement concluded between Israel and Transjordan (now Jordan) resulted in the drawing of demarcation lines that allocated more land to Israel than had been recommended in UNGA Res. 181, including West Jerusalem.

After Israel had moved its capital to West Jerusalem, the State Department agreed to acceptance of the boundaries that enlarged Israel, except for the inclusion of West Jerusalem. It wanted to pursue the effort to establish the third entity recommended in the UNGA resolution: Jerusalem as a corpus separatum. It urged that the U.S. not recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel and not establish a U.S. Embassy there. The White House did not disagree with that recommendation.

In the years immediately following Israel’s war of independence, efforts were indeed undertaken by U.N.entities to establish Jerusalem as a corpus separatum. But the Arab states as well as Israel were opposed. By 1954 it was clear that the proposed third entity would not be established.

The idea had been overtaken by events. The city remained divided: West Jerusalem as part of Israel, East Jerusalem as part of Jordan. Efforts to create the corpus separatum were given up and West Jerusalemwas indeed considered part of Israel. U.S. Embassy personnel stationed in Tel Aviv would travel consistently to West Jerusalem for contact with the appropriate Israeli government agencies.

At that point it would have been logically and legally appropriate to recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel and move the U.S. Embassy there. But the Eisenhower administration, with John Foster Dulles as secretary of State, was greatly concerned about Soviet penetration of the Arab world and wanted to avoid a step that would antagonize the Arab states.It is thus the Cold War situation in 1954 that caused the United States to create an exception in the case of Israel to its worldwide policy regarding the location of U.S. Embassies, by maintaining an embassy in a city other than the country’s declared capital.

Thus the policy that has been followed for the past 63 years was based on the Cold War concerns of 1954 — now obviously no longer relevant. As the years passed, the original reason for this glaring anomaly appears to have been forgotten.

It is also worth noting in this context that in 1974 the United States established diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic (Communist East Germany). The German Democratic Republic (GDR), had been established in 1949 under the auspices of the Soviet Union. It consisted of what had been the Soviet Zone of Occupation of Germany and the Soviet Sector of Berlin.

Under an agreement reached between the Soviet Union and the Western powers, France, the U.K. and the U.S. in 1945, decisions regarding Berlin were to be made by consensus of the four occupying powers. The Western powers had not agreed to the incorporation of East Berlin into the GDR, but it was nevertheless incorporated into the GDR and was established as the capital of East Germany. When, in 1974, the U.S. established diplomatic relations with the GDR, the U.S. Embassy to the GDR was located in East Berlin, the capital of the GDR, even though we did not recognize East Berlin as a part of the GDR.

Mr. Trump’s official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was a recognition of fact, and the carrying out of a congressional mandate dating back to 1995 (not to mention the fulfillment of a campaign promise). The act of recognition does not determine what the ultimate boundaries of Jerusalem will be. It means simply that the United States recognizes that West Jerusalem is part of Israel. That reality has simply not been understood by those who have raised hackles and protests in Europe, in the Middle East, and elsewhere (though apparently not as much as had been feared).

What needs to be understood is that Mr. Trump’s action is not a special favor granted to the State of Israel. It is a matter of ending a policy of discriminating against the State of Israel, which has been the only country worldwide in which the U.S. Embassy is located in a city other than the country’s capital.

Richard Schifter, former deputy U.S. ambassador at the United Nations, is founder and chairman of the board of the American Jewish International Relations Institute.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

UN Anti-Israel Club

How to fix the UN’s anti-Israel club of dictators

How to fix the UN’s anti-Israel club of dictators

Forget about college basketball. It was March Madness this week at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This is a bracket where human rights abusers like China, Cuba, Pakistan, and Venezuela always advance to the next round unscathed while Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is sure to lose.

The UN created the Council in 2006 after abolishing its predecessor, partly for its anti-Israel bias.

The UNHRC has fared no better. Following two separate Hamas-Israel wars, the Council initiated commissions of inquiry that effectively presumed Israeli guilt. Similarly, the UNHRC’s special rapporteurs for “human rights in the Palestinian territories” have a mandate to investigate only “Israel’s violations,” to the exclusion of those perpetrated by Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority allegedly accused one of these rapporteurs, Richard Falk, of being a “partisan of Hamas.”

But, without a doubt, the most egregious manifestation of the UNHRC’s double standard for the Jewish state is its dedication of a standing agenda item to criticism of Israel.

Agenda Item Seven, the only standing item directed at a specific country, requires the examination of Israel’s human rights record at each of the Council’s three annual sessions. Most other issues of humanitarian concern are brought up under Agenda Item 4. Because of this skewed system, the Council has targeted Israel with more condemnatory country-specific resolutions than the rest of the world combined. When the Council voted on March 22-23, Israel was the target of censure in five separate resolutions, while flagrant human rights abusers North Korea (political prisons and crimes against humanity), Iran (funding terrorism and political prisoners) and Syria (mass atrocities and chemical weapons) only received four. Many other Council members with abysmal records of their own almost entirely avoided scrutiny.

There are signs, however, of a gathering backlash against such hypocrisy. Just last year, the UK announced that it was putting the UNHRC “on notice” for its abusive treatment of Israel, a call it reinforced this year. The last straw was the UNHRC’s criticism of Israel’s presence in the Golan Heights, coupled with its deafening silence on the Assad regime’s atrocities in Syria.

“Nowhere is the disproportionate focus on Israel starker and more absurd than in the case of today’s resolution on the occupation of Syria’s Golan,” read the UK statement.

Over the past few years, following America’s lead, most Western countries have refused to participate in the Agenda Item Seven debate, recognizing that it discriminates against Israel.

But the fouls against Israel continue nonetheless. In March 2016, the Council passed a resolution requesting that the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein of Jordan, “produce a database” of companies operating in Israeli-controlled areas. Potentially, the list may serve as an instruction manual for anti-Israel boycotts of Israel, and it will bear the United Nations’ imprimatur.

In January 2018, Prince Zeid released a report in which he said that 206 unnamed companies – 22 of which are American – have assisted Israel’s presence in the West Bank. The High Commissioner vowed to release the names at a later date and he has further set the stage for a boycott by releasing a report that falsely accuses Israeli settlements in the West Bank of constituting “war crimes.”

While treating Israel as a pariah, the Council recently offered a platform to Alireza Avaei, Iran’s Justice Minister, who has been sanctioned by the European Union for his role overseeing torture against pro-democracy dissidents. He and other serial human rights abusers scapegoat Israel, and ensure that the Council is so hyper-focused on the Jewish state that it cannot properly address humanitarian issues elsewhere.

As U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said, the UNHRC has become a “haven for dictators.” Their outsized role at the UNHRC has undermined the Council’s legitimacy.

The need to reform the Human Rights Council is painfully obvious. The UN should have a permanent body dedicated to the investigation and condemnation of the atrocities that remain disturbingly common. Israel should certainly not be exempt from criticism. Yet for as long as some of the world’s worst human rights abusers hold positions on the Council, many of the most egregious human rights violations will languish in darkness.

The first step toward improving the Council is open voting for membership by the UN General Assembly, instead of secret ballots. This would force every country that votes for serial rights abusers to face a measure of public accountability.

Next, there should be safeguards to prevent noncompetitive elections within certain regional groupings, which usually redound the benefit of dictators.

There should also be some basic standard of respect for human rights as a prerequisite to UNHRC membership. Currently, 14 of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council received Freedom House’s worst ranking of “Not Free.”

Once it has a more respectable membership, the UNHRC should remove all of its anti-Israel laws and mandates, starting with Agenda Item Seven.

Unless these changes are made, the dictators club will continue to protect its own while bashing the only democratic state in the Middle East. That is madness.

David May is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. Prior to joining FDD, David was a senior research analyst at AIPAC where he focused on Israeli-Palestinian issues and the United Nations Follow David on Twitter @DavidSamuelMayand FDD @FDD.