<a href="http://wrmea.org/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=10296:uni
ted-nations-report-from-palestine-to-western-sahara-double-standards-and-hypocri
sies&catid=363"> United Nations Report: From Palestine to Western Sahara, Double
Standards and Hypocrisies</a>

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

January/February 2011, Pages 27-28
United Nations Report
From Palestine to Western Sahara, Double Standards and Hypocrisies
By Ian Williams

It's time for the annual sorting out of the sheep from the goats at the United N
ations, and even without the benefit of WikiLeaks we can see on whom the U.S. an
d Israel have been leaning. In the yearly series of votes on Middle Eastern issu
es the "nay" votes have come from the U.S, Israel and Canadaâ which is torn between b
eing a province of Israel or the U.S. on this issueâ and a slightly variant assortmen
t of Pacific Islands, helped along by the biggest Pacific Island of all, Austral
ia, whose Labor government has mostly maintained the pro-Israel stance of its Co
nservative predecessor.
But then, Australia abstained on illegal Jerusalem settlements with Canada votin
g to express "grave concern"â but then again, Canada voted against the main resolutio
n on the two-state solution with Australia abstaining, so maybe they are colludi
ng in some bad cop, not-so-bad cop routine. Perhaps it's time for those Middle E
astern countries who buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Australian mut
ton to reconsider their purchases and persuade voters Down Under that their gove
rnment's policy does in fact have a price.
The UK seems to have maintained some principles and supported the resolutions in
defiance of Big Brother in Washington, except where the consensual EU positionâ enab
ling a few Israel and U.S. acolytes to hold the whole group hostageâ led the 50-plus
EU states and hangers on to abstain on issues like the Golan Heights.
Interestingly, in this minor epidemic of pandering, not one country spoke to def
end Israeli annexations or settlement building. Typically, for example, "Canada
remained concerned about the number of resolutions that singled out Israel, as w
ell as the disproportionate focus placed on the Middle East."
Bearing in mind the disproportionate amount of effort Ottawa spends genuflecting
to Canada's Israel lobby, this is almost amusing, but the various abstainers an
d naysayers used such excuses to explain away their betrayal of the principles o
f international law, when what they really meant was that they did not want to u
pset the American dog and its wagging Israeli tail.
The U.S. for its part was "disheartened to see unbalanced resolutions that faile
d to ask for the difficult steps required by both sides." Between the lines, tha
t echoed the call from the Israeli delegate Meron Reuben, who complained that th
e resolutions' effect was that "instead of working to bring the parties together
in meaningful negotiations and preparing the Palestinians to make the tough cho
ices that will be required to reach an agreement, this distinguished forum engag
es in the same ritual condemnation of Israel, feeding Palestinian notions of vic
timhood."
"Balance," of course, depends on where the pivot is placed. One suspects that Re
uben would not be happy with a Palestinian offer to withdraw its forces from Isr
aeli territory in return for a similar Israeli withdrawal.
Those coded phrases of "difficult steps" and "tough choices" are diplo-speak for
the victim paying blackmail to the thief in order to get a tiny portion of the
loot back.
Admittedly, one U.S. delegate claimed that Washington was "committed to working
with parties to achieve Arab-Israeli peace, including a two-state solution to th
e conflict. Through good faith negotiations, the Palestinian goal of an independ
ent state along 1967 lines, and a Jewish state with secure borders, could be rea
lized." One wonders how much devil there is in the details of "along 1967 lines,
" and whether the Obama administration has bothered to parse the phrase with the
Israeli government.
Equally disingenuously, "The United States saw no contradiction between support
of the Palestinians and support for Israelis. The United States had given an add
itional $150 million to the Palestinian Authority, for a total of $225 million f
or the year. In addition, the United States was the single largest donor to UNRW
A, with $237.8 million to date in 2010," according to the American diplomat.
Once again balance reared its ugly pivot. Any objective observer would notice so
me discrepancy between around half a billion for an impoverished and repressed p
eople, weigh it in the balance and find it wanting when compared with the billio
ns of dollars of direct aid and 40 years of veto protection from international a
ction for the high-tech, prosperous military power doing the repressing.
For a more balanced approach one can look at the report of the Human Rights Coun
cil's Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza Flotilla which hopes for "swift action
" by the government of Israel, because, it concludes, "this will go a long way t
o reversing the regrettable reputation which that country has for impunity and i
ntransigence in international affairs. It will also assist those who genuinely s
ympathize with their situation to support them without being stigmatized."
That is also an oblique message to the U.S., Canada, Australia and the assorted
Pacific atolls who uncritically support Israel, when, the fact-finding mission c
oncludes, "the conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel toward the fl
otilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated
levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unaccepta
ble level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security
or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and
international humanitarian law."
The mission based its findings in part on the autopsy reports on the slain Turksâ and
, lest it be forgotten, one American, who showed clear signs of being shot dead
at close range when already wounded and incapacitated. The problem is disproport
ionate violence from the Israeli military, not disproportionate attention from t
he United Nations.
Double Standards
There is indeed a point to be made about double standards, however. The Western
Sahara issue remains bogged down in the sand, with France vigorously backing Mor
occo, and London and Washington in varying degrees going along with it. At the U
.N. Decolonization Committee in New York, pro-Moroccan petitioners expressed the
ir concern about the Polisario Front's lack of commitment to human rights. They
rather had their case spoiled, however, by the Moroccan police assault on 20,000
encamped protesters near Layoune, the territory's capital. Former American dipl
omat Christopher Ross, the U.N.'s special representative, hosted talks in New Yo
rk which ended in their customarily inconclusive way.
Although the local partners are different, the Palestinian and Western Sahara is
sues are essentially similar. There is a body of international law and resolutio
ns which clearly state that the occupying power should stop occupying and allow
self-determination in the territories in question. In the case of Western Sahara
, the U.N. set up under Security Council mandate an operation to hold a referend
um of the Sahrawi population and Morocco refused to allow it to go ahead, even t
hough it had originally agreed.
Indeed, one could almost suspect that Israel's inspiration for its separation wa
ll, ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, was the great Sand Berm
that Morocco built across Western Sahara.
There might well be arguments about the democratic credentials of Polisario, as
indeed there are about Moroccan behavior in its own territory and the occupied t
erritory. But the core of the issue is the referendum that Rabat refuses to allo
w. All else is, as they say, commentaryâ although the French-initiated refusal to cou
ntenance a human rights monitoring component of MINURSO, the U.N. mission, is as
eloquent as it is shameful for France as it is for the U.S. and UK for their co
nnivance.
In the end, neither Morocco nor Israel is going to move without significant exte
rnal pressureâ which, as we know all too well, has not been forthcoming. Indeed, many
of those countries so vigorous in defense of international law and U.N. resolut
ions against Israel are tacitly supporting Morocco, and thus giving moral suppor
t to cries of double standards by Israel supporters. Perhaps fortunately, since
Israel and Morocco enjoy a long-standing relationship apart from the kingdom's o
ccasional pan-Arab posturing, Israel's supporters do not exploit the analogy mor
e.
Another indication that supporting Palestine in votes is not necessarily a quali
fication for saintliness is the vote on "Vilification of Religions," which for o
nce the West is right to oppose. Previously about "Defamation" of religions, and
conceived to pander to Islamist sentiments at home, this resolution ignores fre
edom of speech and thought, and also a basic point of theology. Drafted by, of c
ourse, Morocco, it calls for "adequate protection against acts of hatred, discri
mination, intimidation and coercion resulting from vilification of religions, an
d incitement to religious hatred in general."
Where human rights advocates have problems is that many of the countries that fa
il to guarantee human rights to individuals are pushing for legal protections fo
r abstractionsâ i.e., religions. Jews, Muslims and Christians each have different int
erpretations of their prophets. Is a Muslim in a European country "defaming" Chr
istianity by denying the divinity of Christ? Are Jews and Christians "defaming"
Islam by denying the role of the Prophet? Indeed are Protestants defaming Cathol
icism by refusing to accept the infallibility of the pope? These are dangerous q
uestions, not easily answered by either legislation or U.N. resolutions.
Existing laws and resolutions already offer protection to people who hold those
beliefs, no matter how absurd they might appear to others who do not share them,
but the form of the "Vilification" resolution certainly does more to fan the fl
ames of the very real Islamophobia in the West by implying Islamic intolerance.
The committee vote of 76 countries in favor, 64 against and 42 abstentions is na
rrowingâ with, of course, hypocrisy all around. China, Russia and North Korea all vot
ed for it, presumably with their fingers crossed behind their backs, while Israe
l, on the way to being a rabbinocracy, voted against. Canada and other Western c
ountries voted against, even though they have laws on their books against blasph
emyâ which, of course, tend to be devoted to protecting Christianity rather than Isla
m, which allows Islamic countries to score points.
Looking at this round up of hypocrisy and double standards returns one to the ba
sic and much ignored principle of human affairs: "Do unto others as you would ha
ve them to do you." It should be in the U.N. Charter.