Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Brian McKeon acknowledges that under US and international law, the Biden administration cannot go ahead with the highly contentious move unless the Israeli government gives its consent first.
The building that used to house the US mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem | File photo: Oren Ben Hakoon
The United States cannot reopen its consulate for the Palestinians in
Jerusalem unless Israel gives its consent first, Deputy Secretary of
State for Management and Resources Brian McKeon said Wednesday.
McKeon appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and
was asked by Senator Bill Hagerty – who proposed a bill earlier in the
week to block the consulate from opening – about the move.
The United States cannot reopen its consulate for the Palestinians in Jerusalem unless Israel gives its consent first, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Brian McKeon said Wednesday.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
McKeon appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and was asked by Senator Bill Hagerty – who proposed a bill earlier in the week to block the consulate from opening – about the move.
"I just want to confirm something, on the record – is it your
understanding that under US and international law the government of
Israel would have to provide its affirmative consent before the United
States could open or reopen the US consulate to the Palestinians in
Jerusalem?" Hagerty asked McKeon.
"Or does the Biden administration believe it can move forward to
establish a second US mission in the Israel capital city of Jerusalem
without the consent of the government in Israel?"
McKeon responded: "Senator, that's my understanding – that we need
the consent of the host government to open any diplomatic facility."
The Biden administration has pledged to reopen the mission, garnering
criticism from senior Israeli officials and members of Congress who
argue it will harm Israeli sovereignty over the capital.
According to US sources involved in the matter, the Biden
administration will try to reach an agreement with Israel, and if it
does not succeed, it may take a unilateral step after the Knesset
approves the state budget, bringing stability to the coalition.
Israel has argued that if Washington is interested in opening a
diplomatic mission to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, it should do so
outside of the municipality's jurisdiction, for example, in the
neighborhood of Abu Dis. The US has rejected that proposal outright.
Former US President Donald Trump shuttered the mission in 2019. It
currently serves as the official residence of the US ambassador to
Israel.
The wording, as usual, is a tell. When officials feel the need to insert 'lawyerisms', you know that they're not being honest.
The short version is that Israel cracked down on 6 anti-Israel groups with ties to the PFLP terrorist group.
The Biden administration and its media condemned the move and
complained that Israel had not informed it beforehand. Israel however says that it did.
The Foreign Ministry insists it informed the US prior to
designating six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist organizations last week,
despite US State Department spokesman Ned Price saying otherwise.
Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for Strategic Affairs
Joshua Zarka on Monday said he had spoken with an official in the State
Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism ahead of the move.
The Biden admin is doubling down.
During a daily press briefing on Sunday, Price said: “We are
currently engaging our Israeli partners for more information regarding
the basis for these designations.”
“It is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate that we did not
receive a specific heads-up about any forthcoming designations,” he said
days after multiple Israeli government sources had said the opposite.
The wording, as usual, is a tell. When officials feel the need to
insert 'lawyerisms', you know that they're not being honest.
Price throws in to "the best of our knowledge" (a plausible
deniability classic) and "a specific heads-up" (an admission that sounds
like a denial).
What's he actually saying? The only reason to throw in "to the best
of our knowledge" is if you're lying or unsure about what you're saying
and you want an option for weaseling out of it later without being
called a liar. But then "a specific heads-up" is a virtual admission
that the Biden administration had been informed of something. Otherwise
why specify a "specific heads-up"?
What Price is really saying is that the Biden regime was informed,
but not in the way that it wishes it had been informed. Except that
instead of saying that, Price falsely accused Israel of not informing
it. That's sloppy, stupid, and typifies the way that the third term of
the Obama administration is repeating the same tactics of picking a
fight over a non-issue and then trying to make it look like Israel's
fault.
The obvious explanation after eight years of this is that the whole
point of this game is picking fights in order to fracture the
relationship with the Jewish State.
A stand-up guy for the mob that sees the Constitution as an obstacle to their power grab.
Attorney General Merrick Garland yesterday demonstrated that he is
unfit for office as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, much
less as a justice of the Supreme Court. Whatever reservations you may
have about Mitch McConnell, be grateful that kept this hack off the
Supreme Court.
Garland basically stonewalled on all the
difficult questions that he faced. He defended his now-notorious memo to
the FBI, written in response (in 4 days!) to a letter from the National
School Boards Association, even as GOP senators repeatedly pointed out
that the NSBA now has apologized for it.
No apologies were
forthcoming from Garland. Nor were yes or no answers to questions posed
to him by Republicans who wanted straight answers. A number of times, he
used the “I can’t remember” or “I didn’t know” dodge.
Good
example is this brief (under 4 minutes) interaction with Senator Tom
Cotton, in which he defended the letter and failed to answer the basic
point of why he called for the National Security Division of the FBI
(which handles terrorism) to investigate those who complain about school
boards.
COTTON: “All right. All right. Judge, you’ve repeatedly — you’ve
repeatedly dissembled this morning about that directive. For instance
about The National security division. Chuck Grassley asked you a very
simple question why you would sic The National security division of the
Department of Justice on parents? John Cornyn asked you the same thing.
You said it was in your October 4th memorandum, it was in another
office’s memorandum. It wasn’t another office’s memorandum, judge, it
was in a press release from your office. Right here in front of me,
October 4th 2021 for immediate release you’re going to credit task force
hat include The National security division. What on earth does The
National security division have to do with parents who are expressing
disagreements at school boards?”
GARLAND: “Nothing in this memorandum or any memorandum is about parents
expressing disagreements with their school boards. The memorandum makes
clear that parents are entitled and protected by the First Amendment.
Vigorous debates, we don’t — the Justice Department is not interested in
that question at all.” [crosstalk]
COTTON: “OK. So even in that case, what is The National security
division, judge? These are people that are supposed to be chasing
jihadist and Chinese spies. What does The National security division
have to do with parents at school boards?”
GARLAND: “This is not, again, about parents at school boards, it’s about the threats of violence.”
COTTON: “OK. Let me — let me turn to that because you’ve said that
phrase repeatedly throughout the morning, threats, violence and threats
of violence, violence and threats of violence.”
GARLAND: “Yeah.”
COTTON: “We have heard it a dozen times this morning. As Senator Lee
pointed out the very first line in your October 4th memorandum refers to
harassment and intimidation. Why do you continue to dissemble in front
of this commitee that you’re only talking about violence and threats of
violence when your memo says harassment and intimidation?”
GARLAND: “Senator, I said in my testimony that it involved other kinds
of criminal conduct and the — and I explained to Senator Lee that the
statutory definitions of those terms and the Constitutional definitions
of the terms involve threats of violence.” COTTON: “OK. Let’s look at
one of the statutes you cited.”
GARLAND: “Yeah.”
COTTON: “Section 223.”
GARLAND: “Yeah.”
COTTON: “That statute covers the use of not just phones but
telecommunications devices to annoy — to annoy someone. So, are you
going to sic your U.S. attorneys and the FBI on a parents group if they
post on Facebook something that annoys a school board member, judge?”
GARLAND: “Well, the answer to that is no. And the provision that I was
particularly drawing to his attention was 2261 a wich was to engage —“
COTTON: “I wasn’t talking about 2261 a. I know you mentioned that. You also mentioned 223, that’s what I mentioned.”
GARLAND: “Yeah. But the —“ [crosstalk]
COTTON: “Judge you also told — you also told Senator Klobuchar that this memorandum was about meetings and coordination.”
GARLAND: “Yeah.”
COTTON: “Meetings and coordination.”
GARLAND: “Yeah.”
COTTON: “What I have in my hand right here, that I’ll submit to the
record, a letter from one of your U.S. attorneys to all of the county
attorneys to the attorney general to all sheriffs, to the school board
association of his state in which he talks about federal investigation
and prosecution. It’s not about meetings, it’s not about coordinations,
it’s about federal investigation and prosecution.”
GARLAND: “I —“
COTTON: “Did — did you direct your U.S. attorneys to issue such a letter?”
GARLAND: “I did not. I have not seen that letter. My —“ [crosstalk]
COTTON: “It’s got three pages. It’s got three pages —“
GARLAND: “My memorandum —“
COTTON: “— of spreadsheet about all the federal crimes that a — that a
parent can be charged with, to include the one you cited. Did — did —“
GARLAND: “My memorandum —“
COTTON: “Did main justice make this spreadsheet, judge?”
GARLAND: “I don’t have any idea. My memorandum speaks specifically about
setting up meetings and I’ll just read it again, convene meetings —“
COTTON: “Judge, we — we’ve all read your memorandum.”
GARLAND: “Then you know what I —“
COTTON: “We’ve also heard you dissemble about your memorandum.”
Garland looked old and sometimes his
voice shook a little, but he was basically unflappable, as if he knew
that he could never be impeached, and he was doing the dirtywork that
the establishment wants.
The highlights for me were the denunciations he received from several Republican senators.
Here is Josh Hawley, who was particularly impressive:
Sen. Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) to AG Merrick Garland at Wednesday's hearing: "You have weaponized the FBI and the DOJ... It's wrong, it's unprecedented to my knowledge in the history of this country, and I call on you to resign." pic.twitter.com/y1r8oIbOPs
Sami Gemayel, head of the Lebanese Kataeb Party: "Are you ready now to face the truth?"
Hamas and PIJ, it seems, want
to continue receiving funds and weapons from Iran, but they do not want
to be seen by Arabs and Muslims as mercenaries serving Iran's interests
in the Middle East.
Hamas and PIJ want the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs and
Muslims to believe that their only goal is to "liberate all of
Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea" -- a
euphemism for driving the Jews out of Israel and replacing it with an
Islamist state.
That is most likely why both Palestinian terror groups were quick
to issue statements denying that their main goal is to defend Iran and
serve its interests in the Middle East.
"Take your armies and go with them back to Iran, where you can
fight your battles away from the peoples you occupy to achieve your
agendas," said Sami Gemayel, head of the Lebanese Kataeb Party. He also
criticized the failure of Lebanese leaders to respond to the admission
that Hezbollah was created to serve Iran, and not Lebanon: "Are you
ready now to face the truth?"
The Iranian commander's [Maj. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid's]
statements coincide with the Biden administration's delusional
commitment to the fiction that the US will somehow convince Iran to
abandon its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
While the Biden administration is talking about "diplomacy" as
the best way to rein in Iran's nuclear program, the mullahs are
preparing for war and advancing their scheme to annihilate Israel and,
with the help of their six "armies," occupy still more Arab countries.
Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it seems, want to continue receiving
funds and weapons from Iran, but they do not want to be seen by Arabs
and Muslims as mercenaries serving Iran's interests in the Middle East.
Pictured: Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists parade with Bader 3
rockets in Gaza City, on May 29, 2021. (Photo by Thomas Coex/AFP via
Getty Images)
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) are embarrassed: Iran just admitted that both of those terrorist groups serve as mercenaries for the mullahs in Tehran.
For Hamas and PIJ, the admission is yet another sign that the truth
can be painful and inconvenient, especially when it comes from a major
ally such as Iran.
Recently, Maj. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid, Commander of Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, stated that his country has armies that operate outside of Iran.
Rashid was referring to Iranian-backed groups such as Hamas, PIJ,
Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, the Syrian army and the Popular
Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and other militias in Iraq and Syria. These
groups, he said, "have ideological tendencies" with the mission to defend Iran.
Rashid pointed out that the former commander of Iran's Quds Force, Gen. Qasem Soleimani, said three months before his death that he had "organized six armies outside the territory of Iran."
Soleimani, who was assassinated on January 3, 2020, in a US drone
strike near Baghdad International Airport, had been in charge of Iran's
extraterritorial and clandestine military operations.
After his assassination, Hamas and PIJ revealed that Soleimani had
been responsible for providing the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with
many types of weapons to assist them in their war against Israel.
Hamas official Osama Hamdan, for instance, was quoted earlier this year as saying that his group had "deep relations" with Soleimani, who sent Russian Kornet anti-tank guided missiles to the Gaza Strip.
Hamas leader
Mahmoud Zahar reported in December 2020 that during their first meeting
in 2006, Soleimani gave him suitcases filled with $22 million in cash.
PIJ secretary-general Ziyad al-Nakhalah revealed that Soleimani had sent 10 ships loaded with weapons, including long-range missiles, to the Gaza Strip.
Rashid, the commander who disclosed the connection between the terror groups and Iran's six "armies," claimed that the US and Israel are angry and concerned about his country's growing regional power.
The "belligerent American and Zionist regime's forces are angry about
the extreme power of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region," he said.
He added that Iran has indeed bonded with some nations and governments,
"creating regional powers and religious-popular powers," according to
the Iranian Mehr News Agency.
These groups, Rashid said, "represent a deterrent force for Iran and are ready to defend it against any foreign aggressor."
In short, the Iranian commander is threatening that his country will
unleash its six "armies" against the US and Israel in any future war or
military confrontation.
It is no secret that Hamas and PIJ have long been funded and armed by Iran. The leaders of the two groups have even boasted of their ties with Iran, especially Tehran's support for the jihad (holy war) to eliminate Israel.
Hamas and PIJ, however, do not like to be portrayed as puppets or
proxies of Iran, which continues to meddle in the internal affairs of a
number of Arab countries, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Hamas and PIJ, it seems, want to continue receiving funds and weapons
from Iran, but they do not want to be seen by Arabs and Muslims as
mercenaries serving Iran's interests in the Middle East.
Apparently, Hamas and PIJ are concerned that Rashid's statements
could harm their relations with Arab countries that already feel
threatened by Iran's ongoing attempts to destabilize their security and
stability.
Hamas and PIJ want the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs and
Muslims to believe that their only goal is to "liberate all of
Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea" -- a
euphemism for driving the Jews out of Israel and replacing it with an
Islamist state.
That is most likely why both Palestinian terror groups were quick to
issue statements denying that their main goal is to defend Iran and
serve its interests in the Middle East.
"The resistance of the Palestinian people has existed
since the establishment of the Zionist project and its occupation of
Palestine, and it is not linked to any other goal. The resistance
forces, including Iran, stand together against the Zionist enemy and its
allies."
Echoing a similar position, Hamas
thanked Iran for its longtime support for the jihad to destroy Israel.
Hamas stated that this was the only "battle" it wished to be involved
in, and hinted that it was not created to defend Iran. According to a
statement issued by the terror group:
"[Hamas] affirms the depth of the relationship with the
Islamic Republic of Iran, and its appreciation and thanks to it as one
of the most prominent supporters of the resistance project in Palestine,
and confirms that this support and this relationship is in the context
of our battle as a nation against the occupation Zionism, and not in the
context of any other battles."
In Lebanon, a country effectively controlled Hezbollah, some
politicians reacted with fury to Rashid's talk about the six "armies."
"Take your armies and go with them back to Iran, where you can fight
your battles away from the peoples you occupy to achieve your agendas," said
Sami Gemayel, head of the Lebanese Kataeb Party. He also criticized the
failure of Lebanese leaders to respond to the admission that Hezbollah
was created to serve Iran, and not Lebanon: "Are you ready now to face
the truth? Your silence is a great betrayal."
Some Arab analysts
believe that, regarding the Iranian commander's talk about Tehran's six
armies, particularly two, Hamas and PIJ, aim to thwart efforts by Egypt
to reach a long-term ceasefire between Palestinian groups and Israel.
Iran seeks to demonstrate to the Egyptians and other international
parties that Tehran is a major player in the Palestinian arena,
especially the Gaza Strip, and that it is fully capable of foiling any
deal that would stop terror attacks against Israel.
The Iranian commander's statements coincide with the Biden
administration's delusional commitment to the fiction that the US will
somehow convince Iran to abandon its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
While the Biden administration is talking
about "diplomacy" as the best way to rein in Iran's nuclear program,
the mullahs are preparing for war and advancing their scheme to
annihilate Israel and, with the help of their six "armies," to occupy
still more Arab countries.
The Jewish groups that failed to fight campus anti-Semitism are about to live under it.
When Sunrise Movement DC issued its ultimatum that either the Jews
had to be kicked out or it would boycott a D.C. statehood rally, it was a
familiar purity test. And, like most purity tests, was about testing a
willingness to hate people and endorse a new extremist position on
demand.
Purity tests that have no constructive purpose except to undermine
and oust a leadership that is insufficiently radical have become
commonplace in the Reign of Terror era of American politics.
When Democrats adopt socialism, endorse the elimination of the
police, tear down the statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln,
champion critical race theory, and insist that there’s no such thing as
men and women, it’s as the result of an escalating series of purity
tests.
Hating Jews is just the latest progressive purity test.
Sunrise DC declared that it would not participate in events with
what it falsely claimed were Zionist groups, but were actually, mostly
fellow leftists who hate Israel as much as they do.
The National Council of Jewish Women,
one of the three groups singled out by Sunrise DC, had supported or
allied with Linda Sarsour, Peter Beinart, and Rep. Ilhan Omar. The NCJW
had gone as far out of its way to align with the Hamas caucus as it was
possible without actually turning into an anti-Israel protest group.
Revealingly, nothing it had done was good enough.
It never is.
Why beat up on Sarsour and Omar’s pals? Sunrise DC was actually
imposing an anti-Semitism purity test on the Declaration for American
Democracy, a pro-election rigging coalition. And true to form, its
ultimatum was met with an uncomfortable refusal by other leftist groups
and politicians to either condemn anti-Semitism or condemn the Jews. The
purity test had succeeded.
Black Lives Matter D.C. swiftly jumped in to declare that Sunrise
D.C's "statement wasn't anti-Semitic, no matter how many times
oppressors want to repeat it." This was as much a threat to any leftist,
prog, or liberal who might want to stand up to anti-Semitism, as it was
to Jews. Fail the anti-Semitism purity test and Black Lives Matter will
damn you as an oppressor.
Even before the BLM threat, the message had been received. And the outcome noted.
The same Democrat establishment that tossed away American history,
including its own, opposition to racism, support for women’s rights, and
dozens of other things that it used to claim were principles, but
actually turned out to be mere shibboleths, was ready to throw Jews on
the bonfire of its convictions. Not that it should have surprised anyone
except Jewish leftists.
The anti-Semitism purity test was inevitable based on the history of
the last two centuries and a much more recent history of modern
institutional anti-Semitism at colleges and universities.
Sunrise DC and BLM DC were running the same play that their members
had likely taken part in on college campuses where Jewish students are
routinely ousted from student government and campus positions on the
pretext that they must be Zionists. Like safe spaces and pronoun police,
what happens on campus doesn’t stay on campus. Only now the entire
civic space is playing the role of the helpless university
administrators who don’t want to offend the radicals.
The leap of these anti-Semitic purges from the campus to major
leftist advocacy groups foreshadows the next stage of the leap when they
become a fundamental reality of public life in the institutions,
private and public, controlled by the new generation of identity
politics leftists.
Hating Jews, under the putative guise of opposing Zionism, is about
to become a core progressive value. And those values have become the
moral code of the ruling class.
The Jewish groups that failed to fight campus anti-Semitism are about to live under it.
A movement like this is not just the product of a few activists with
a social media account. Nor is the evolution of the anti-Semitism
purity test a tantrum being thrown by a few obscure groups.
When you follow the money, it becomes all too obvious what is really taking place here.
The Sunrise Movement is funded by George Soros and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among others. Soros and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
are the premier funders of the anti-Israel movement in America. It’s
unlikely that the Sunrise Movement, an environmental group that
previously showed little interest in Israel, suddenly decided to boycott
a completely unrelated rally because organizations with the “J” word in
their name were going to be present.
Likewise, it’s implausible that the Movement for Black Lives, a BLM
umbrella group, launched its support for BDS and opposition to the
Jewish State, for reasons unrelated to its close ties to the Ford
Foundation whose own funding of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activities
are legendary.
The rise of what some have called a new anti-Semitism was not simply
an activist phenomenon. Nor is it especially clear that there is an
authentic grassroots leftist movement that can be separated from the
billionaire donors and foundations who finance the groups that fund it.
Much as Soviet front groups couldn’t be properly detached from the Old
Left, the foundations that serve a similar role can’t be detached from
the New Left. Tracing the money is difficult enough, but determining
when the foundations fund ideas or originate them can be all but
impossible.
What is clearer is that leftist anti-Semitism is a top-down, not a bottom-up, phenomenon.
American Jews have tried to convince themselves that individual
incidents, first on campuses and then in the streets, violence and
vandalism under the guise of political correctness, did not make a
pattern. They have gone on trying to ignore these “random events” while
refusing to connect the dots, and trying to silence those who were
connecting the dots for them.
And when they finally do connect the dots, they’re eager to blame Israel, not the anti-Semites.
But the Left was purging Jews before there was a modern State of
Israel on the grounds that they were reactionaries, bourgeois,
cosmopolitans, or any number of similar accusations.
Zionism is just the latest politically correct excuse for hating Jews. And it’s not the only one.
The National Council of Jewish Women,
much like the anti-Israel activists of the Religious Action Center of
the Reform movement, might wonder why they were targeted. If they had
any sense of history, including that of their own, they would know that
the whole point of purity tests is to reduce the base to mindless
radicalism by convincing them to embrace what they once knew to be
wrong. That includes convincing people to hate others and to hate
themselves.
Each purity test passed destroys the morals, principles, and basic
decency of human beings. It’s how normal people turn into the howling
mobs we read about in history books or watch in historical newsreels.
“What kind of people could do that?” we wonder.
The answer is all around us.
Compelling people who used to be Democrats, then liberals, then
progressives, and finally dogmatic leftists to jump through one more
hoop makes them more willing to do anything.
And if there’s anything that history teaches about the Left, from
Stalin to Mao, from Che to Pol Pot, from Kim Jong-Il to Mengistu there
will come a time when ordinary people will indeed be expected to do
“anything”, whether it’s to kill or to be killed in the name of the
revolution.
Anti-Semitism is just one more stop on the extremist expressway.
Like critical race theory and much of the rest of identity politics, it
divides people into those who deserve to be beaten and those who deserve
to do the beating to distract everyone from the fact that the leftist
ideology of victims and oppressors is really about creating plenty more
of both as grist for its political mill.
The Sunrise Movement claims that the planet is on the verge of
destruction and Black Lives Matter insists that the greatest threat to
black people are police officers, both are absurd lies, but like
anti-Semitism they’re really weaponized distractions for a massive power
grab.
Meanwhile the same American Jewish establishment that was convinced
that the answer to anti-Semitism was social justice can’t help but
double down on it even as it is becoming inescapably obvious that social
justice isn’t the answer to anti-Semitism: it is anti-Semitism.
Organizations like NCJW or RAC embrace the extreme margins of the
Left and are baffled when the anti-Semitism from those margins not only
intensifies, but burns hotter than ever. The purity tests intensify with
each concession: each willingness to embrace Sarsour, Omar, and
whatever leftist social justice bigot follows on their heels only leads
to worse hatred.
The leftist anti-Semitism that began on college campuses is defining a leftist America.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.
Pedophiles and rapists benefit from Biden’s new “gender equity” push to eliminate bail.
Earlier this year, Frankie Harris, 38, a vicious criminal attacked a
64-year-old woman in Harlem from behind, strangled her for three
minutes, and then pulled her to the ground and raped her.
Then he left her in a pool of her own blood. When the police caught him, he claimed it was “consensual”.
His victim died after spending a week in a coma.
The monster who attacked her (pictured above) had been set loose twice
after previous attacks that same year, including forcible touching and
sex abuse, and was sent into supervised release programs, instead of
being safely locked up because New York Democrats had eliminated “cash
bail”.
The pro-crime program of eliminating bail protections has led to a wave of assaults on women.
While New York City judges have released rapists without bail, including an illegal alien child rapist,
it’s become the new normal around the country where the combination of
pro-crime “criminal justice reform” and Soros DAs has effectively
dismantled the criminal justice system.
Now Joe Biden, who has been accused of sexual assault by a former
aide, claims that he wants to “help” women by ending cash bail and
setting countless rapists loose to prey on women.
Biden had run on a plan to free criminals by ending bail, vowing
that he would "lead a national effort to end cash bail" and now as crime
is hitting new highs, he's preparing to advance his pro-crime program
under the guise of protecting women by empowering their abusers.
Biden and Kamala Harris, who had been accused of covering up sexual harassment
by her close aide and personal friend, announced the creation of a
White House Gender Policy Council earlier this year. The council is
co-chaired by Jennifer Klein, the former chief strategy and policy officer at the disgraced Hollywood sexual harassment cover-up group, Time's Up.
The former CEO of Time’s Up had to resign after her son was accused of sexual assault, the group was accused of suppressing sexual assault allegations
against Joe Biden, hip-hop producer Russell Simmons, and Andrew Cuomo,
among others. Klein and her organization had praised serial predator
Andrew Cuomo for his “leadership” in protecting women.
So it's not especially surprising that the Council's National
Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality report warns that “we will work
to end cash bail and reform our pretrial system, recognizing the harm
these processes cause, particularly for black women and families.”
Last year, black women were the only group who suffered more rapes than the year before.
The dismantling of bail protections has repeatedly put sexual
predators and rapists back on the street to reoffend. Kamala Harris, who
has advocated for the Gender Policy Council, ought to know that better
than anyone else. Or at least she would if she had a conscience.
Kamala Harris had urged her supporters to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund which exists to bail out criminals.
Kamala helped raise millions to set loose monsters in Minnesota. The
beneficiaries of the attack on bail protections for victims included
Timothy Wayne Columbus, a child rapist accused of sexually assaulting a
little girl, and Christopher Boswell,
who had raped two women, hitting one over the head and trying to run
her over, before assaulting his latest victim with a glass bottle.
Others included George Howard, bailed out for domestic assault before shooting a driver, Donavan Dexter Boone,
accused of choking his ex-girlfriend in front of her children, Marcus
Marshun Butler, of beating his girlfriend with a closed fist, Tyrone
Thomas Shields, of leaving a "larger than golf sized bump” on his wife's
head, and Davlin Devonte Gates, of choking his girlfriend until she
lost consciousness, after four previous domestic violence convictions.
“A big part of my career has been about protecting women and
children,” Kamala Harris has falsely claimed. There are a whole bunch of
women in Minnesota who would disagree.
Did Kamala learn anything from lending her support for releasing
rapists and abusers without bail? The National Strategy on Gender Equity
and Equality makes it clear she did not.
Even as crime is soaring, the Biden-Harris administration is
doubling down on pro-crime. And it’s trying to pass off its program of
putting more criminals back on the street under the guise of helping
women. But if there’s any group of people who have collectively done
more damage to women than Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Time’s Up... it
would be the Taliban.
To whom Joe Biden and Kamala Harris turned over the women and girls of Afghanistan.
Now, Biden and Kamala would like the rapists and sexual abusers in
this country to be able to do to the women and girls of America what the
Taliban are doing to the women and girls of Afghanistan. And, like the
Loudoun County School Board, they want to call it “equity”.
Beyond releasing rapists, Biden’s White House Gender Policy Council
comes after women by demanding that men be able to compete against
female athletes “free from discrimination” and vows that it will work to
end “harmful gender norms”. Which seems to be all gender norms.
None of this helps women, but then again it’s no longer the Council
on Women and Girls, instead the Biden-Harris administration erased women
and renamed it to the Gender Policy Council, turning it into an
extension of their own private war on the female gender.
The National Strategy on Gender Equity pushes every unrelated
leftist agenda from global warming to welfare programs, while neglecting
the female victims of its pro-crime policies.
In 2019, 262,296 women fell victim to various crimes. In 2020, the
year of the massive Black Lives Matter crime wave, 316,885 women became
victims.
Those extra 54,589 women are a statistic the media makes sure we don’t hear about.
What impact did the various crimes they endured have on their
incomes, their health, their sense of security, their mental state,
their ability to learn a living, and on their lives?
That’s a question that the pro-crime Gender Policy Council has no interest in addressing.
705 more women were murdered in the year of BLM when pro-crime
policies became the law of the land and criminal justice systems were
dismantled.
Over 2,000 more were robbed. 78,676 more suffered property crimes than in the previous year.
51,936 more women experienced aggravated assaults in 2020 than in 2019.
And the Biden administration has made it clear that it will go on
championing the pro-crime policies that have made 2021 even worse for
crime victims than even 2020.
"He said, 'I want to f--- you,'" Tara Reade recalls Joe Biden telling her before he assaulted her.
Eight women have accused Biden of inappropriate behavior. There are no doubt many more.
But as dangerous as Biden was to women, the Biden administration is
even more so. Unsatisfied with the awful toll that his personal
misconduct has inflicted on women, Joe Biden wants the women and girls
of America to be terrified in their homes and their communities. He
wants to eliminate bail and set rapists and sexual predators loose
across this country.
And Biden claims he’s doing it to help women.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.
Many will remember the prisoner swap ten years ago, when Israel
agreed to free 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including many who had
committed terrorist murders, in exchange for exactly one Israeli
soldier, Gilad Shalit. Many of those 1,027 returned to their murdering
ways, killing Israelis who would not have been killed had the swap never
taken place. Some Israelis vowed that such a lopsided deal must never
again be entered into, but according to news reports, that’s exactly
what is about to happen.
A report on the soon-to-be-announced prisoner swap is here: “Israel,
Hamas reach ‘understandings’ on prisoner swap – report,” by Khaled Abu
Toameh, Jerusalem Post, October 23, 2021:
Important and positive developments have unexpectedly occurred
in secret negotiations between Israel and Hamas towards reaching a
prisoner exchange agreement, Egyptian sources revealed on Friday.
The sources told the Rai al-Youm online newspaper that the
Egyptians have “accomplished many points related to the prisoner swap
deal, which may be announced within a few weeks.”
According to the sources, the Egyptians received “official and
clear guarantees from Hamas and Israel that comply with the broad
outlines of the deal.”
“There are understandings on many points, and Cairo has
completed more than 70% of the deal, and the rest may be related to the
details of time, place, guarantees and other logistical matters,” the
sources said.
Hassan Yousef, a senior Hamas official in the West Bank, was
quoted as saying that there are “significant surprises” that will be
part of the prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel.
The enthusiasm of Hamas is palpable. But what are the “significant
surprises” that he refers to? I would hazard a guess that one of those
“surprises” will be the freeing of Marwan Barghouti, the most famous of
the terrorists now imprisoned. Barghouti is serving five life terms for
five murders. Now Israel may have decided to let him go. A big mistake.
The second “significant surprise” is, I suspect, the freeing of the
six prisoners who in September escaped from the high-security Gilboa
Prison; they were all recaptured within a week but during that week,
they were lionized by Palestinian society for their breakout and still
are; even the rusty spoon they used to dig their escape tunnel has
become a symbol of the “resistance.” It would be quite an achievement
for Hamas to obtain their release, as well as that of Barghouti, and
quite a slap in the face of Mahmoud Abbas, whose failure to obtain the
release of a single prisoner (Israel’s previous release of 1,027
prisoners was also made with Hamas), is testament to his impotence.
The discussions that are taking place are very secretive and in
the hands of the [Hamas military wing Izzaddin] Al-Qassam Brigades, and
important developments have taken place,” Yousef told Rai al-Youm.
The deal, he added, “will fulfill the aspirations of our prisoners in Israeli prisons.”
Aside from the freeing of Marwan Barghouti and the six Gilboa Prison
escapees, I would assume that Hamas would not be so enthusiastic about
the deal unless they have been guaranteed that Israel is willing to free
roughly the same number of prisoners as were released in the prisoner
swap for Gilad Shalit, that is, about a thousand.
Last week, Hamas said that the issue of the prisoners remains at
the top of its priorities and it will not rest until they are all
released from Israeli prisons.
“Liberating our detainees from the occupation’s prisons is a
religious, national, and humanitarian duty,” Hamas said in a statement
on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Gilad Schalit prisoner
exchange agreement….
Hamas is holding the bodies of IDF soldiers Oron Shaul and Hadar
Goldin, who were killed during the 2014 war in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is
also holding two Israeli citizens, Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed,
who entered the Gaza Strip on their own in 2014 and 2015.
This is likely to be as lopsided and dangerous a deal as the one
Israel agreed to in order to obtain the release of Gilad Shalit. After
that deal was made, Hamas enjoyed a great increase in popularity among
the Palestinians, a morale booster that led to more attacks by the
terror group. By 2015, at least ten Israelis had been murdered, and more
wounded, by terrorists who had been freed in the Shalit prisoner swap.
In the six years since then, while totals have not been released,
assuming that the same rate of terrorist murders by those freed in the
2011 swap has continued since 2015, then a dozen more Israelis are
likely to have been killed, giving a total of 22 Israelis killed by
prisoners whom Israel freed in order to obtain the release of one
soldier. Was it worth it?
In the current deal, Israel will not be getting back a live soldier,
but only two corpses, and two Israeli citizens, one of them an Israeli
Arab, who are both mentally defective and wandered into Gaza at
different times. Is It certain that in their permanent mental condition,
they would even recognize, much less appreciate, the state of being
free from their Palestinian captors? Sentimentalists would say, as they
did during the run-up to the Gilad Shalit swap in 2011, that in order to
get back even one Israeli being held prisoner, no number of released
Palestinian prisoners is too high. But is that true? Among the 1,027
prisoners traded for Gilad Shalit, some returned to terror attacks and
went on to murder nearly two dozen Israelis. Weren’t those murders
predictable? What if they had killed 50 Israelis? One hundred? Is there a
number that we can all agree on that would be too high a price to pay
for the release of Gilad Shalit? How many murders will be committed by
the prisoners who are soon to be released by Israel, in order to get
back not a live soldier but two corpses, and two mental defectives?
In a stunning move, the board of directors of the state-owned Alaska Railroad has voted unanimously to rescind the vaccination mandate it had imposed on employees just days earlier.
The board of directors of the state-owned Alaska Railroad has voted
unanimously to rescind the vaccination mandate it had imposed on
employees just days earlier. According to the Anchorage Daily News, last Friday, it had emailed employees:
“Over the last six weeks, we’ve carefully
reviewed additional EO guidelines and our interactions with federal
agencies to determine if the Alaska Railroad is affected. We are. As a
federal contractor, ARRC must meet this standard,”
The
railroad stands to lose millions of dollars a year in federal contracts
and grants, and possibly access to Forest Service land housing some
facilities. This is no small item for a company with only $209 million
in revenue in 2019.
The
move is a stunning turnaround and must reflect both threats of loss of
vital personnel and political support for the move from the state’s
politicians.
Alaska Railroad board members who voted
to block the mandate said during Tuesday’s virtual meeting that they
were deeply reluctant to require vaccinations of employees.
“We’ve been put in a very difficult position by the
federal government,” said John Shively, board chair. “There’s not a
single board member that likes this at all,” he said.
“I think it might be premature to do something that ultimately could
be harmful to Alaska railroad families and the railroad itself,” added
John Binkley, the board member who proposed the stop-order.
”We have one of our U.S. senators that
has implored us and others within the state of Alaska not to make these
decisions until there is more certainty on what direction is the country
is headed on this,” Binkley said during Tuesday’s meeting, referencing comments U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan made in a speech on the Senate floor last week.
Currently 52.6% of the railroad’s 692 employees are vaccinated, well below the national average.
Bill O’Leary, CEO of the Alaska Railroad, said on Tuesday
that the board members “in no way relish” implementing a vaccine
mandate, but the corporation risked losing contracts worth millions of
dollars as it “certainly” fits the definition of being a federal
contractor.“
Compliance with an order that has the effect of federal law, and the
risk to key revenue and capital funding sources, drives us to such an
implementation,” he said.
The railroad owns significant real estate holdings across Alaska. The General Services Administration, a federal agency, informed the
railroad earlier in the month that its lease agreement would need to be
amended to ensure all employees are vaccinated. If it wasn’t amended,
the agency would not renew its contract.
The GSA contract is worth over $1 million, O’Leary said, and there
are other contracts at risk. The railroad ships military goods to Fort
Wainwright and Eielson Airforce Base and coal from Fairbanks.
Sullivan said via email that, without a vaccine mandate, the railroad
could lose between $8-$10 million in revenue from hauling annually.
The company apparently sees legal challenges to the mandate as justifying g the defiance, at least for now:
“The board rescinded the requirement and may revisit it, depending on
what happens with the legal actions that have come to light since we
(sent the letter out) late Friday afternoon,” Sullivan said, citing an
amended complaint to a lawsuit filed by the Arizona attorney general to
block the mandate.
“We expect that there will be other legal actions and we’re waiting to see what the courts do,” he said.
Most of the line was actually built by the United States
Government, which purchased an existing financially troubled short
railroad from the port of Seward and extended it inland hundreds of
miles, to the town of Fairbanks. It was run by the feds until it was
sold to the State of Alaska in 1985.
So far, the courts have not been kind to efforts to halt the mandate.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday [October 19] to block a
vaccine requirement imposed on Maine health care workers, the latest
defeat for opponents of vaccine mandates.
A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday threw out a request brought by a union that represents Southwest Airlines pilots to block the company from carrying out its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA), which has some 9,000 members, filed a lawsuit earlier this month to
prevent the carrier from mandating that its workers get vaccinated
against COVID-19 by Dec. 8 under federal rules, barring religious or
medical exemptions.
The union had argued that the carrier had illegally changed work
rules instead of negotiating with pilots, and in doing so, violated a
federal labor law—the Railway Labor Act, which governs airline-labor
relations and its collective bargaining agreement.
In dismissing the union’s request to temporarily block the company
mandate, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn wrote that the COVID-19
vaccination requirement for Southwest employees would “likewise improve
the safety of air transportation, efficiency of Southwest’s operations.”
The mandate would also “further the [collective bargaining
agreement’s] goal of safe and reasonable working conditions for pilots,”
the judge wrote in her 25-page ruling on Tuesday.
“In addition, because Southwest is a federal contractor, the Vaccine Policy is required by law,” the judge added.
I anticipate this issue will eventually end up in the
Supreme Court, but unless more companies follow the lead of the Alaska
Railroad, it may be moot in most companies and agencies by the time a
decision is reached.
There are indications that the Court is not in a hurry to take up their issue. Therefore, the Palestinian leadership appears to be changing its legal tactics and veering toward an attempt to criminalize Israel itself at the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ).
Mahmoud Abbas (on screens) addresses the UN General Assembly (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation
Vol. 21, No. 21
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ desire to petition the
International Court of Justice on the “issue of the legality of the
occupation of the land of the Palestinian state and the relevant
obligations for the United Nations and States around the world in this
regard” opens a “Pandora’s box” of questions.
A legal situation of “occupation” is, in and of itself, not
inherently illegal. On the contrary, it is a legally acknowledged
situation in international law and practice.
To raise the question before the international court as to whether
there exists a “Palestinian state” would appear to be presumptuous and
even pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the negotiation process. There
exists no internationally accepted and binding document attesting to
the existence of any Palestinian state.
It is unclear if those advising the Palestinian leadership fully
understand the distinction between the status and functions of the two
different international judicial bodies, the International Criminal
Court and the International Court of Justice.
The Palestinian leadership alleging before the UN and ICJ that
Israel is violating the Oslo Accords would be ironic, in light of the
long list of fundamental breaches of those accords by the Palestinians.
It remains improbable that the Palestinian leadership could
establish any viable cause of action in the ICJ against Israel, based on
the Oslo Accords.
Recent indications from the Palestinian leadership appear to point
towards a change in their campaign to undermine and criminalize Israel
and its representatives in the international community.
For some years, the Palestinian leadership has attempted to
politically manipulate the court in order to criminalize Israel’s
political and military leadership. Through a systematic policy of
referring hundreds of personalized war-crimes allegations, they have
managed to ceremonially present these claims to the former prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
While the former ICC prosecutor has opted to open a formal
investigation following Palestinian referrals, several serious legal
questions are still pending in regard to the ICC’s processing of such
referrals. These include the question of the legal standing of the
Palestinians vis-à-vis the Court, in light of the ICC Statute
requirement that only states may be party to the statute. Similarly,
concomitant questions exist as to whether the Palestinians fulfill the
requirements for statehood under international law. These are pending
the outcome of negotiations on the status of the disputed territories,
as to whether the Court may exercise its jurisdiction vis-à-vis these areas.
There are indications that the Court is not in a hurry to take up
their issue. Therefore, the Palestinian leadership appears to be
changing its legal tactics and veering toward an attempt to criminalize
Israel itself at the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ).
From the ICC to the ICJ
The International Criminal Court was established in 1998 as an
independent judicial body to try individual criminals accused of the
most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The
International Court of Justice is the UN’s principal judicial organ and
is entrusted with solving issues of litigation between states as well,
as issuing advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by UN
organs.
Logos of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice
Based on recent statements by the Palestinian leadership, they appear
to be considering an appeal to the ICJ in order to question the very
legality of Israel’s status and actions in the territories in the light
of international law and the Oslo Accords.
This indication of a change in legal tactics is evident in the
statement by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority and
head of the PLO, before the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2021,
where he stated:
…we will go to the International Court of Justice as the
supreme international judicial body, on the issue of the legality of the
occupation of the land of the Palestinian state and the relevant
obligations for the United Nations and States around the world in this
regard and all will have to respect the conclusions of the Court.
Colonialism and apartheid are prohibited under international law and
they are crimes that must be confronted and a regime that needs to be
dismantled.1
Palestinian media sources have also reported a call by the
Palestinian leadership to lawyers assisting the Palestinian Authority in
Europe to prepare a petition to the ICJ aimed at “obliging Israel to
implement the Oslo Accords,” claiming that the accords “have
international validity since they were approved by the Israeli
government and its Knesset.”
It is unclear from the Palestinian statements if the intention is to
try to lodge with the ICJ contentious cases against Israel, as they have
done against the United States after the transfer of the U.S. embassy
to Jerusalem (see below), or if they intend to seek, through the General
Assembly and other UN organs, non-binding advisory opinions by the
court, similar to their 2004 request for an advisory opinion on the
Legal Consequences of the Construction of Israel’s Security Barrier.
It is also unclear if those advising the Palestinian leadership fully
understand the distinction between the status and functions of the two
different international judicial bodies, the ICC and the ICJ.
However, any such change in legal tactics raises a number of issues that require addressing.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Article 92 of the UN Charter determines that all members of the UN
are automatically considered to be members of the ICJ, and that
non-members of the UN may become party to the ICJ statute pursuant to
conditions determined by the UN General Assembly. According to article
34(1) of its statute, “Only states may be parties in cases before the
Court.”
Pursuant to UN practice, states not party to the statute that wish to
litigate against another state are required to deposit a declaration
accepting and undertaking to respect the Court’s jurisdiction.
While the Palestinians are not members of the Court, they have
already engaged the ICJ in the context of their 2004 petition to the UN
General Assembly requesting an advisory opinion by the Court on the
issue of Israel’s security barrier.2 In this context, the Court permitted them to enter submissions, despite their lack of status as a state.
More recently, they have submitted a substantive application to the
ICJ against the United States to litigate against the relocation of the
U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, claiming that it violates the 1960 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.3
As part of this submission, they deposited a declaration accepting the
competence of the Court in regard to disputes arising from the Vienna
Convention.4
The question whether the Palestinians, lacking state status, have the
capacity to deposit such a declaration, is one of the jurisdictional
issues presently under consideration by the Court, which requested that
the parties first address the question of the jurisdiction of the Court
and that of the admissibility of the Application.5
However, the fact that they are interacting with the ICJ,
representing themselves as a state, in the same manner in which they
have interacted with the ICC, with claims of statehood, is indicative of
their assumption that their status and their petitions will be
accepted.
ICJ Jurisdiction
Should the Palestinians choose to litigate against Israel in the
Court, the action would not be possible in light of the lack of
jurisdiction.
While, in the 1950s, Israel informed the UN of its acceptance of the
compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ to adjudicate international disputes
subject to a number of limitations, it stipulated number of caveats:
Any dispute in respect to which the parties have agreed or shall
agree to have recourse to another means of peaceful settlement and any
dispute or matter which is in any manner related to any such dispute;
Any dispute relating to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State of Israel;
Any dispute between the State of Israel and any other State whether
or not a member of the United Nations which does not recognize Israel or
which refuses to establish or to maintain normal diplomatic relations
with Israel and the absence or breach of normal relations precedes the
dispute and exists independently of that dispute;
Disputes arising out of events occurring between May 15 1948 and July 20 1949;
Without prejudice to the operation of subparagraph (d) above,
disputes arising out of, or having reference to, any hostilities, war,
state of war, breach of the peace, breach of armistice agreement or
belligerent or military occupation (whether such war shall have been
declared or not, and whether any state of belligerency shall have been
recognized or not) in which the Government of Israel are or have been or
may be involved at any time.
Any dispute in respect of which any other party thereto has accepted,
or amended, a previous acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice, only in relation to or for the purpose
of the dispute; or where the acceptance or the amendment of a previous
acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, on behalf of any
other party to the dispute, was deposited or ratified less than12 months
prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the
Court.6
Israel’s acceptance of the court’s compulsory jurisdiction was
nevertheless revoked on November 21, 1985, when Israel notified the UN
Secretary-General of its decision to terminate its former declaration.
As such, Israel no longer accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the
ICJ.
Accordingly, it may be assumed that in light of Israel’s 1985
revocation of its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, any
Palestinian attempt to litigate against Israel at the ICJ regarding the
status of the territories or the implementation of the Oslo Accords
would not be accepted by the Court.
The Legality of Israel’s Status in the Territories
Abbas’ desire to petition the court on the “issue of the legality of
the occupation of the land of the Palestinian state and the relevant
obligations for the United Nations and States around the world in this
regard” raises many potential questions as to the nature of the
“Pandora’s box” that he wishes to open.
A legal situation of “occupation” is, in and of itself, not
inherently illegal. On the contrary, it is a legally acknowledged
situation in international law and practice for which the international
laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian law are set out in
detailed provisions. The issue of Israel’s status in the territories
since 1967 and whether such presence constitutes an “occupation” or some
other form of interim administration pending resolution of the dispute
regarding the territories raises many legal issues that have never been
substantively resolved and are the subject of an ongoing peace
negotiation process.
To raise the question before the international court as to whether
there exists a “Palestinian state” would appear to be presumptuous and
even pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the negotiation process.
There exists no internationally accepted and binding document which
attests to the existence of any Palestinian state. While numerous,
non-binding UN General Assembly resolutions have indeed called for and
recommended the establishment of such a state, there is no commitment in
the peace-process documentation as to whether, if, and how such a state
is to be established. On the contrary, in the still valid 1993-5 Oslo
Accords, both the PLO and Israel are committed to negotiating between
them an agreement on permanent status. Such permanent status could be
one, two, three, or more states, a federation, a confederation, a
condominium, or any other permutation.7
It is improbable that the ICJ would want to or could constitutionally
involve itself in prejudging issues that are still the subject of
ongoing negotiations between the parties, with the full sanction of the
international community.
Violation of the Oslo Accords
The Palestinian leadership alleging before the UN and ICJ that Israel
is violating the Oslo Accords would be ironic in light of the long list
of fundamental breaches of those accords by the Palestinians, whether
by continuing incitement, support for and advocacy of terror, economic
boycott, sponsoring and supporting the BDS campaign, and refusal to
resume negotiations.
Their defense and citation of the Oslo Accords are even more ironic
in light of their inability or lack of will to honor a host of specific
commitments pursuant to the Accords. Such basic violations include
Palestinian attempts to alter the status of the territories
unilaterally; their active engagement in international diplomacy in
violation of their commitments not to be so involved; their accession to
international treaties and organizations; their expulsion by the Hamas
terror organization from any capability of governing the Gaza Strip; and
their consistent refusal to return to the negotiating table with
Israel.
Status of Oslo Accords
However, in any event, in order to petition the ICJ and allege
violation of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians would need to indicate
the existence of jurisdiction by the ICJ to deal with the Accords and
prove that the agreement constitutes an “international treaty” duly
registered with the Treaties Division of the UN.
In defining an international treaty, the 1969 Vienna Convention on
International Treaties defines a treaty as “an international agreement
concluded between States in written form and governed by international
law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation.”8
The Oslo Accords (1991-3) and their related documentation, inasmuch
as they represent agreements between a sovereign state entity (Israel)
and a non-state entity (the PLO), do not appear to fall within the
definition of an international treaty as set out in the 1969 Vienna
Convention. The Accords contain no provision for registration with the
UN or any other international body or state.
Israel has not registered the Accords with the UN, but considers them
to be more than a mere contractual arrangement with a non-state entity.
It is rather a sui generis agreement, in light of the fact
that they were countersigned by leading international figures such as
the presidents of the United States, Egypt, and the Russian Federation,
as well as by the official representatives of the EU and the Kingdom of
Norway, who signed as witnesses. Several resolutions of the UN have also
endorsed them.9
In light of the above, it remains improbable that the Palestinian
leadership could establish any viable cause of action in the ICJ against
Israel based on the Oslo Accords.
ICJ Advisory Opinion
In light of the above-noted doubts regarding an attempt to engage the
ICJ in a contentious case against Israel, the issues raised by Mahmoud
Abbas as a basis for engaging the court may be taken up by resolutions
of the UN General Assembly or other UN body in attempts to request
advisory opinions pursuant to article 65 of the ICJ Statute. This would
require the Palestinians and their supporters to garner a General
Assembly resolution requesting such an opinion.
Such opinions may only be on legal questions and, in any event, as with the 2004 Security Barrier opinion, are not binding.
Conclusion
Rather than seeking ways to attack and undermine Israel and its
leadership through wild and hostile accusations and empty threats and by
the manipulation and abuse of the various UN institutions and
international judicial bodies, the Palestinian leadership should resort
back to the commitment made by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in his letter
dated September 9, 1993, to Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin, according to
which:
The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process,
and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and
declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will
be resolved through negotiations.10
Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, 1994 (Israel Government Press Office/Sa’ar Ya’acov)
Instead of providing the Palestinian leadership with a starring role
on the international stage and encouraging their hostility, it is high
time that the international community urge the Palestinian leadership to
come before it with clean hands, to put its house in order, to present
to the world a unified and responsible leadership capable of honoring
its commitments in signed agreements and willing to resume a realistic
and genuine negotiating process.
The
railroad stands to lose millions of dollars a year in federal contracts
and grants, and possibly access to Forest Service land housing some
facilities. This is no small item for a company with only $209 million
in 
