UNESCO to Declare Mosque of the Nativity, Palestinian Holy Site?

The most effective political weapon being used the Palestinians is the use of the political arena. The aim is to create the perception that the Jewish people have no connection to the land of Israel and to instigate scenarios that make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. The United Nations has been a key tool to this goal. Palestinian leadership can call on the Arab world to pass any condemnation of Israel they wish.

This week UNESCO passed 5 resolutions condemning Israel. Sadly, most of them could be dismissed as just another example of intentional ignorance of the facts on the ground. One resolution was particularily disturbing by it's implications. UNESCO demanded Israel remove Me'arat HaMachpela (Tomb of the Patriarchs) and Kever Rochel (Rachel's Tomb) from the Israel's list of heritage sites. They consider these mosques to be integral part of the Palestinian identity and Israel has no right to control them.

Me'arat HaMachepela is the burial place of the founders of the Jewish people. Avraham and Sarah; Issac and Rifka; Yaakov and Leah are buried there. As descendants of Avraham the Arabs claim the spot as there own holy spot. For centuries Jews were only able to approach the outside of the building but never enter.

Under Israeli control a compromise has been put in place recognizing the importance to both Jews and Muslims. The building is split in half with seperate entrances. 10 days a year, the entire building is open exclusivly to Jews and 10 days the entire building is open exclusivley to Muslims. When the dates conflict priority is given to the Muslim calendar. The Muslim side has undergone renovations over the years, while the Waqf has refused to allow any major renovations on the Jewish side. The United Nations condemning a solution that mostly works, comes as no surprise.

Kever Rochel is the burial place of Rochel the other Jewish Matriarch. Through the centuries it was an important place for Jews to pray. She is completely irrelevant to Muslim tradition Elder of Ziyon has documented that it was not until after the Oslo Accords that this important Jewish site was started to be referred to as an ancient holy mosque.

The goal of the condemnation is to disconnect the Jewish people from their founders and further discredit, the history of their presence on the land. Kever Rochel has extra meaning because Jewish tradition teaches it was in her merit that the God promised her the Jews would return from exile. It is the reason that when Jews make Aliyah (immigrate to Israel) the song Shavu Banim (Her Children have returned to their borders) is sung in shul.

Kever Rochel is no more an anicient Muslim holy site than; the Mosque of the Nativity, Mosque of the Holy Sepulcher, or the Mosque being built at the World Trade Centre.

The United States is the only country to vote against the 5 resolutions, with a dozen or so choosing to take a knee and abstain. Rewriting history for political means, is a disgrace to UNESCO who has as it's goal to preserve culture and education. The countries that choose to remain silent and watch should be embarrassed for not being brave enough to stand up for the truth.

Guilty until proven guilty

The world stood by silently as Israel was constantly bombarded with rocket attacks from Gaza. The citizens of Southern Israel were tired of consantly running to their bomb shelters. They were tired of the children's playgrounds with built in bomb shelter, so kids could reach saftey in the 15 seconds they had before impact. The rest of the country sympathized. Israel took military action to stop the attacks.

The world could no longer be silent. The UNHRC held an emergency session to condemn Israeli aggression. They also set the mandate to find evidence of war crimes that Israel had committed. The wording of the mandate was clear that Israel was guilty and it was up to the panel to find evidence. Such a panel could never objectivly determine if the evidence lead to the conclusion they were supposed to find. Canada was the only country brave enough to vote against the resolution.

Judge Richard Goldstone was choosen to head up the panel. Aside from his experience prosecuting war criminals, he had the bonus of being South African and Jewish. Being Jewish was supposed to protect him from criticism of being anti-Israel. Being South African would give him credibility in falsly accusing Israel as an apartheid state. He insisted that he would not take the job until he was certain that he would have the ability to blame Hamas for their war crimes. His comittee composed of others who had publicly expressed Israel's guilt.

The final report was a harsh condemnation of Israeli with a footnotes worth of attention to the pain and frustration that lead Israel to take military operation. The mandate, methodology and analysis of the report were flawed. There has been a ton of analysis done to demonstarte it's flaws.

At the request of the Palesitinians, the UNHRC decided to delay consideration of passage of the Goldstone report until next sessions in March allowing time to come up with a resolution that would allow the added weight of unanimous approval. Jews visiting the Temple mount under a policy that has been in place for years was an excuse for Arab rioting. Israel banned Arabs under the age of 50 and all Jews from the Temple mount. This was the excuse to call an emergency session of the UNHRC to pass the Goldstone report.

The resolution easily passed on Friday. The text of the resolution should eliminate any doubts that the intention of the resolution was political and had nothing to do with human rights. The resolution only passed the recommendations in sections A,B and C leaving out all references to Hamas aggression of rocket fire at civilian populations or the plight of Gilad Shalit. Israel was condemned for not protecting and providing access to Muslim and Chirstian holy sights and the Judaizationing of Jerusalem. Have the Christians ever complained about the administration of their sights in Israeli control? The Arabs have a horrible track record of protecting and providing access to Jewish holy sights. The UNHRC also condemned the non-existant excavation of in and around Jerusalem that posed a threat to Al Asqa Mosque.

The next step is for the report to be handled in UN offices in New York. It should easily be passed by the automatic majority in the General Assembly leading to prosectuion by the ICJ (International Court of Justice). A guilty verdict should be easy to obtain but as an advisory court they don't hold much power. It is unclear if it will be passed by the UNSC leading to prosecution by the ICC (International Criminal Court). This court has some power to enforce their judgements. A guilty verdict here could open the door to prosecution of British, Pakistan, American, Canadian troops for their invovlement in Afghanistan, Iraq and attempts to fighting terrorism. PA officials have asked for patients, as they are not prepared to follow through with the ICC. They have no evidence on their own, outside the Goldstone report. They have no actually gotten around to reading the Goldstone report.

Canada saw the mess that was going to come out of this biased investigation. The UNHRC has once again show they care about attacking Israel and little else. This report and the UNHRC needs to be buried, not because of the problems they pose for Israel but because of the damage it can cause to countries that concern themselves with Human Rights.

How did Obama beat the competition to win the Nobel Prize?

In a surprising move the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace has been awarded to Barak Obama. Setting aside the fact that he had only been the President for 11 days when nominations closed, there are many world leaders that have made headline news for their efforts to advance peace in the world.

Obama is not getting enough credit for what he has accomplished to date. He was able to get the government to give away billions of dollars in the stimulus package. He has made some great speaches about improving the broken health care system. He told the Arab world the United States would stop meddling in their affairs and told Israel to stop settlement construction. To appease Israel, he would get the Arab world to take steps towards normalization. He has also politely asked Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear weapons program.

The Nobel comitee may have thought this was enough to make him a Nobel Prize Laureate. The worthiness comes into question when considering the results. The health care bill becoming so watered down that by the time it passes, it will make little difference in fixing the system. The Palestinians have used the Cairo speech to make new demands on that must be met before entering negotiations with Israel. Israel has continued to operate in her best interests, despite American demands. The Arab world has laughed at the idea of normalization with Israel. Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear programs.

What about the other world leaders who have promoted peace in 2009.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Iran - Re-elected as President in a landslide victory, he was able to get voter turnout of over 100% in some districts. Protesters against the clear democratic victory were arrested and tortured. This week death sentences were issued for 3 protestors. More are sure to follow. Ahmadinejad was the keynote speaker at the Durban II Anti-Racism conference. Despite world pressure Iran has continued their 'peaceful' nuclear weapons program while promissing wipe Israel off the map.

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi - Libya - After Obama his speech at the recent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly was the most covered in the meeting. He was introduced as the King of Kings before delivering his 95 minute speech. The fact he was allowed to go over his 15 minute time limit shows how important his message is. He had much criticism for how the West treats the 3rd world, suggesting changes to make the United Nations more fair to all nations. He arranged a hero's welcome from the Lockerbie bomber upon his return to Libya under humanitarian grounds.

Mahinda Rajapaksa - Sri Lanka - The Sri Lanka military was succesful this year ending their 25 year civil war with the Tamil Tigers. Lack of access by NGOs and media sparked fears that there was truth to the rumours that genocide was being commited against the Tamil population on top of what was necessary to end the civil war. The UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council) stepped in to deal with these issues by having Sri Lanka write the resolution to state what a great job they were doing in bringing life back to normal.

Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir - Sudan - Genocide in Darfur has been a minor distraction for the UNHRC. Since being indited he has found support among the Arab world including freedom to travel without being arrested. Sudan has secured the nomination to take a seat on the UNHRC.

Bill Clinton - United States - He was overlooked for his involvement in the Oslo accords, where all of the other major players won the award. He has been involved in a ton of charity work since leaving office. He took a trip behind enemy lines to secure the release of two reporters being held in North Korea.

Obama has brought hope to many Americans. This hope and the fact that he is not George W. Bush help land him this lucrative award. Instead of being an award for achievement it is an attempt to put more weight behind his lofty goals. Just as his empty words have not been heeded with the lucrative prize they will not be heeded with it. The Nobel committee should have been patient and waited to award it when Obama has proven to be deserving. In the meantime there are plenty of other candidates who were worthy in 2009.

Durban II is Racism. Why are People Surpisred?

Racism is a major problem around the world. Taking proactive steps to help stop racism and have all people around the world treated equally is a noble goal. The first United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban turned into United Nations favourite past time; condemning Israel. Should there have been any expectations for Durban II to be different?

There is a basic formula that needs to be followed for accomplishing any significant agreement on the world stage. First the problem needs to be identified with proper working definitions. Targets need to be set with benchmarks for determining success or failure. Then an action plan needs to be drawn up and implemented based on the working definition. This allows for the establishment of principles that could be applied to unforeseen future circumstances of the same situation.

Durban II took the opposite approach. The planners of the conference had already decided which issues they wanted to condemn and work from their. Israel, American slavery, banning criticism of Islam were some of the targets of this year's conference. At the same time Darfur is being overlooked after receiving full support from Arab countries to avoid prosectution from the International Criminal Court. Just like Durban I, people who are real victims of discrimination will be forgotten.

Canada saw the writing on the wall a year ago when they decided they would not attend. Israel held out hope that this time would be different before withdrawing. Even with Barak Obama on the scene the United States was unable to steer to conference towards it's original noble goals.

Organizers have sought to steer clear of the controversies that marred the Durban meeting, but have run into many of the same contentious issues. Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Poland and New Zealand all had the foresight not to bother to attend. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was very upset about the no shows. Is it possible that this small group of countries were the only ones who could see what was coming next.

Iran is in no way a beacon to the world for their human right record. They are the only country that has openly called for the elimination of another UN member. Somehow Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was chosen as the keynote speaker for the opening of the conference. He said nothing different from what he always says prompting a mass walkout of his speech. Ban Ki-Moon had to offer a condemnation afterwards, explaining that he had met with Ahmadinejad and told him to take a different approach when addressing the conference. What in the world possessed Moon to think he would listen to him. France and England had already announced their diplomats were prepared to walk out if necessary. What were the others countries thinking?

Durban II has only just begun. It has already turned into a conference which will lead to more racism around the world. Nothing tangible will result in the efforts to stop racism. Just as the United States and Israel walked out last time, there will be growing pressure for other countries to do the same this time around. The conference is only going to get worse as the week progresses.

World follows Canada's foreign policy example

The first ever United Nations Anti-Racism conference in Durban South Africa was a complete disaster. Instead of dealing with improving living conditions and preventing racism around the world it became a massive Israel bashing session. The conference accomplished nothing productive.

Durban II is scheduled to take place next month. Canada out of concern that it would be a repeat embarrassment of the first conference declared their intention to boycott. Israel eventually followed suit.

The United States sent a delegation to try to have the objectionable language removed from the conference. They had a few major concerns. Once again Israel was going to be the only country singled out for Human Rights violations, by countries who have enough problems granted human rights to their own citizens. Another issue was to make it a human right violations to criticize another religion. This would justify the riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons as response to a human rights violation. It also flies in the face of free speech which is highly regarded in the West. A demand for reparations for slavery were also on the table. The United States announced their intention to boycott if the text was not changed.

Italy became the first European to announce their intention to boycott. It is interesting that it was an Italian reporter that went to Gaza and said that the humanitarian situation was not that drastic. England then expressed reservations about the conference, followed by a possible boycott by the EU.

The text has now been changed. It will probably be enough for most countries to call of the boycott. Although, there is still a great deal of concern that all the elements are in place to still have a repeat of the last conference. Canada has not announced they have changed their mind about attending

Canada was the first country to stand up to this pending injustice. The world has fallen suit. Even if the conference does turn into a disaster the actions of Canada, United States, Italy and EU have minimized the amount of damage that can be done.

Israel did NOT Bomb UN School

For almost a month the United Nations has been crying out about that Israel bombed one of their schools in Gaza that was protecting over a thousand civilians from the war. The UN criticized Israel stating that they had provided Israel with GPS coordinates and it should not have been targeted. Israel stated that their troops had responded to be under attack. The UN took extreme offence to that accusation that they would allow attacks to be launched from their property. The mere suggestion that a school would be bombed brought about a tremendous amount of backlash against Israel and Jews around the world.

After repeatedly making the claim that the school was bombed by Israel the UN snuck in a correction to one of their field update reports:

Clarification: While correctly reported on 6 January that Israeli shells landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia, resulting in an initial estimate of 30 fatalities, the Situation Report of 7 January referred to ‘the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia.’ The Humanitarian Coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. According to UNRWA, the number of fatalities is over 40, many of them among the 1,368 people who had taken refuge in the school.

The UN had to know that the school was not bombed and they choose to run with the story anyways as it suited their purposes. While the UN put a lot of effort into publicizing the original story, the same cannot be said for the correction. The people who knowingly aloud the false information to be spread should no longer be employed by the United Nations.

UNHRC Condemns Israel in One Side Resolution

The United Nations Human Rights Council has once again partaken in it's favourite activity. A one sided resolution was passed condemning Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza.

The four page 17 article resolution condemned Israel and called on a special investigation. It called for an immediate stoppage to the military action and 'grave violations' by Israel. It essentially called on Israel to meet all of the Hamas demands by immediately withdrawing from Gaza and opening all border crossings.

The resolution demanded that Israel should stop targeting civilians. While civilians are being killed Israel has gone to great lengths to demonstrate they are trying to avoid civilian deaths. The resolution lumped all of the casualties into a single count with "a large number of women and children". The language was clearly designed to maximize the damage without any consideration of who died for attacking Israel and who the true victims are.

As for Hamas the UNHRC couldn't even devote a complete sentence to condemning their attacks on Israel. They called for an end to the launching of crude rockets against Israeli civilians.

The resolution passed with the votes as follows:

In favour (33):Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (1):Canada.

Abstentions (13): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

The resolution was designed to attack Israel rather than bringing anything productive to the table to stop the rocket attacks by Hamas which would lead to an Israeli withdrawal. The countries that abstained explained that they were disappointed that it did not address all violations that occurred in Gaza. Canada was the only country brave enough to stand up and vote against the resolution, stating "the draft text still failed to clearly recognize that rocket fire on Israel had led to the current crisis. It also used unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory language. "

Thank You Canada.

Canada need to decide to run for UN Security Council

I absolutely hate when politicians use vague, misleading statements to justify their positions. Media reports have begun to circulate that the government will not seek a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2010. Technically Canada would be competing with Germany and Portugal for two seats. Germany is considered to have already locked up the first seat. Stephen Harper responded that the cabinet has not made a decision yet.

Stephan Dion contends that the government has been doing such a bad job on the international scene that they simply fear the embarrassment of losing. He has stated Canada's proud history at the United Nations, in it's founding, inventing peace keeping, never missing a chance to take a seat at the Security Council etc....

In praising Canada's proud history he also stated “At the Security Council, Canada has had a seat more often than any other country except for the permanent members,”. The top countries to serve are 9 - Japan, Brazil; 8 - Argentina; 6 - Canada, Columbia, India, Italy, Pakistan. From this list only Italy is in the same region as Canada. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are the only countries from the same region that have served on the Council 5 times. Canada's ability to contribute to the current Security Council should be the only justification for getting elected. This is especially true considering Libya is a current member.

The contention that Canada would not get a seat because they are viewed negatively in international community is unfounded. The UNSC has failed to adopt declarations condemning individual terrorist attacks because they could not get UNSC unanimous agreement. Countries have gotten in with a much more extreme view of the world then Canada's, even under the Conservative government.

Canada wants to play a role on the world stage. Holding a seat on the UNSC is the best way to get a diplomatic voice heard. The Conservative cabinet should make a decision quickly to at least try to gain the seat they are eligible for. If they lose it will be more likely due to political pandering then their reputation on the world stage.