The resolution was drafted by the Palestinian delegation and sponsored by many states that do not recognise Israel and are not known as leading lights in human rights, including Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bangladesh and North Korea.
The resolution’s 19 paragraphs do not once mention Hamas (a proscribed terrorist entity in New Zealand, and an Iranian proxy) that triggered the current war with its barbaric October 7 invasion of southern Israel, or the over 100 hostages it continues to hold underground in Gaza. Nor does it mention Palestinian terrorism or violence or make any demands of Palestinian leaders.
Instead, it erases Jewish historic and legal claims to the land beyond the armistice lines that resulted from the failed war of annihilation by five Arab states against the nascent state of Israel in 1948 and gives Israel 12 months to withdraw from those lands.
This means Jews would be ethnically cleansed from land that is the cradle of Jewish civilisation, has had a Jewish presence for 3000 years and been the focal point of our liturgy and festivals. It includes the eastern part of Israel’s capital city Jerusalem, in which is situated the Jewish people’s holiest site (the Temple Mount), as well as the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter, and Hebrew University.
Instead, it erases Jewish historic and legal claims to the land beyond the armistice lines that resulted from the failed war of annihilation by five Arab states against the nascent state of Israel in 1948 and gives Israel 12 months to withdraw from those lands.
This means Jews would be ethnically cleansed from land that is the cradle of Jewish civilisation, has had a Jewish presence for 3000 years and been the focal point of our liturgy and festivals. It includes the eastern part of Israel’s capital city Jerusalem, in which is situated the Jewish people’s holiest site (the Temple Mount), as well as the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter, and Hebrew University.
October 7 Invasion
Israel, one-twelfth the size of New Zealand, with the south largely uninhabited since Hamas’ October 7 invasion, and the north largely uninhabited since another Iranian proxy Hezbollah started firing rockets at it from Lebanon on 8 October, would have indefensible eastern borders with a width at its narrowest point of some 15kms.
The resolution purports to endorse a recent advisory (non-binding) opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s judicial arm.
That opinion in itself was deeply flawed but also far more nuanced, limited and complicated than the resolution would suggest. It followed a request for an opinion from less than half the UN member states, which presupposed that (among other things) Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land.
All but one of the 15 of the ICJ judges gave individual opinions, and often disagreed between themselves on the reasons for the conclusion they reached as to that and other issues and what their consequences were. Six judges found that the proceedings and opinion had failed to consider the whole legal and historical context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Most judges disregarded prior opinions on the ICJ’s jurisdiction to consider a bilateral dispute without the consent of both parties, the British Mandate that recognised the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as well as the Oslo Accords (both binding instruments under international law), and the important principle of uti possidetis juris.
That is one of the main principles of customary international law intended to ensure stability in the demarcation of new states (for example, those emerging from Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union).
Dissenting Opinion
The ICJ’s Vice President Julia Sebutinde (pictured)gave a dissenting opinion in which she found the Court had misapplied the law of belligerent occupation and adopted presumptions without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues, including the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris , the question of Israel’s borders and its competing sovereignty claims, the nature of the Palestinian right of self-determination and its relationship to Israel’s own rights and security concerns.
“It is bewildering that New Zealand would vote for a resolution that it was at pains to point out is so flawed. More bewildering were the befuddled statements that Peters gave to media.“
As a result, she found that the ICJ opinion “is tantamount to a one-sided, “forensic audit” of Israel’s compliance or non-compliance with international law, that does not reflect a comprehensive, balanced, impartial, and in-depth examination of the pertinent legal and factual questions involved and “overlooks the intricate realities and history of the territories and populations within modern-day Palestine”.
Whether or not Foreign Minister Peters (who did not put the vote to Cabinet, likely in breach of the Cabinet Manual) was cognisant of the flaws of the ICJ opinion, he did acknowledge some issues with the UN General Assembly purporting to adopt it.
“Imperfect” Peters
The first line in the explanatory statement from Minister Peters says New Zealand supported this resolution “with some caveats”. Calling it “imperfect”, it noted that “New Zealand held concerns about aspects of the text of the resolution”, that the 12-month timeframe for implementation is “frankly unrealistic” and that “We are also disappointed that the resolution goes beyond what was envisaged in the advisory opinion in some respects”.
Other states abstained from or opposed the resolution over such concerns, even if they endorsed certain aspects of it.
While it was supported by 124 countries, 14 opposed it (including the United States, Fiji and Tonga) with 43 abstentions (including Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, India, and Germany).
Australia explained it abstained because it went beyond the scope of the ICJ opinion. The UK abstained because “the resolution does not provide sufficient clarity to effectively advance our shared aim of a peace premised on a negotiated two-state solution: a safe and secure Israel alongside a safe and secure Palestinian state”. And Canada explained that: “Canada cannot support a resolution where one party, the state of Israel, is held solely responsible for the conflict.
Canada supports Israel’s right to live in peace with its neighbours within secure boundaries and recognizes Israel’s right to assure its own security.
There is no mention in the resolution of the need to end terrorism, for which Israel has serious and legitimate security concerns” and it seeks to “uniquely isolate Israel” through the economic and diplomatic boycott and sanctions it calls for.
It is bewildering that New Zealand would vote for a resolution that it was at pains to point out is so flawed. More bewildering were the befuddled statements that Peters gave to media.
One outlet reported him saying: “We are saying [Israel’s] gone far too far now in the pursuit of their defence, in the misery they have created for innocent people.” And another that (referring to Hamas): “the source of Palestine’s misery is those people who came in one day who murdered 1200 people and stole over 100 hostages, took them to their country and are now using them as bargaining chips”.
Why then vote for a resolution that fails to condemn Hamas (no UN resolutions have condemned it), emboldens it and ignores Israel’s security concerns and the hostages? And that requires Jews to leave Jersualem?
New Zealand’s UN representative said: “A two-state solution needs to be the product of negotiations” (a position that is consistent with past governments). So why vote for a resolution that disincentivises and bypasses any negotiations by pre-determining their outcome and absolving the Palestinians of any responsibility or agency, by requiring nothing of them and meeting their demands?
What people, principle, policy or posturing require supporting a resolution that is not workable, evidently hard to justify, irreconcilable with New Zealand’s longstanding position, imperils the state in the Middle East with values and freedoms most closely aligned to ours, and puts us at odds with our allies and closest friends?
In 1980 then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon observed that “our foreign policy is trade”. I don’t know if that is the answer, but we deserve to know what is.
Juliet Moses is a New Zealand lawyer specialising in trusts and estates work with wide experience. This article was first published HERE
20 comments:
A barrage of waffle and words from the IJC and the UN to draw attention away from the FACTS :-
Hamas terrorists supported by Palestine, invaded Israel and carried out large scale murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent, civilians.
That is an act or WAR.
They started it.
You repeatedly make the prediction about Tel Aviv being a 'smoking hole in the ground by Xmas', Hazel. What is your source? And more importantly, will you be honest enough to own up to having been wrong when it doesn't happen? If this prediction is based on some nutcase 'prophecy', the answer to the latter question is certain to be in the negative, as believers have no intellectual integrity.
Juliet Moses is a prominent representative of a Jewish organisation whose sole goal is the advancement of Jewish interests.
Accordingly, when she talks in patronising and disdainful tones of "moral confusion", what she really means is that she expects New Zealand to back Israel. Why? It's very hard to say. I can't think of any significant connection New Zealand has now or has ever had with Israel or Jews in general.
Incidentally, it's a salient question to ask whether, despite being a New Zealand citizen, her actual allegiance is to her coethnics in Israel. Is she involved in advancing the interests of New Zealand as well as those of a foreign nation, Israel. Somehow, I doubt it.
Moses isn't concerned at all about morality, she is concerned about Israel. Big difference.
Perhaps if, like so many other diaspora Jews, Israel is her principal concern, she should consider relocating there. I suppose the reason she doesn't is because it's hard to advance Israel's interest among Western non-Jews from within Israel, so she prefers to stay here browbeat New Zealanders into taking Israel's side in an affair that has nothing to do with New Zealand.
Juliet, I am wholly on the side of Israel, and heartened to note that the Islamic terrorists are being given pause. I am sure Winston Peters was not sanctioned by New Zealand as a population, to vote as he did, about a "two-state solution" which is just parroted nonsense. There is no question that Israel has an intelligent purposeful, constructive society, while the terrorist Hamas and Hezbollah think of nothing but death and destruction. I long for their complete elimination - and agonise for the poor innocents caught in the cross-fire.
I have a feeling that what I say here, The Moderators will remove as "being divisive". Moderators if that is the case, then why is Hazel Modisett allowed to use this platform - "for tyrannical written diatribe" against a Country (Israel) that since it inception has been on the receiving end of hate & armed conflict from Arab Neighbor's - to which it has to deemed itself from those armed onslaughts. It is known that in some instances that Israel has conducted "interventions" to protect both Country & People - when reviewed they were never condemned, not even by the UN. What the World seems to overlook, is the unprovoked attack on athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich - 1972 - shock/horror said the World and I recall the perpetrators being "assisted to leave Germany"- strange that!
The current conflict, was perpetrated by a group, well known to be supported by Iran, which the Western world was "treated to video footage of atrocities committed against people not associated with a/any military group - civilians.
I would ask the readers (if this makes the publishing realm) to read the written post by Philip Crump / Bearing Witness to October 7 - on this website - which me thinks should be broadcast to all New Zealander - via TV - then they can judge - truth or lies. If that is to much then go to YouTube there is plenty of historical video footage that can be viewed from that day 1 year ago.
To Hazel - your printed views remind me of written documents on both Lenin & Stalin - and what they did to the people of Russia when both came to power, interesting that the Western World remained in ignorance until the revelations of their tyrannical activities - and what reaction and/or actions were taken against them ??? - and both had a defined approach to those who opposed them - "they were shot".
Also Hazel - Iran has done the same to those 'who have not toed the line'- hanging them from cranes is used to be an example to others - from the moment that Ayatollah Khomenini arrived back in Iran and was instrumental in establishing the Iranian Republican Guard - whose reported activities since then have been equated to the SS & Gestapo of WW2, and least we forget also the Cheka, NKVD and KGB.
We have a new definition of Troll, and it is 'Hazel Modisett.' The understanding of regional geopolitics is also highly questionable.
To Ellen. Amen to that!
No, Anonymous 8:25, this Moderator does not delete material that is 'divisive' - democracy relies on the robust discussion and debate around 'divisive' issues. What will be deleted are comments that are purely ad hominem - especially the nasty kind - or may be actionable , or bring NZCPR into disrepute.
MODERATOR
Show me the last time Israel crashed aeroplanes into buildings, machined-gunned journalists for producing cartoons they didn’t like, put bombs on passenger ‘planes, stabbed people in the street for not being Muslim and threw homosexuals off buildings, among other atrocities, and I will stop my moral support of Israel to both defend itself and fight back against the terrorist tumours that afflict our world.
I appreciate your comment, Hazel.
"Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East, with thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, some capable of striking as far as Israel and southeast Europe. For the past decade, Iran has invested significantly to improve these weapons' precision and lethality. Such developments have made Iran's missile forces... a credible threat to U.S. and partner military forces in the region.”
Then there's Hezbollah. According to a 130-page report titled, "The Most Deadly War of All," compiled by a group of six Israeli think-tanks and based on three years of research and the opinions of over 100 Israeli defence experts and IDF commanders, war on Hezbollah would be, as the report's title suggests, the most deadly war of all for Israel. According to the report, Hezbollah would be capable of launching 2,500 to 3,000 missiles per day, a combination of long-range precision guided and unguided rockets.
Iran and Hezbollah have been preparing for this outbreak for over two decades now, and the Iranians now promised a much more painful strike if Israel decides to escalate further. Western powers won't be able to stem the tsunami that Netanyahu is working to unleash, any more than the Operation Prosperity Guardian in the Red Sea has been able to restrain the Ansarallah in Yemen.
And its not called “Rothschild’s Israel” for nothing.
THE FORGOTTEN TRUTH ABOUT THE BALFOUR DECLARATION.
On November 2, 1917, a century ago, Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, conveyed the following pledge in a public letter to a prominent British Zionist, Lord Walter Rothschild: His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Well said, Anon.
I found Hazel's reply to me to be irrelevant, as she was referring to a purported event that took place in 1948.
My point is that the current conflict was started by Hamas terrorists invading Israel and murdering, raping, torturing and kidnapping innocent civilians.
An unprovoked terror attack.
An act of WAR.
Hamas, backed by Palestine, started this conflict.
Well said, Moderator !
Your grandmother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right Hazel?
"Samson’s option" is Israel’s D-Day strategy to annihilate the whole region by employing nuclear weapons in case Israel as a state is on the verge of collapse.
Thank you Hazel! DO NOT STOP. Loved your final metaphor about the starving beaten dog no better description of the Palestinian people has been given anywhere in NZ. I am proud of Winston Peters for voting the way he did at the UN.I know the two state solution is pie in the sky but it is light years ahead of ANYTHING offered by any other Western nation.Macron is a practical man at least in demanding an arms embargo in order to save Lebanon. Like all true kiwis I have had a gutsful of Israel's toxic destructive fascist arrogance!
Well said, Allen.
Simply reading the Hamas charter tells us what their intentions are - elimination of Jewish people.
I direct this response to Hazel Modisett in relation to her two posts
[1] - Oct 5 @ 11.10 Pm and
[2] - Oct 6 @ 1.38 PM
- you have in [1] above related to your family and their travels from Germany via England finally to Palestine. Yet you fail to state why they left England for Palestine. Surely they would have been aware of the "pitfalls" before them?
In that same post you relate to "matters conducted in the establishment of Israel"- thus I would ask, did those actions become known to they World at large - if they did how?
I am sure that many would have "made a noise, at such actions".
You have, in many of your comments, on the current situation in Israel - which you are at liberty to opine - but I would ask you - "Since the establishment of Gaza, why do the following Arab Countries not allow Palestinians to cross their borders - those Countries being - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE"? In relation to this question, why has Egypt have a substantial border, recently upgraded, between Egypt (on the Sinai) & Gaza?
In both cases I am aware of the answers, information seemingly "missed in NZ MSM" as being stories of no importance or ignored.
Hazel, you need to be very careful, in what your 2 posts have shown, there will be People who view, especially the first (and also others of recent) - as being very bitter & twisted, leading people to "mock further posts" on that basis.
Place your Family history into the past. leave it there and move on. You can not change that past, by continued hate.
Anti-Semitism is as ugly as ever. Alive and spreading like the contagion it is. The Keffiyeh scarf is now used to hide the identities of the cowards who chant anti-Semitic slogans. Interesting that the kilometres of Hamas tunnels (funded by aid money from the gullible West) were never used as shelter for the poor populace abandoned above ground, but as hiding places for the terrorists who have since met their just demise. My heart and soul goes out to the hostages, who may never see the light of day again.
Post a Comment