After years of deterrents from the United States via congressional legislation and diplomatic pressure, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has voted in favor of admitting Palestine as a full member. The move, viewed by many as symbolic, could have one of two separate major impacts: first regarding UNESCO’s relationship with the US; and second on the grounds for Palestinian communities threatened by Israeli occupation, especially in the Jordan Valley, West Bank.
The US was only one of 14 members to vote against full member status for the Palestinians. The vote, however, could have a greater impact on the entire organization. In 1990, the US Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. to withdraw its funding of any UN body which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the status of a member state. The US currently funds UNESCO with 22 percent of its budget, or approximately $70 million a year. If the US does in fact cut its funding, other nations will have to pick up the balance or the organization suffers as a whole.
Assuming UNESCO can sustain itself beyond the threat of major cuts, Palestinian communities – and others around the world – may see their livelihood improve. UNESCO supports and protects education, environment, and culture; all under threat for Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly the Jordan Valley.
Since the war in 1967, Israel has been actively annexing Jordan Valley land and resources from the Palestinians. Though the West Bank is considered Palestinian territory and would be the largest region for a future Palestinian state, much of it is under complete Israeli military and administrative control. The Jordan Valley is no exception with 95 percent of it under full Israeli control.
Aside from about 20 permanent Palestinian communities, thousands of nomadic Bedouin live in the Jordan Valley and are the most vulnerable. The rapid growth in Israeli settlements has threatened their existence and has made their basic human rights unattainable.
Education
For centuries, Bedouins have maintained their way of life following agricultural trends and relocating seasonally. Along with setting up temporary homes, they also set up modest primary and secondary schools for children. Israel refuses to grant many communities permits to build schools among other infrastructures, and have demolished them repeatedly for “security” reasons. Such tactics have forced children to walk for miles a day to one of the 38 “legal” basic or secondary schools in the Valley; sometimes passing through Israeli checkpoints, settlements, and military outposts where the children face constant harassment.
UNESCO’s first of six “internationally agreed education goals” directly addresses the needs of Palestinian children in the Jordan Valley: “Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.”
Water
In order to supply the lush settlement towns and their palm tree farms in this desert region, water has been diverted away from Palestinian communities, thereby drying up their farms. Though the Jordan Valley is mostly desert, it is believed to be the richest in water in the West Bank. According to the Israeli human rights group B’tselem, “44 million m3 of water a year is allocated to fewer than 10,000 [Israeli] settlers living in the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea area. This amount is almost one-third the amount of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank.” Such a move directly harms and endangers Bedouin and farm life in the Valley forcing many communities to relocate or simply disappear.
One of UNESCO’s major projects looks to provide research, resources management, and education and capacity building around the issue of water. With Palestine becoming a member state of UNESCO, more attention to the dire water needs of the Palestinians will be addressed, possibly saving the existence of Bedouin communities under threat.
Culture
Along with membership from UNESCO, Palestinians seek protection for their endangered cultural heritage. Annually, approximately 120,000 artifacts are illegally removed from the Palestinian Territories by Israeli state and private excavations as well as theft from Palestinian excavations. The Jordan Valley is no exception as it is home to ancient history that goes as far back as the earliest civilizations.
Palestinians also seek World Heritage status for up to 20 sites including Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem and Abraham’s grave in Hebron. However, under Israeli occupation, even sites within the Palestinian Territories have been under threat by Israeli confiscation. Many religious Muslim sites among Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem have been turned into Jewish sites.
UNESCO’s World Heritage status can help protect these sites and promote universal understanding rather than exclusivity by one faith.
There are many possibilities for the protection of Palestinian communities and culture as a full member of UNESCO. Will the US keep its outdated law in place or support the education, environment and culture of Palestinians and the rest of the world?
Ehab Zahriyeh is an independent multi-media journalist who recently covered the Egyptian revolution. He has also produced work from Palestine/Israel including the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Morocco.
Craig Murray also thinks that Palestine can join the ICC, now its statehood has been recognised by UNESCO:
“There is an extremely crucial point here: if Palestine accedes to the Statute of Rome, under Article 12 of the Statute of Rome, the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction over Israelis committing war crimes on Palestinian soil. Other states parties – including the UK – would be obliged by law to hand over indicted Israeli war criminals to the court at the Hague. This would be a massive blow to the Israeli propaganda and lobbying machine.”
link to craigmurray.org.uk
The pressure that will be exerted to prevent this will be massive.
I’m sure those 60+/- millions $$$ that supposed to go to UNESCO from USA will be “properly utilized”, by paying an unchanging homage to Israel, American politicians.
Part of it probably will be used for chiropractor’s services.
Constant bending does causes a back pain.
They can only maintain the pressure for so long. They have blocked off all alternatives. And Israeli war criminals deserve what is coming to them.
Pressure can increase resolve – especially in the face of this recent victory. I believe that this is the precursor to a cascade of such changes.
There will be howls of protests from the usual suspects and machinations behind the curtains, but Israel and the lobby has overplayed its hand this time. The episode of congress kowtowing to Bibi, followed by this flagrant demonstration of our government’s obeisance to Israel has not gone unnoticed by an increasing number of Americans and I perceive that it will become increasingly harder for the lobby to continue its control of politicians – although it may not be as evident today.
Maybe I am overoptimistic, but these are good events and I intend to celebrate every small victory.
Palestine is on a roll and will definitely keep it up. The US may not care about UNESCO, but there are other agencies that are important. If they withdraw from all of them, the interested parties – US interested parties – will howl in outrage. And the more howling, the more exposure this gets, beyond what usually is given to purely Palestinian issues.
It’s going to be increasingly clear that the US cares more about Israel than about, say, world health. The health lobby will point this out.
Some interesting stuff at craigmurray’s.
One commenter mentioned the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea:
“International law can operate beyond the area of war crimes that you emphasise.
If Palestine were also to sign up the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea then it might be able to put up some resistance to the steady erosion of fishing rights that have been imposed on those living in Gaza.
The fishing area in the sea was agreed in 1994 to cover an area of 20 miles from the coast by the Jericho agreement following the Oslo accords. It has subsequently been unilaterally reduced to 12 miles then 6 miles and since 2008 to 3 miles. Even in this limited space Israeli gunboats often operate aggressively.”
I remember reading about the Law of the Sea last year but don’t remember all the details– but if Palestine could sign onto this it would have big benefits for them, ore than just fishing rights…might even prevent Israel’s sea blockade.
According to Haaretz, this is already underway:
link to haaretz.com
I don’t think there will be any real consequences on the ground in Palestine, as Israel will thwart any UNESCO activity there.
The consequences are international. At last, the issue of Palestinian statehood is out in the open, and it’s already clear that the rejectionists have no ground to stand on. The US objections boil down to: Israel wouldn’t like it. And thus Israel’s intransigence is exposed for what it is.
And one great benefit that Palestine could reap from UNESCO membership, internationally, is the support of Christians for creating Bethlehem as a heritage site. Who doesn’t love the Xmas card image of Bethlehem?
Palestine must still cross the Teas and dot the Eyes, particularly by something called “ratification” (I suppose of the UNESCO rules and of the membership). Palestine’s system of governance is weird (elected, but too long ago, and the Hamas legislators mostly in jail unless recently released) and what would constitute “ratification” remains to be seen. Of course, UNESCO would presumably be judge of its own rules * * *.
The list of direct possible gains from UNESCO is wonderful, even if it merely describes what UNESCO seeks to provide and in no way describes what Israel will allow. But it is a fine start, and illustrates how UNESCO’s goals for humane treatment of peoples is at odds with Israel’s view of its various cruel droits de seigneur.
Beyond any other thing, changing USA’s policy regarding I/P depends on educating the USA public to facts of Israel’s mistreatment of people living in the OPTs. I hope this essay find wide readership.
The UNESCO vote showed up how isolated Israel is diplomatically even though it has exclusive bitchslapping rights for the US Congress.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene a meeting with his eight senior ministers on Tuesday to discuss THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSING SANCTIONS on the Palestinian Authority after it was granted full membership from UNESCO.
According to a senior Israeli official, it is still unclear whether a decision will be reached on Tuesday, but various proposals aimed at taking PUNITIVE MEASURES against the Palestinians are expected.
Among the ideas are cancelling the VIP status of senior Palestinian officials which enables them to cross through Israeli checkpoints, increasing settlement construction, and halting the transfer of tax money which Israel collects for the Palestinian Authority.
Earlier Monday, UNESCO accepted the Palestinian Authority as a full member of the organization.
In response, the U.S. decided to cut off funding for the UN cultural body. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday that since the vote triggered a long-standing congressional restriction on funding to UN bodies that recognize Palestine as a state before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached.
Following the vote on Palestinian membership, Israel also warned it will now reconsider its cooperation with UNESCO.”
The Sanhedrin Chiefs have gotten angry. They are the Chiefs after all. Nothing gets approved without their mighty approval.
How dare those Palestinians were.
How dare UNESCO was accepting their proposition.
How dare, how dare , how dare. This is just unacceptable.
Unheard of.
Why does Zionist media keep saying “Palestinian Authority” ?
UNESCO accepted the Palestinian Authority as a full member of the organization
Haaretz and Jpost keep stressing the name Palestinian Authority, Witty said something like “Congratulations Palestinian Authority” yesterday too. It’s Palestine, they accepted Palestine. The PLO bid for it, not the PA. The PA will soon become a relic of the failed peace process
According to Phyllis Bennis on today’s Democracy Now, membership in Unesco will give Palestine the right to membership in a number of UN organizations with no other real requirements to join, including the body that deals with intellectual property rights which Google and others really can’t afford to not have the US be a member.
The US Congress passed very strict laws in 1990 and 1994 that prevent the US from being a member of any UN organization that recognizes Palestine as a state. The laws were designed to be water-tight and to prevent any attempt to get around them, by the president or anybody else.
The idea was to blackmail the UN, but these laws cut both ways, especially since the international community appears to be approaching the end of its tether and displaying some promising signs of spirit.
Indeed, the implications for the US itself are rather amazing: since the Palestinians intend to apply for any UN agency that will accept them, and since they will almost certainly be accepted, because it shouldn’t be hard for them to drum up the 2/3 majority vote they need to get in, that means that the US’ subservience to Israel will lead to the US automatically being forced automatically to withdraw from some pretty important agencies, possibly including the UN’s nuclear watchdog the IAEA, the World Health Organization and the UN Conference on Trade & Development, to name but a few from a long list.
In other words, to please Israel, those who are entrusted with governing the US on behalf of the American people are voluntarily giving up their own country’s ability to have an input on issues that directly affect its own interests as well as their nation’s credibility and reputation in the global arena, and gratuitously, irrationally, not to mention immorally, choosing to join Israel in its increasing isolation.
Being Israel’s “ally” is a very, very expensive undertaking. It may be too costly for even the world’s sole superpower to carry for much longer without collapsing under the burden.
The question is whether the Zionists will ever find such a sweet, besotted, groveling and unbelievably generous sugar-daddy ever again. Doubtful, though not for lack of trying.
Wonder if there is a nice archive of all those US laws and agreements with Israel which play a part in the unconditional support. Gets more and more unconditional as time goes on and is well beyond ridiculous. Truman was an Evangelical Baptist and supporter of Zionism. He caved to Zionist lobbies tugging on his religion over the advice of his own administration and supported partitioning Palestine. Many do not know this, but the US withdrew their support for partition after Zionist terrorists murdered UN envoy Folke Bernadotte. Some say the US being the first to recognize Israel was them ‘apologizing’ for doing so. After 1948, that was it. Israel was not a foreign policy concern for nearly 20 year afterwards and the unconditional support did not exist. It was only after JFK began questioning them about their nuclear program and the 1967 war when things started to change (for the worse).
In 1973 Golda Meir blackmailed the US into aiding Israel by preparing nuclear warheads onto missiles and threatening to nuke Egypt and Syria if we didn’t help them out. This convinces me that the Samson option and nuclear blackmail are very real and also play a role in the unconditional support. The series of agreements and laws following the Camp David Accords have solidified this special relationship.
Israel is key to US foreign policy and security, a significant factor in all wars, and a huge reason why we adopted the Big Brother-esque Patriot Act and established Homeland Security, the TSA, torture and assassination policies, etc. which are most of the reason why we are broke. They have literally destroyed us. How the hasbarists can joke about it and why the majority of Americans allowed their country to be destroyed defies rational explanation.
The Abrahamic religions are also a victim. Zionism has destroyed most of Judaism. Zionism has infiltrated and is destroying Christianity in terms of the fundamentalist rapturous variety. These people unconditionally support the murder of innocents and the destruction of the ME in order to fulfill end-times interpreted beliefs. And of course the Muslims are on the receiving end of this destruction in addition to demonization in the West. An inevitable regional war ignited by Israel attacking Iran could very well result in the physical destruction of the majority of Jews and Muslims in the world with the fundies and the US receiving the blame. Hopefully this never happens.
The first order of business for UNESCO (the rest of the UN, too) should be to kick out any country that suspends any payments due to membership decisions. There is no reason why US government, businesses and people should continue to enjoy any benefit conferred by the UN system if the US is going to be petulant children.
Charon said: “In 1973 Golda Meir blackmailed the US into aiding Israel by preparing nuclear warheads onto missiles and threatening to nuke Egypt and Syria if we didn’t help them out.”
Actually, as far as I know, that’s not true — it was the United States that indirectly threatened to launch a nuclear conflagration to prevent the Soviets from intervening to stop Israel from violating the ceasefire. And it was Henry Kissinger, along with his protege Alexander Haig who basically hijacked the presidency in order to make this threat. During the 1973 war, whether by design or luck, President Nixon was drunk or drugged or debilitated by depression; in any case, he was incapacitated and out of the loop.
Henry Kissinger took over the White House and nobody, including the Soviets, had any choice but to deal only with him.
From a very interesting article in Vanity Fair published in May 2007:
link to vanityfair.com
“When Haig reported that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process. Over the next three days, Kissinger oversaw the diplomatic exchanges with the Israelis and Soviets about the war. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s requests for military supplies, which were beginning to run low, came not to Nixon but to Kissinger. Although he consistently described himself as representing the president’s wishes, Kissinger was seen by outsiders as the principal U.S. official through whom business should be conducted. On October 7, for example, a Brezhnev letter to Nixon was a response to “the messages you transmitted to us through Dr. Kissinger.” On October 9, a telegram to King Hussein of Jordan urging continued non-involvement in the conflict came not from Nixon but from Kissinger.
Although Kissinger spoke to Nixon frequently during these four days, it was usually Kissinger who initiated the calls, kept track of the fighting, and parceled out information as he saw fit. On the night of October 7, according to a telephone transcript, Nixon asked Kissinger if there had been any message from Brezhnev. “Oh, yes, we heard from him,” Kissinger replied, volunteering no more. Nixon had to press, asking lamely, “What did he say?”
At 7:55 on the night of October 11, Brent Scowcroft, Haig’s replacement as Kissinger’s deputy at the N.S.C., called Kissinger to report that the British prime minister, Edward Heath, wanted to speak to the president in the next 30 minutes. According to a telephone transcript, Kissinger replied, “Can we tell them no? When I talked to the President he was loaded.” Scowcroft suggested that they describe Nixon as unavailable, but say that the prime minister could speak to Kissinger. “In fact, I would welcome it,” Kissinger told Scowcroft.
…
The Middle East situation remained dangerous. On the afternoon of October 23, Moscow and Washington began exchanging messages on the hotline about Israeli and Egyptian violations of the cease-fire. The Soviets were particularly concerned about the Egyptian Third Army, which was cut off in the Sinai. The next day Brezhnev complained that Israel was ignoring the cease-fire, and he proposed a joint military intervention to implement the agreement. He warned that if the United States would not agree to this Moscow might decide to act alone. Kissinger cautioned the Soviets against unilateral intervention.
…
Kissinger and Haig decided to convene a meeting of national-security officials to devise a response to Brezhnev. Kissinger acknowledges in his memoirs that Nixon was by then asleep, and that he and Haig decided not to get him up. “Should I wake up the President?,” Kissinger asked Haig during a 9:50 p.m. phone conversation on October 24, according to the transcript. “No,” Haig answered. A half-hour later, in another phone conversation, it is Kissinger who has become reluctant. “Have you talked to the President?,” Haig asked. “No, I haven’t,” Kissinger replied. “He would just start charging around I don’t think we should bother the President.”
Haig persuaded Kissinger to at least shift the meeting from the State Department to the White House, as a way to leave the impression that Nixon was “a part of everything you are doing.” Was Nixon on sedatives that would not allow him to function effectively? Had he been drinking? Was he simply preoccupied, as Kissinger suggests in his official recollections? For whatever reason, Kissinger did not want the president involved.
It was an extraordinary turn of events. None of the seven officials who met for more than three hours, until two a.m., had been elected to office. Yet they were setting policy in a dangerous international crisis, and coming to a decision that should have rested with the president: directing U.S. forces to raise America’s worldwide level of military readiness from Defense Conditions 4 and 5 to Def Con 3, a level reached only once before, during the Cuban missile crisis. (U.S. readiness would be raised on only two subsequent occasions, during the 1991 Gulf War and on September 11, 2001.) The worldwide alert was coupled with a message delivered to the Soviet Embassy at 5:40 a.m. It described “your suggestion of unilateral action as a matter of the gravest concern involving incalculable consequences.” Although the White House issued a statement attributing to Nixon the decision to put the nation on high alert, and Kissinger repeated this assertion at a press briefing, it was Kissinger and the six other national-security officials in the early-morning hours who actually chose to do it, though presumably confident that they reflected Nixon’s wishes. But how confident could they really have been? As Kissinger would remind Haig the next day, according to the transcript of a phone call, “You and I were the only ones for it. These other guys were wailing all over the place this morning.”"