Israel Has Always Been Treated Differently

By Henry Srebrnik, Jewish Post, Winnipeg

We think of the period between 1948 and 1967 as one where Israel was largely accepted by the international community and world opinion, in large part due to revulsion over the Nazi Holocaust. Whereas the Arabs in the former British Mandate of Palestine were, we are told, largely forgotten.

But that’s actually not true. Israel declared its independence on May 14,1948 and fought for its survival in a war lasting almost a year into 1949. A consequence was the expulsion and/or flight of most of the Arab population. In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, millions of other people across the world were also driven from their homes, and boundaries were redrawn in Europe and Asia that benefited the victorious states, to the detriment of the defeated countries. That is indeed forgotten.

Israel was not admitted to the United Nations until May 11, 1949. Admission was contingent on Israel accepting and fulfilling the obligations of the UN Charter, including elements from previous resolutions like the November 29, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan to create Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. This became a dead letter after Israel’s War of Independence. The victorious Jewish state gained more territory, while an Arab state never emerged. Those parts of Palestine that remained outside Israel ended up with Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank). They were occupied by Israel in 1967, after another defensive war against Arab states.

And even at that, we should recall, UN support for the 1947 partition plan came from a body at that time dominated by Western Europe and Latin American states, along with a Communist bloc temporarily in favour of a Jewish entity, at a time when colonial powers were in charge of much of Asia and Africa. Today, such a plan would have had zero chance of adoption.

After all, on November 10, 1975, the General Assembly, by a vote of 72 in favour, 35 against, with 32 abstentions, passed Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism “a form of racism.” Resolution 3379 officially condemned the national ideology of the Jewish state. Though it was rescinded on December 16, 1991, most of the governments and populations in these countries continue to support that view.

As for the Palestinian Arabs, were they forgotten before 1967? Not at all. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, stating that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” This is the so-called right of return demanded by Israel’s enemies.

As well, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established Dec. 8, 1949. UNRWA’s mandate encompasses Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war and subsequent conflicts, as well as their descendants, including legally adopted children. More than 5.6 million Palestinians are registered with UNRWA as refugees. It is the only UN agency dealing with a specific group of refugees. The millions of all other displaced peoples from all other wars come under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Yet UNRWA has more staff than the UNHRC.

But the difference goes beyond the anomaly of two structures and two bureaucracies. In fact, they have two strikingly different mandates. UNHCR seeks to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not. When, in 1951, John Blanford, UNRWA’s then-director, proposed resettling up to 250,000 refugees in nearby Arab countries, those countries reacted with rage and refused, leading to his departure. The message got through. No UN official since has pushed for resettlement.

Moreover, the UNRWA and UNHCR definitions of a refugee differ markedly. Whereas the UNHCR services only those who’ve actually fled their homelands, the UNRWA definition covers “the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948,” without any generational limitations.

Israel is the only country that’s the continuous target of three standing UN bodies established and staffed solely for the purpose of advancing the Palestinian cause and bashing Israel -- the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN’s Department of Political Affairs.

Israel is also the only state whose capital city, Jerusalem, with which the Jewish people have been umbilically linked for more than 3,000 years, is not recognized by almost all other countries.

So from its very inception until today, Israel has been treated differently than all other states, even those, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Sudan, immersed in brutal civil wars from their very inception. Newscasts, when reporting about the West Bank, use the term Occupied Palestinian Territories, though there are countless such areas elsewhere on the globe.

Even though Israel left Gaza in September 2005 and is no longer in occupation of the strip (leading to its takeover by Hamas, as we know), this has been contested by the UN, which though not declaring Gaza “occupied” under the legal definition, has referred to Gaza under the nomenclature of “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” It seems Israel, no matter what it does, can’t win. For much of the world, it is seen as an “outlaw” state.

 

 

Thinking Outside the Map: Uniting Greenland and Nunavut

 

By Henry Srebrnik, Saint John Telegraph-Journal

When it comes to U.S. President Donald Trump’s territorial ambitions in the Western hemisphere, we have heard quite a lot over the past few months of his desire to acquire Greenland from Danish rule. Canada, not surprisingly, has made its concern felt. In fact, to drive the point home, a new Canadian Consulate in Greenland’s capital of Nuuk officially opened Jan. 6 in front of an Inuit delegation from Canada, who brought a stern message for Trump: “Back off.” Canada and Denmark  have now signed a defence co-operation agreement.

It was a glimpse of how, for the Inuit peoples across the Arctic, the battle over Greenland has become a wider reckoning, seemingly pitting the long-fought battle to assert their rights against a global push for power.

Natan Obed, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national body representing Inuit in Canada, stressed that the consulate symbolizes a show of support for Indigenous self-determination. Obed also announced on Feb. 11 that Arviat, a small Nunavut community, will be the home of the first Inuit-led university in the Arctic.

“Inuit underpin Canada’s sovereignty,” he remarked. “Inuit have had to figure out how to maintain our society, our culture and our self-determination in the midst of other people wanting different things from us or from our lands and territories.”

As for Greenland, in a 1979 referendum, a substantial majority of voters on Kalaallit Nunaat (the Inuit name for Greenland) opted for “home rule” within the Danish Kingdom. In 2009, home rule was replaced by a policy of self-government, which outlines a clear path to independence from Denmark.

On Feb. 18, Denmark’s King Frederick X arrived in the capital Nuuk for a three-day visit in a show of support for the Greenlandic people. But in fact Greenland is still at the moment a colony – never mind the fancy verbiage -- of a European nation, Denmark, a relic of the age of imperialism when the entire so-called “New World” was conquered and its indigenous peoples dispossessed. Apart from Greenland, all the lands in the far north came under British and Russian control. Russia later sold Alaska to the United States, while Canada inherited the remainder of the Arctic north, including its major islands in the Arctic Archipelago adjacent to and west of Greenland.

“In the increased tension between great powers, our concern is that the Arctic is portrayed as an asset or as an empty ice desert,” contends Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and a former leader of Inuit Ataqatigiit, a pro-independence political party in Greenland. “To us it is our homeland, its riches are what sustain our people, our culture, our children, youth, and elders.”

But why stop with independence for Greenland? Inuit Nunangat is the Inuit homeland in Canada, encompassing the land claims regions of Nunavut, which became a Canadian self-governing territory separated from the Northwest Territories in 1999; Nunavik in Northern Quebec; Nunatsiavut in Northern Labrador; and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories.  All together, this is an area encompassing 40 per cent of Canada’s land and 72 per cent of its coastline. The 2021 census reported 70,545 Inuit in Canada, mostly in their ancestral territories in the three territories, Labrador and northern Quebec.

Were these areas in Canada’s north to form a sovereign nation together with Kalaallit Nunaat, it would become one of the world’s largest nations, astride a gigantic arc over thousands of square kilometres, and rich in minerals and other resources. Both regions are predominantly Inuit, with strong family ties spanning the border. Greenland has a population of approximately 57,000, while Nunavut has around 40,000. A homogenous state, it would encompass most of the Inuit people.

As an aside, it would also put an end to the comic-opera dispute between Canada and Denmark over a tiny island which sits equidistant between Greenland and Nunavut’s Ellesmere Island. For nearly 50 years, Canada and Denmark engaged in one of the world’s friendliest territorial disputes over Hans Island.

The “conflict” involved both nations alternately planting flags and leaving bottles of liquor on the island. It wasn’t until 2022 that both countries finally signed a peaceful agreement, splitting the island and officially ending the quirky standoff.

Although uninhabited, Tartupaluk, the island’s indigenous name, has historically been significant both to the people of Kalaallit Nunaat and Nunavut and ensures freedom of movement throughout the island As such, the 2022 Agreement constitutes a historic milestone for the future of Inuit rights in the region.

Inuit also have worked together across colonial borders to advocate for their rights and the preservation of their cultures through the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which includes representatives from Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Siberia. And Nunavut has demonstrated support for Greenland against the recent external pressures coming from Trump. Members of Nunavut’s legislative assembly raised Greenland’s flag Jan. 20 in solidarity with the island.

So why not a joint Inuit sovereign state in North America? I know this may be a bold proposal, but most of the world might see it as the decolonisation of much of the Arctic. Since Canada considers the Inuit a First Nation, why not make it real? A new nation comprised of the traditional territories of the Inuit would be a remarkable expression of Indigenous self-determination.