The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine: From the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution to the First Zionist Congress of 1897

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid Khalidi

Challenging the widely accepted premise that the 1948 war was a war of Jewish self-defense, the author demonstrates that the 1947 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) partition resolution was fundamentally a green light for the Yishuv's fully mobilized paramilitary organizations (supported by the resources of the World Zionist Organization) to effect the long-planned establishment of a Jewish state by force of arms. He further argues that as a national movement, Zionism was inherently conquest-oriented from the moment of its birth in Basel in 1897 and that it most closely resembles——in the alchemy of its religious and secular motivation and its insatiable land hunger, irredentism, and indifference to the fate of the "natives"——the Iberian Reconquista of the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
Bojan Ramadanovic

All Canadian governments say that Canada must look to its “friends and allies” and “like-minded partners” to achieve greater cooperation on global issues. But who are these countries exactly? To gain a better understanding of where Ottawa stands in the world, with whom, and under what conditions, we analyze Canada’s voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly from 1980 to 2017. We find that Canada’s overall record tends towards that of Western European states. We find no evidence of greater affinity with US positions either when the Democrats are in power in Washington or when the conservative parties reign in power in Ottawa. We identify a sharp pro-US turn in the Harper years, and also confirm that the government of Justin Trudeau started off by maintaining rather than reversing this trend.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Jelsma

AbstractThis paper explores key lessons from the 1990 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drug Abuse (UNGASS 1990) and the 1998 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 1998), and tracks subsequent policy events and trends. It discusses the wide array of increasing tensions and cracks in the “Vienna consensus,” as well as systemic challenges and recent treaty breaches. Various options for treaty reform are explored and the following questions are considered: Given policy developments around the world this past decade, what outcomes can the 2016 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016) have in terms of a new political compromise? How can UNGASS 2016 contribute to more system-wide coherence where previous attempts failed? Can UNGASS 2016 realistically initiate a process of modernizing the global drug control system and breathe oxygen into a system risking asphyxiation? Finally, is there a chance that treaty reform options will be discussed at all, or do today’s political realities still block possible future regime changes?


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
Bojan Ramadanovic

AbstractAll Canadian governments say that Canada must look to its friends and allies and like-minded partners to achieve greater cooperation on global issues. But who are these countries exactly? To gain a better understanding of where Ottawa stands in the world, with whom and under what conditions, we analyze Canada's voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly from 1980 to 2017. We find that Canada's overall record tends toward that of Western European states. We find no evidence of greater affinity with US positions either when the Democrats are in power in Washington or when the conservative parties are in power in Ottawa. We identify a sharp pro-US turn in the Harper years and also confirm that the government of Justin Trudeau started off by maintaining rather than reversing this trend.


1982 ◽  
Vol 38 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 334-343
Author(s):  
Anirudha Gupta

In South Africa's apartheid the United Nations has met with its own antithesis. For, apartheid repudiates almost universally everything that the United Nations stands for. It is not merely a “form of racial discrimination,”1 it is also a system that permanently denies, “through laws, administrative decrees and practices any…role for the 19 million Blacks (in South Africa) and confers on the 4.5 million Whites a monopoly of economic, political and social power,”2 Such a system, as stated by the International Court of Justice on the Namibian issue, “is a violation of a norm, or rule, or standard of the international community.”3 And, as the apartheid regime has over the years grown more aggressive both in its domestic and external policies, the world community has come to increasingly recognize the system to be a crime against humanity which “constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security.”4 The point is that despite its abhorrent “crimes,” South Africa continues to be a member of the. United Nations and, by logic therefore, also a member of the world community. This raises an interesting question: Should the United Nations in order to be consistent to its own Charter and declarations expel South Africa and technically resolve its anti-thesis in the system of apartheid? But would this be a real solution? Whether South Africa remains a member of the United Nations or not, the oppressed population under apartheid would still constitute apart of humanity. Hence, in order to liberate this “part” the world community must act in unison to uproot apartheid from the very face of the earth. This is enjoined as much by the Declaration on all Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965 to the effect that: “any doctrine of differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination in theory or in practice anywhere.” If this declaration has to be given a practical effect, the United Nations must deny South Africa under apartheid all attributes of an independent sovereign state. For human rights, as enshrined by the two covenants of 1948, are indivisible; hence it would depend on lawyers and jurists to provide for such rules in international law as would forfeit the right of a state to exist until it restores social, economic and political rights of its citizens in consonance with the principal ethics of the international community. To combat apartheid, we must isolate its political reality from its territorial base. In other words, the United Nations must declare that South Africa, as a territory, ceases to exist so long as apartheid has not been completely eliminated! As we shall see, this is a distinction which has not been given proper attention in the numerous debates and deliberations of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the means to combat apartheid.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document