U.N. Resolution 181: Why it matters

The resent passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 has created both celebration and resentment. The resolution, which condemns Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is receiving a massive backlash from Israel and her supporters; however, pro-Palestinian states are applauding the result. Both sides of the battle have been pointing the finger at each other since 1946, but could this all have been avoided by a resolution passed in 1947?

Resolution 2334 was passed due to the United States of America's abstention, which has damaged relations with Israel. The U.S., being a permanent member of the Security Council, does hold veto power - a power the U.S. has used 49 times in Israel's favor. Ironically, if all sides, including the U.N., enforced Resolution 181(II) (adopted in 1947) this whole situation would have been avoided.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (U.N. Resolution 181(II)) set out a two state plan for Mandatory Palestine (map below) and conditions for Jerusalem. Under the plan Jerusalem, including Bethlehem, is to be a separate entity or corpus separatum which is to be "under a special international regime and administered by the United Nations." Under this international regime citizens from either state are allowed freedom of movement and access to the city; people residing in the city would apply for citizenship in either Palestine or Israel.

It is abundantly evident the amount of land granted to what would have been the second newly-created Arab nation (khaki colored area) was substantially more than that of today (even without Israeli settlements), and the battle over the location of holy sites would have been almost completely avoided - both of which play into the arguments for and against U.N. Res. 2334.

The Temple Mount

According to the resolution all of East Jerusalem is "occupied territory as of 1967", which means not only is the Temple Mount within Palestinian Territory but all of the "Old City". Calling East Jerusalem "occupied territory" is one of two things - a lie or a complete lack of historic knowledge. On May 15th, 1948, just after Resolution 181(II) was passed, Israel was attacked by the Arab League along with other forces [1]. Jordan, known as Transjordan at the time, attacked Israel from the west taking full control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Eventually, in 1950, the gained territory was annexed and officially made part of Transjordan; a move the Arab League deemed illegal and invalid. Interestingly enough Pakistan, Iraq, and the United Kingdom recognized the annexation, which lasted nearly 20 years until Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. In 1988, Jordan gave up all claims to the territory, but maintains stewardship of holy Muslim sites within Jerusalem. In 1994 the two countries signed a peace treaty normalizing relations.

So, why is this important? One of the most pressing arguments against the resolution is that it places the Temple Mount within Palestinian territory. The Temple mount is Judaism's holiest site and the third most holy site for Muslims. The site, which would have been part of the corpus separatum, was illegally occupied by invading Arab forces, then taken by Israel in a war nearly two decades later. Resolution 181(II) was not "violated" by the Israelis, it was "violated" by the Arabs. Now, nearly 70 years later, the land should be "returned" to the very people who "violated" the resolution - a resolution which was reluctantly accepted by the Israeli side.

This isn't the first time Jewish claim to the site was attacked - most recently UNESCO voted in favor of a resolution which attempts to deny Judaism's connection to the Temple Mount; a blatantly dishonest rewrite of history (...but that's a topic for another blog post).

Settlements

Israeli settlements are no secret to the world. Since 1972 settlement population has grown from approximately 10,500 to almost 547,000 (2013) in the West Bank [2], with other claims at 385,900 (2015) [4] The settlements, which number over 200 [3], are peppered throughout the West Bank creating a web of checkpoints. Many suggest these settlements are strategically placed to prevent free movement of Palestinians from one location to another. One such settlement is Har Homa, which is placed between East Jerusalem and Bethlehem cuts access between the two cities. The settlement, which now has 25,000 residents, was approved in 1998 by Netanyahu; the move received intense backlash from the west. The layout of the settlements has caused major disruption in Palestinian life having been placed in a way which creates a network of checkpoints, making life for the average Palestinian extremely complicated - it's not uncommon for a Palestinian to cross at least 2 checkpoints while en route. It's also important to note the widespread home demolition which plagues the Palestinian people.

Not surprisingly, natural resources - primarily water - is also a sources of conflict between the two parties. According to various sources, Israeli settlements take the overwhelming majority of water from underground aquifers within the Palestinian territories, then sell the Palestinians desalinated water [5]. Also, according to the UN, Palestinians have been regularly prevented from accessing their farmland [6].

The primary issues with the settlements is they are deemed illegal under international law and also the perceived intent of annexation, which isn't too far fetched in light of a recently passed law in Israel. Israel is doing itself no favors with this practice both in terms of its people and their image on the international stage. Creating unnecessary suffering is never excusable, which is what these settlement networks are doing. When Israel portrays itself as a model country - which it is in many ways - it should be sure to reflect that portrayal in its actions - something it is not doing with its settlement policy.

This was all avoidable

Circling back to Resolution 181(II), it's clear all of this could have been avoided. This resolution provided a sound plan for the partitioning of lands and gave the Palestinians much more than what they have today. For the Palestinians it was a proposal delivered on a golden platter, and I am not the only one who believes this way. In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated the Arab's refusal to accept the resolution was a mistake he was working to "rectify" [7]. 

In this case the Arabs shot themselves in the foot, plain and simple. If it were not for the concessions made by the Jewish side, the current borders of Israel would reach to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Amman would be an Israeli city. Although both sides have their faults in this conflict, it seems the U.N. has completely disregarded the past actions of both parties, and the language contained in Resolution 2334 clearly shows this.

References:
1. "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948", United States Office of the Historian, accessed 28 February 2017, <https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war>
2. "Statistics on Settlements and Settler Population", B'tselem, accessed 7 March 2017, <http://www.btselem.org/settlements/statistics>
3. "Netanyahu and the Settlements", The New York Times, accessed 7 March 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/netanyahu-west-bank-settlements-israel-election.html?_r=0>
4. "Settler Population was 385,900 by the end of 2015", Jerusalem Post, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Settler-population-was-385900-by-end-of-2015-469607
5. Hass, Amira, "The Israeli 'Watergate' Scandal: The Facts About Palestinian Water", Haaretz, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.574554"
6. "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan", United Nations Human Rights Council, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_44_en.doc
7. Eldar, Akiva, "Abbas Should Change His Locks Before Next Wave of Palestinian Prisoners Freed", Haaretz, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/abbas-should-change-his-locks-before-next-wave-of-palestinian-prisoners-freed-1.399760

President-elect Donald J. Trump

Republicans, Democrats, 3rd Parties, and the media all said he could never do it; now who's laughing?

On November 11th, 2016, I woke up to the site of Donald Trump leading in the election; if memory serves me correctly, Trump was ahead with 140 electoral votes.  Honestly, I was in complete and utter shock.  Without getting myself too excited by the thought of Hillary Clinton watching her hopes fade away I thought to myself, "Holy crap, Donald J. Trump is going to to be the next president."  This was definitely an overconfident belief, considering none of the 6 major states had been called.

As I watched the map of the U.S. turn blood red, as well as the faces of Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian, it was clear the results of the left's detrimental activities had come home to roost.  The American public is simply fed up with their [the left] oppressive and illogical policies; policies which only cater to emotion, rather than logic, fact, and reason.

Over the past 8 years this administration has made the world less safe both domestically and internationally, implemented a failed healthcare system completely counter intuitive to core American values, and catered to movements rooted in misinformation, hate, and violence which have divided the nation to the point of irrecognition.  We have a border akin to a block of Swiss cheese and war tactics which resemble those of Vietnam.  Our nationalized healthcare system was a massive glitch from inception, and now people are unable to keep their doctors and are facing up to 116% premium increases (1).   There are people marching in the streets in the name of "social justice", unjustly infringing on the rights and safety of others.  The country is broken, and the people look to Trump to fix it.  The question is, can Trump do it?

Throughout the election my primary complaint about Trump was his vagueness.  He regularly used simple sentences which described his changes as "great", "huge", "big things", etc., and was awfully repetitive.  In his defense, there were some speeches of his that impressed me, but they still didn't provide a true insight into where we were going - just that it would be "better".  ...but what does "better" mean and how do we get there?

In recent days Trump has set out a plan for the first 100 days (2), which offers some impressive points:

1. Issue notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
2. Cancel restriction on American energy
3. Reduce regulations - for every new regulation, two old regulations will eliminated
4. Protect America's infrastructure
5. Investigate abuses of visa program
6. Impose five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after leaving the administration and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government

Personally, this opens my eyes a bit to how we are getting to where we are going; especially, number 6.  In my personal opinion the majority of the blame for our nation's incorrect path is on the shoulders of lobbyists.  Rather than making choices which best suite the American people as a whole, lobbyists use billions of dollars (3) to sway politicians to do their bidding, many times hanging constituents out to dry.  If you had doubts about Trump "draining the swamp", this should be a wake up call.  Based off this list, I also believe it's safe to say he is serious about immediate job creation, security, and immigration (although we'll all be waiting on The Wall).

Unfortunately, we don't have much to work on as far as gauging Trump.  All we can do is wait and watch with the hope his somewhat ambiguous goals come to fruition to the benefit of the people.  I do believe this will happen, which is why I openly supported Trump over Hillary Clinton, but only time will tell.  He has already delivered on keeping Ford's small car production line in Kentucky (4) and is currently working to keep Carrier Corporation from moving to Mexico (5).  If president-elect Trump is also able to deliver on these 6 points within the first 100 days, I think it's safe to say we have president who is a man of his word.

The Hye-Phen's Radicalism

So, when gays are telling me The Hye-Phen Magazine and Collective is an embarrassment to their community, all I can do is ask them why they are not speaking up. Here is a magazine which claims to be there for homosexuals, yet all they do is attempt to promote ultra-liberal ideals and place blame on anyone besides the responsible party which, of course, paints the community they claim to be part of as irresponsible, foul-mouthed, immature, and directionless children.

Most recently I saw one of their articles with the hashtag "stoppatriotism".  Patriotism, specifically in the United States, is what has forwarded gays the right to live as they want. Patriotism is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. Patriotism is the reason these ill-informed gender-studies majors are able to spew ignorance from the catacombs of their self-imposed righteousness. Patriotism is the reason people put on a uniform to protect you.

Personally, as a Christian, I support gay rights. Christ told us to love all - it's simple to understand. However, this "magazine" does nothing to support gays. If anything it creates a worse environment for them, as their ideals and the articles they write are illogical, uneducated, and clearly based solely on emotion. You want to help the gay community? Write articles telling how gays have lives just as anyone else. Write articles telling how gays hold true and loving relationships with their partners. Write articles which use solid facts and statistics from reputable organizations. Basically, write about the subject matter you claim to be fighting for and do it with facts, not anecdotal information or numbers from defunct/debunked organizations. Stop drawing your false lines of "intersectionality" between subjects which are unrelated in the hopes of strengthening your clearly weak arguments through mob mentality.

The final note - Take the clear hypocrisy out of your pieces. As you attack patriotism you push your ideals such as feminism, extreme-left liberalism (self-described radicals), and anti-patriarchy rubbish, which are some of the most misguided and uneducated forms of patriotism. The whole organization is so far off in "It's-everyone-else's-fault-protest-anything-that-is-the-norm-trigger-warning-safe-space-white-straight-males-are-bad land" you are unable to see your own bullshit. However, the rest of us can, and we are going to call you out on all of it, as we are not your woman and gender studies professor who spoon fed you all of this insane and backwards rhetoric.

Standing Rock and the Armenian Genocide

"The Hye-Phen Magazine and Collective" is at it, again.  This confused group of pseudo-intellectuals, who are "artists" or have obtained challenging degrees in humanities fields such as Women and Gender Studies, has been disseminating what they refer to as "journalism" to the Armenian public for roughly 2 years.  Like most liberal outlets their "news" is riddled with words such as misogyny, "intersectionality" (which doesn't exist), Islamophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry, ...you get the picture.  These cherished epithets combined with the habitual use of profanity and deflection of responsibility create the most ignorant and embarrassing publication Armenian society has ever had the displeasure of being exposed to.

In their most recent article authored by Stefanie Kundakjian, Hye-Phen compares the current situation at Standing Rock Indian Reservation, where protests have erupted over an oil pipeline, to the the Armenian Genocide. The lines Kundakjian attempts to draw between the two events resemble a severe epileptic's connect the dots puzzle.  Here are each of her arguments and why they are ignorant:

1. "The ancient city of Samosata (in Armenian: Շամուշատ) was flooded by the Atatürk Dam"
2. "Surp Giragos Armenian Apostolic Church in Diyarbakir has been expropriated"
3. "Traces of old Yerevan are being demolished"
4. "The old mining town of Alaverdi has become extremely cancerous"

Indeed, all of the events mentioned in the article are factual.  Samosata was lost in 1989, and Surp Giragos (along with others) was expropriated by Turkish authorities in 2016.  It is also true historical buildings are regularly demolished in Yerevan, and Alaverdi is an absolute mess.  However, what is happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline is no way, shape, or form comparable to these.

The difference between these events is crystal clear for anyone with even a partially functioning frontal lobe:  

1. The path of the pipeline has been carefully selected in order to avoid harming any historic or spiritual sites, and the pipeline may be rerouted if other sites are identified
2. The land being expropriated is being bought at a fair market value from the deed holders, in Turkey no one has been compensated and it's not only land but historical buildings
3. No towns or cities are being disrupted by the pipeline
4. Alaverdi is the result of loose or nonexistent regulations and outdated technology, while the pipeline is under strict regulation and being built with the newest technology and materials

It is also important to point out the difference between the governments of Turkey and the United States of America.  The U.S.A. has recognized the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, provided the Natives self-governed land, and rights not available to other American citizens.  While in Turkey the Armenian Genocide is violently denied by the government, outside of Istanbul Armenians still live in fear and are threatened, and not one area has been designated for Armenians on land that is rightfully ours.  Also, expropriation in Turkey serves to erase evidence and invalidate Armenian land claims - something the pipeline is not attempting to do. The simple fact these protests and legal actions were even allowed to occur should provide further understanding as to why the two are so very different.

This is not he first time Hye-Phen has brought disgrace upon themselves and it won't be the last.  Their addiction to "intersectionality" and "solidarity" has driven them to marginalize the Armenian Genocide and to treat its meaning with outright levity by making unjust comparisons.  They are using the Armenian Genocide as a tool to push their agenda, something which should cause anger and offense in every Armenian.  The Armenian Genocide is not a prop to be used on their stage of absurdity in order to add gravity to their otherwise featherweight notions.  

Hye-Phen really is the "Inter Semiotics"* of Armenian "journalism" - leftist, void of logic, commonsense, and reasoning.  They should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such ludicrous pieces and we, as decent individuals, should take them to task for it.  It's time for us to steamroll this monstrosity before it's allowed to spread its virus any further.
*Your disdain for the leftist millennials will increase

Being Liberal with Hypocrisy

So, the very director she used to vindicate herself is now being questioned/demeaned. And after she got on Trump's case for pointing out the timing of his accusers, she turns around and does the same thing. She's a hypocrite and liar. I hope she gets the 10 years she deserves - Martha Stewart 2.0.

The worst part about all of this is her voting base - the same people who were using FBI director, James B. Comey, to protect their candidate just last week have now taken up their torches and pitchforks against the man in light of his pursuit of material fact. The same people who were ganging up on Trump, when he made statements the system was rigged, are now cheering for Clinton as she does the same thing. This is typical of the left - it's O.K. for them, but it's not O.K. for you. This ideology has also been seen in regards to Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, who was venerated by left, even after being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual misconduct lawsuit, and subsequent impeachment (source: 1). Bill Clinton was also disbarred for 5 years and ordered to pay a US$25,000 fine (source: 2), as well as a US$850,000 settlement to one of his accusers, Paula Jones (source: 3).

During Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment debate (video below), the comments from the Democrats were not only ignorant, but downright despicable. Representative Karen Thurman (D) of Florida states:

"President Clinton, being merely a human, gave into lust. With the shame and embarrassment of that flaw being discovered, he deceived us. Those of us who voted for this man can forgive him. We can see what he has done not only for this nation, but across the world. We can see that this president has much more to give as a president. But those on this floor who are calling for impeachment never voted for him, never supported him. They have pursued him relentlessly, and they cannot forgive or accept and imperfection in this man. Just as lust a deceit are sins, so are hate and envy. Just two years ago this house took disciplinary action against the Speaker, for intentionally misrepresenting information to the House Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee recommended and this House adopted, on a bipartisan basis, reprimand over censure - a penalty which allowed the Speaker to stand for reelection. I don't know how to reconcile the hypocrisy of the House in holding the Speaker and the President to two different standards."

If you know anything about the charges against the Speaker of the House at that time, Newt Gingrich, you would know there is no equivalency between his case and the case of Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich had eighty-four charges filed against him (all by Democrats), with only one violation being found - using tax-exempt funds to favor a political party. Gingrich violated House ethics rules, but he did not break the law (source: 4). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did break the law by committing perjury and obstructing justice. The other major difference between the two is that one man used tax-exempt money to create a conservative video for a university course, while the other was forcing himself upon women and receiving oral sex from one of them in the Oval Office.

Nonetheless, this type of logic shouldn't surprise you coming from the left - liberals are always the victim. They'll turn a blind-eye to anything their party does, while calling for the public hanging of a Conservative for merely making a statement. They will also attempt to defame information based on it's source - now that their candidate is under fire from hacked e-mails released by Wikileaks, they pretend the information is not reliable as it's "from the Russians". Well, last time I checked, 2+2 = 4 regardless of who says it, and definitely regardless of whether or not it upsets someone.

"...you're a tyrant and not as open-minded as you claim to be."

Those are words I read from a close friend, yesterday. I had a long time to think about those words and came to a few realizations.

In my 32 years on this Earth I have had the time to analyze what I will support, stay neutral on, and fight against. I have traveled to many places around the world, been surrounded by various cultures, ideologies, and societal structures, and have had experiences which the greater populace has not. Point being, I have an ample amount colors on my pallet to paint my positions.

At this point, the aforementioned colors have shown me some definite things:

1.) I am a Christian; although I am not even close to being the "model Christian", I do try to be. And as I grow older, this is becoming more and more important to me. So yes, I do believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I do go to service (or as we call it in the Armenian church "badarak"). I do believe Christ's message to love all people, but that doesn't mean the world is pity party for those who choose not to contribute or help themselves if able. I do believe in charity, if it is out of the kindness of the heart and soul, not if someone if forced into it. And, of course, I believe in the morals set forth by the religion.

2.) I am a conservative. No, not the evangelical Christian conservative that tells everyone they're damned to hell if they have a belief counter to mine. I am the type of conservative that believes in civil liberties, the right of choice (within certain limits), and minimal government interference is one's life. I believe in family values, hard work, and commonsense. I believe in the free market, capitalism, and am completely against socialism in any form.

3.) Unless you are family or a close friend, I don't care about your feelings. Feelings do not take precedence over fact - ever. The more we entertain emotion over truth, the more we travel away from fact-based common sense and logic. As an example, the Armenian Genocide is factual historic event, with evidence as far as the eye can see; however, in the current state, is it the best move for the United States to recognize it? On the political stage, probably not so much; morally there is no question - the answer is yes.

4.) Not sharing certain opinions doesn't automatically make someone a "bad" person. Outside of views on extremes such as pedophilia, rape, non-justifiable homicide, abuse of people/animals, and a few others which automatically make people complete scum if they are party to them - differentiating views do not generate an automatic negative epithet. Let's take the very words which spurred this, "tyrant" and "closed-minded" (condensed from "not as open-minded as you claim to be"). Would those labels have been given if views were in-line, regardless of the approach? My gut feeling is they wouldn't have been. Not aligning with your beliefs doesn't make me any more closed-minded than you telling me I am "closed-minded" for not believing what you do.

5.) It's important not to label people until they have actually committed an action which warrants the label, especially, when with epithets such as "racist", "sexist", any "-phobic", "bigot", etc. If you label someone without evidence, you’re actually the one worthy of the label.  If you come across someone like this, it’s most likely not worth your time to engage them in discussion, as they are void of reason.  Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of choice for the left. They will use them regardless of politeness or substantiated evidence. There is simply no détente.


6.) Again, there is no détente. Knowing this truth, speak bluntly and to the point. Do not concede simply out of fear of being labeled, disliked, or even of losing a friend. No matter what, you are going to deal with this is one way, shape, or form, so just say what you mean and mean what you say. Beating around the bush will only prolong the discussion and open the door to “so what you’re saying is”, and your words will quickly be twisted into an abridged version of “Mein Kampf”. (Disclaimer: I am not evoking Godwin’s Law.  I am, however, using Hitler as he is the only person the left seems to be aware of.)


7.) Religious views follow everyone to the voting booth, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s when the government starts directing religious establishments or vis-à-vis that we have a problem. No one should be forced by the government to go against their religious views if no one is in danger, period.

I could add more, but I am simply short on time. 

While writing this I came to the understanding I have been pushed into to many of these realizations by my personal debate experiences or dealings with leftists, because of how they are quick to judge based solely on emotion.  Till this day I have never ended a friendship with someone who was a leftist, and I have never labeled someone without evidence. On the other hand, I can name at least a dozen times this has happened to me.  Whatever you do, don’t fall into these types of traps or display the same behavior.  Stay calm, provide evidence, and don’t let emotion take over. Let them degrade their own argument and character through your composure.

P.S. To my friend who was the catalyst for this piece – don’t take everything I have written on your shoulders, as much of it doesn’t apply to you.

An extreme lack of historic understanding

An extreme lack of historic understanding

The U.S. wasn't a "country", when settlers came. There were no borders, there was only tribal governance. Now, I am not saying that was either good or bad, but to make it seem as though there was a functioning nation state is preposterous.

Every nation in this world, for the most part, is based on the settling of lands. There are exceptions to the rule in terms of nations of ancient peoples, but it's a rarity. Most of Europe came out of Anatolia in the beginning, so is the man going to tell the reporter to go back to Anatolia instead of Germany, for example? Also, that would mean he'd need to take himself back to where he came from. On the same (unfortunate) note, slavery was standard practice during those times. Africans were enslaving Africans, Caucasians enslaving Caucasians, Arabs enslaving Africans, Indians, and Caucasians (search: Barbary Slave Trade), Chinese enslaved the Chinese, etc. Europeans didn't start slavery - they ended it.

**Side note: Native Americans were the last people in the United States to free their African slaves. They fought tooth and nail to keep them, with some Native tribes joining the Confederate Army. I wonder if Mr. Go-back-to-where-you-came-from knows that.**

The whole notion of not standing for the flag due to an embellished and, sometimes, downright false accusations is asinine, but it is a Right granted to all U.S. citizens and nationals by the First Amendment, which I strongly support; however, just because you have the right to not stand, doesn't make you any less of an asshole for not doing it. People like Colin Kaepernick, who is half Caucasian, makes US$19 million a year, and who was adopted by white parents, speaks about "oppression", and protests it by not standing for the anthem and flag of the very nation that forwarded him the opportunity to become so successful, even as a 2nd rate QB. Now, due to his status and fame as a NFL player, people are blindly following suit.  And "Quanell X", another ill-informed and self-victimizing "community activist" (read: everything is whitey's fault), is there to herd the sheep under the same false flag.