OIC in legal fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel

December 17, 2017 by David Singer
Read on for article

The 57 member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are living in a legal fantasyland of their own creation where non-existent principles of international law supposedly apply…writes David Singer.

The final communique issued by the OIC following its Extraordinary Summit held in Turkey on 13 December 2017 makes their flight into legal unreality crystal-clear:

  1. OIC members pledged to take joint action on the basis of international law against the statement of President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Yet international law unreservedly recognises the sovereign right of each State to designate its capital and the sovereign right of other States to decide whether to recognise that State and to locate their Embassies in such capital.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995 passed overwhelmingly by the United States Congress recognized and affirmed these long-established legal principles:

“Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital…

… Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

… The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.”

  1. The OIC condemned the illegal settlement activities by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories.


The “occupied Palestinian territories” are in fact “disputed territories” in international law where competing Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty remain to be resolved.

No binding legal ruling exists to substantiate the OIC’s mendacious claim.

There is however territory-specific legislation that negates this OIC claim – namely article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

  1. The OIC declared President Trump’s statement to be “null and void”.

The OIC acting as judge, jury and Lord High Executioner has deigned to tell an American President he cannot act in accordance with international law.

Dismissing international law by claiming it to be “null and void” has also been adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization – whose Charter proclaimed that two cardinal planks in international law – the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine and all that had been based on them were:

  • “considered fraud” in 1964 (article 18) and
  • “deemed null and void” in 1968 (article 20)

The fictitious “State of Palestine” is among the 22 Arab States that are OIC members.

The Jewish-Arab conflict remains unresolved because the Arabs have never accepted the binding validity in international law of the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by all 51 then-member States of the League of Nations in 1922:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Many of these countries have chosen in 2017 to disregard their own decisions in 1922 which established the framework for two States – one Jewish, one Arab – being eventually created in Palestine.

Today sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine resides in those two States – Israel (17%) and Jordan (78%).

Resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict will become realistically attainable when the OIC:

  1. affirms that the Mandate for Palestine is legally binding in international law and
  2. recognises the State of Israel

Cherry-picking bits and pieces of International law or even worse – making it up and refusing to acknowledge its falsity – is a recipe for continuing chaos and disorder.

David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network



6 Responses to “OIC in legal fantasyland over Trump, Jerusalem and Israel”
  1. Lynne Newington says:

    May I add the latest in my malbox from Middle East Forum?….http://www.meforum.org/7099/long-history-of-hypocrisy-about-jerusalem

    • david singer says:

      Thanks Lynne for posting this link.

      The author makes the following very relevant comment:
      “The fact Turkey has now taken the lead to speak for the Palestinians is rich with irony considering the Ottoman Turks colonized the Arabs for over 600 years and Jerusalem was kept a backwater city of no significance. As the Pakistani historian Mobarak Haidar recently wrote, “Muslims of the world have no religious basis to rule Jerusalem.”

      One can also add the Arabs controlled Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 and never did anything during that time to declare Jerusalem the capital of any Arab, Palestinian Arab or Muslim entity.

      The current uproar in the OIC is a call to incitement, contrived,very shallow and without any substance.

      What is even worse is the support the UN Security Council is giving to those spurious OIC claims.

  2. Steven Meyer says:

    Oh dear, another bit of irrelevant drivel about so-called “international law”.

    Either other countries will follow Trump’s lead and recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Or they will not. We shall see.

    In the meantime Trump has signed the waiver so an embassy move is not imminent.

    • david singer says:


      I regret that you describe my article dealing with international law as “irrelevant drivel”.

      That is precisely how organisations like the OIC, the UN and the Arab League have dealt with international law for decades.

      Ignoring the binding effect in international law of the Mandate for Palestine legislated by the League of Nations in 1922 has led to the continuation of a conflict that should have been resolved there and then.

      The Jews accepted the Mandate then – but the Arabs rejected it then and have done so ever since.

      The UN since its formation in 1945 and the OIC since its founding in 1969 have been no better.

      The continuing attempt by UN member States to undermine article 80 of the UN Charter is particularly disgraceful and has badly compromised the UN and its authority.

      Sorry Steven – whilst people like you denigrate international law – this conflict is set to continue.

      Laying down the law and insisting the Arabs respect and follow it is urgently required.

      Trump’s declaration was made in accordance with international law. That is what is galling the OIC and the UN. The longer they remain in a state of denial, the more their rantings and ravings become “irrelevant drivel”

  3. Erica Edelman says:

    Thank you David for making clear those valuable
    References – hopefully the RIGHT ppl will be reading them
    It’s a very frustrating situation and one fraught with
    More frustration should intelligence, common-sense and
    Historical relevance not be used in the near future.
    Perhaps Trump can, in his inimitable way, change the course
    Of nature and history by forcing the Arabs to look reality in
    The face and ACT accordingly – sometime SOON!

    • david singer says:


      Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem is but the first step in his eagerly anticipated “ultimate deal” for resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict – which certainly promises to be revolutionary in its proposals when it is made public.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments