Palestine is likely to be cruelly disappointed. Far from being the solution for the Palestinians, the UN has always been part of the problem. PATRICK SCOTT looks at the record.
Trom the outset, the key belief of F many Zionist leader was that a
Jewish state could only survive in Palestine if it was aligned with a leading imperialist power, and at first that power appeared to be Britain.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 committed British support in principle to a Jewish state in Palestine. Palestine at that time was part of the Ottoman Empire, but Britain and France had secretly signed the Sykes-Picot agreement the previous year agreeing to divide the Ottoman Territories in the Middle East between themselves, with Palestine falling under British rule.
Sykes-Picot was implemented after World War I.
The rationale behind the Balfour Declaration for creating a Jewish state in Palestine was that such a state would be part of or allied with the British Empire, and could administer Britain's imperial interests
Britain's decline as an imperialist power ran alongside the rise of US imperialism after World War 2. In this sense Balfour had got it wrong: the Jewish state was to be a client of US rather than British imperialism.
But it is highly unlikely that the state of Israel would exist today had it not been for the support of the UN General Assembly in 1947 for Resolution 181, supporting the division of Palestine into two states, and crucially the support of both the US and the
Stalin wanted to secure a British withdrawal from Palestine and certainly considered the possibility of cultivating Israel as an ally. Stalin's affection for the Zionists though was to be unrequited, as all the Israeli leadCarving up the world to suit imperialism: British tanks in Palestine, 1948 ers clearly understood that the Israeli state could only exist and prosper on the basis of allying itself with imperialist powers in general, and particularly the USA as the most powerful imperialist power.
Even though two thirds of the Palestinian population was Arab, UN Resolution 18l awarded 55% of Palestinian land to the Jews. Moreover even within the territory
the Jewish state the Palestinians constituted a substantial minority, some estimates have placed it just short
In other words even the division of Palestine on the basis of Resolution 18l would have resulted in the forcible expulsion at the very least of a substantial proportion of the existing Palestinian population in order to create a secure Jewish majority in neighbouring Arab states (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) which continued into 1949. In declaring war on Israel these Arab states were clearly responding to a greater or lesser extent to the objective pressure of their own masses in attempting to prevent the expulsion of the majority of Palestinians from the territories of
The Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9 however ended in a relative victory for Israel. Under a Conciliation Commission established by armistices were signed between Israel and "No state with a seat on the Security Council has put a resolution threatening sanctions against Israel for its violation of UN resolutions." its neighbours. As a result of these armistices the Israel took control of 78% of the land of Palestine as administered under
The territory of the remaining 22%, the Gaza strip in the West and the West Bank in the East were subsequently annexed by Egypt and Jordan respectively. In other words the indigenous citizens of Palestine, who formed a substantial majority of the population at the outbreak of the war, were now left without a state: and all this had of the Suez Canal against Egypt in 1956.
• Secondly, the 1967 War where Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza (ie the remaining 22% of pre 1948 Palestine) as well as the Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights.
• Finally there was the 1982 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.
None of these military invasions could be described as being of a defensive nature by any stretch of the imagination. The Israeli leadership had an expansionist agenda from the outset, and at times they have been remarkably candid about this.
By way of an example the publication in 1979 of The Personal Diary of Moshe Sharett, (Sharett was a former Israeli Foreign and Prime Minister) revealed that as early as 1953 the Israeli government had plans to invade Sinai and Gaza in the West • • and Jordan in the East in order to expand the boundaries of the Israeli state.
Similarly Sharett revealed that in 1954 (twenty eight years before the actual invasion) the Israeli government had discussed plans to invade Lebanon in order to establish a Maronite Christian regime sympathetic to Israel.
sraeli expansionism is also proved by
the creation from 1967 onwards of
state sponsored Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. The establishment of such settlements constitutes a clear violation of international law as expressed under the Fourth Geneva Convention which explicitly prohibits the settlement of civilians of an occupying power in any occupied territory.
When Israel joined the UN in 1949 it formally agreed at the time to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 which called for all Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to their homes or to receive monetary compensation if they did not wish to return.
Acceptance of Resolution 194 was even made a condition of Israeli admittance to the UN. However, despite Israel's formal acceptance, only a small number of Palestinians (about 100,000) were allowed to return, and Israel was effectively allowed by the UN to renege on its promises to the Palestinian refugees.
Numerous resolutions critical of Israel have since been passed both by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. These include, but are not limited to, General Assembly Resolution 3236 passed in 1974 reaffirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and granting de facto recognition to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
It also includes Security Council Resolutions 252, 267 and 298 condemning the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem as well as Resolutions 446 and 452 condemning Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories.
The US has consistently used or threatened to use its Permanent Member veto on the UN Security Council to block resolutions it considers to be excessively critical of
The US has exercised it Permanent Member veto on over 20 occasions in relation to Israel. For example the US vetoed a Security Council resolution in March 1997 asking Israel to halt the construction of new settlements in the Occupied Territories.
• More recently the US vetoed a draft Security Council resolution in December 2001 that would have established a UN monitoring force in the Occupied Territories.
The UN Security Council passed Resolution 242 in after the 1967 War which called for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the Occupied Territories. Today, over thirty years later Israel is still in the West Bank and Gaza.
By contrast in 1956 Israel, which had invaded the Sinai peninsula in conjunction with the Anglo-French invasion of the Suez Canal zone, was forced to make an unconditional withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai under pressure from the US. President Eisenhower had in fact privately threatened the Israeli government that the US would cut all economic aid unless it withdrew its forces from Sinai.
In 1973 Israel was again forced to withdraw from Sinai as a result of economic or military factors, this time because of the surprise attack by Egypt in the Yom Kippur War. Similarly Israel was eventually forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon because it had become drawn into a conflict it could not win against the Lebanese and Palestinian militias. In all these instances the UN played no role whatsoever in forcing an Israeli military withdrawal.
For all the resolutions criticising this or that aspect of Israeli policy passed over the years the UN has accepted in practise the expansionism of Israel. No state with a seat on the Security Council has ever even attempted to place a resolution imposing or threatening sanctions against Israel for its repeated violation of UN resolutions.
Even though any such resolution would be vetoed by the US, it would at least have helped to expose the role of the US in its support of Israel.
The two state solution initially approved by the UN was always a non-starter as Israel was only ever interested in one state a Jewish state in Palestine.
page 16 of the scan
•••