Monday, October 18, 2010

UN recognition of Palestine?

The PA has announced that it is considering taking the issue of recognition of a Palestinian State within the pre-1967 borders to the UN. They would ask both the General Assembly and the Security Council to vote on this. The ostensible reason is that Israel refuses to stop building on the West Bank, including the recent approval of a further 228 houses there, while at the same time engaging in direct talks. Such a move to petition the UN could have severe political ramifications for Israel.

While the General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, the Muslims have a large majority there and will undoubtedly pass any pro-Palestinian resolution put before it. The Security Council has been the source of most binding resolutions, such a SC 242 and 338, that require direct negotiations between the two sides to resolve the conflict. It is in principle unlikely that the UN would reverse 43 years of effort in order to pass a resolution of unilateral recognition without the involvement and/or agreement of Israel. But, with the pressure from the GA vote and without strong opposition from the US (such as a veto), anything could happen. If the SC passed such a resolution it would be binding on Israel and if Israel disagrees it could put the SC and Israel on a collision course.

Of course, this whole situation is based upon a common misconception, namely that Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal. In fact, the historical record (from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, thru the San Remo Treaty of 1920 to the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations of 1922) shows clearly that Israel does indeed have a legitimate claim on this territory, although most Israeli Governments have failed to forcibly press that claim, rather preferring to hold ("occupy") the territories in lieu of the formation of a Palestinian State. This was a historic mistake, mainly to avoid incorporating large numbers of hostile Palestinian Arabs into Israel. Nevertheless, unfortunately that is the reality, so that in the minds of most people the territories that have never been under Palestinian sovereignty are nevertheless generally recognised as "Palestinian territory" and the Jewish settlements are widely considered "illegal."

Such a unilateral recognition of "Palestine" by the UN would then release Israel from the bilateral "two state solution" negotiations, and would then result in Israel unilaterally annexing those areas of the West Bank that contain dense Israeli settlement that it considers should be within its sovereign territory. This might not be so bad since it would actually resolve the border issue. But, since both sides would have acted unilaterally, there would no doubt be further ramifications, since the PA (if still constituted as such) or the nascent Palestine State would then accuse Israel of taking its territory and there could be another war, which might pit the UN against Israel. And all this because a novice President with third-world ambitions wanted to stop Israel building in already established settlements in Judea and Samaria.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home