|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2011-03-06
© 2011 Peter Belmont
| |
In 1947, Britain had given up on the then very troubled Palestine and handed the problem off to the UN, whose General Assembly (but not Security Council) took action. In 2011 by President Obama’s Feb 18 veto in the Security Council, the USA also seems finally to have given up, all but inviting the international community to use the UNGA to ameliorate the problem of Palestine.
In the intervening 63 years, and particularly in the nearly 44 years since the June 1967 war, the international community has taken no practical steps to intervene, chiefly because of the USA’s veto in the UNSC.
Today, especially after the Arab-Spring, it may be different,
|
|
By casting its February 18 veto in UNSC, the USA has (in effect) turned the business of managing the Israel/Palestine conflict over to whoever will take it on. In reality, the USA did this years ago, having turned the problem over to Israel itself, in whose energetic hands—apparently not in the least inconvenienced by the limitations of either international law or international opinion—it has remained and remains today.
The international community has shown no signs of actually accepting so heavy a burden, although international complaint about Israel’s stewardship has been constant and the international community has shown clear signs of being at a tipping-point as to readiness to take coercive action.
I believe that The Veto (I want a livelier name for it than that—help me!) in combination with what is becoming known as the Arab-Spring has done is to greatly encourage the international community to take real, effective action.
Such action, however, will have all the problems of committee work. Chief among them is that there is no clear idea of what the nations should work toward. Choosing a proper goal may be more important in the long run than working for a badly chosen goal.
I have long proposed what I believe is a proper goal. It is proper because it is simple and should be agreeable to the entire international community.
My proposed goal is not the imposition of “peace.” Rather, it is the enforcement of the international law of belligerent occupation. I propose that the nations find the means to coerce Israel, with appropriate sanctions, to conduct its occupations (of Gaza and West Bank; and of the Syrian Golan) lawfully.
To start with, the nations would call for: the removal of all approximately 550,000 settlers; the dismantlement of all settlements and of Israel’s “separation” or “apartheid” or “land grab” wall; and the lifting of the siege on Gaza. They might also call for an end to house demolitions (perhaps even within pre-1967 Israel) and an end to exile of Palestinians from their homes in occupied East Jerusalem. Any Israeli buildings constructed inside occupied territories would be considered “settlements” except buildings constructed and thereafter used exclusively for the administration of Palestinian life under occupation. They might also call for an end to Israeli use of WATER RESOURCES properly belonging to the West Bank.
My goal in this essay is to identify a goal which I believe all the nations could quickly agree to, a goal unexceptional because it consists solely of a call for the enforcement of well-agreed international law.
Imposing a “peace”, by contrast, is filled with difficulties. Where to draw lines? What to do about Palestinian refugees? What to do about Jerusalem? How to engineer a proper division of the WATER RESOURCES of Israel-Palestine. The nations might well get these details wrong. Or they might be so stymied by indecision that they would fail to get to any decision at all.
Far better, as a first step at least, is to develop in advance a single, obviously correct proposal for united action—and then do the politics necessary to achieve concerted action.
The UNSC is stymied by the USA veto. But the UNGA can act, under its special emergency powers. If the UNGA can sponsor a war in Korea, as it did in the 1950s,[1] it can decide to use non-violent coercion—trade sanctions, restrictions on travel, reductions of ambassadorial levels, and the lesser cultural and sports boycotts—to convince Israel that Israel’s life within the wider world is more important to it than its dictatorial and oppressive control over the land and people of Palestine and the Golan.
-----------
[1] United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 (V),[1] the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members,[2] the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the emergency special session.
The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the “Acheson Plan”—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).[3]
In it, the General Assembly:
“Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto,” ...
“Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security,” ...
“Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”(United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377)
|
