Israel Matzav

The nightmare scenario?

Over the weekend, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen met with representatives of Hamas in Ramallah with the modest goal of trying to arrange for the 'Palestinian' leader to visit Gaza for the first time since 2007. It was Abu Bluff's first meeting with Hamas in more than a year.

During the meeting Abbas said there will be no peace with Israel until Fatah and Hamas reconcile.

The Palestinian president presented his plan to end the division and expressed his willingness to visit the Gaza Strip and engage in negotiations with Hamas leadership. He also reiterated his willingness to form a new Palestinian government with independent parties before elections are held.

"We must address regional changes and face the challenges before the Palestinian people united," Abbas said. "The first challenge is the continued aggression by Israel which threatens to attack Gaza again."

The Palestinian president also discussed the need to maintain the state of calm "in order to block further Israeli threats" and to fight challenges to the Palestinian cause. Abbas stressed this must be accomplished before September, which must see Palestinians united.

Abu Bluff's meeting made 'no headway' and that's probably a good thing for more reasons than you realize. I want to point out two things to you. First, note the reference to September. Second, note the picture at the top of this post, which is a picture of the United Nations General Assembly chamber with a UN flag and a 'Palestinian' flag.

In September, the United Nations General Assembly will meet and the 'Palestinians' hope to get that body to unilaterally declare a 'Palestinian state.' That is why Abu Mazen is trying to reconcile with Hamas now. It will make it much easier to get the world to accept a 'Palestinian state' if there is only one such state.

Until now, we (or at least I) didn't take particularly seriously the prospect of the General Assembly declaring a 'Palestinian state.' After all, the Security Council admits states to the United Nations, and in the Security Council - particularly just 14 months before an American election - we could be reasonably confident that if all else fails, the United States will veto a resolution declaring a 'Palestinian state.' The General Assembly, on the other hand, has only declaratory powers, and cannot - for example - order troops into action against us. What Horovitz discovered this week is that the General Assembly may be a bit more powerful than that.

Early in the Korean War, frustrated that the Soviet Union’s repeated use of its UN Security Council veto was thwarting council action to protect South Korea, the United States initiated what became known as the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution.

Adopted in November 1950, UNGA Resolution 377 provides that, should the five permanent members of the Security Council find themselves at odds, rendering the council incapable of exercising its “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” the General Assembly can step into the breach. If the Security Council’s permanent members cannot reach unanimity, it elaborates, and “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” the General Assembly can fill the vacuum by issuing its own “appropriate recommendations” for “collective measures” to be taken by individual states – right up to and including “the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution is no dead letter. It was employed, most notably, in 1981, to outflank the Security Council and recommend both sanctions against South Africa for preventing Namibian independence, and assistance, including military assistance, for those seeking Namibian independence.

It should be stressed: The GA’s authority under the resolution is not binding, but it can certainly press supportive countries to take action, and in 1981 it did just that. It called upon member states “to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People’s Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia.” And it urged member states to immediately cease “all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally.”

The passage of that resolution, says Richard Schifter, a former US assistant secretary of state for human rights who spent years representing the US in various UN forums, “was a significant step in the process of imposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa and delegitimizing the country.”

That's the scenario for which the 'Palestinians' are aiming: A deadlocked Security Council with a 14-1 vote being undone by a US veto. And I suggest you read David's entire article, because unfortunately, it seems quite plausible. And to make matters worse, Israel has not had a full-time ambassador at the United Nations for the last six months and will not have one for another two months (Ron Prossor, who has been designated for the position, has to transition his current job in London first). In fact, from reading Horovitz's article, one walks away with the perspective that the only way to stop this is if the US Congress convinces America's allies this is not the way to go.

Labels: unilateral declaration of statehood, United Nations

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:24 PM