One reason why the Palestinians are attempting to obtain a UN Security Council resolution in favor of establishing a State unilaterally is that UN SC resolutions are enforceable, and they could then use the UN resolution to obtain sanctions or even force against Israel.
Jack Cohen
That is why it is so crucial that the US veto such a resolution, which as one of the 5 permanent members of the UN SC (US, UK, Russia, France and China) it can do. But, if the Palestinians manage to get any kind of resolution passed that is acceptable to the US, that endorses their right to establish a State unilaterally, then the whole Middle East situation would change radically.
The Oslo Accords that are the basis of the current situation that confers legitimacy on the Palestine Authority (PA) would be breached, and Israel would be within its rights to declare the Oslo Accords null and void. It could remove recognition of the PA and this could lead to the downfall of the PA and the replacement of the PA with either Israeli occupation or of Hamas control as in Gaza. This would result in further greater clashes between Hamas and the IDF that could develop into a new war, so much for the European fantasy that recognizing a Palestinian State will lead to peace!
Alan Baker, the Israeli international lawyer and the former legal advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, has stated that if such a situation should develop, Israel would be within its rights to reoccupy and even annex the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria. Before the Oslo Accords there was no legal provision of these areas to be under Palestinian sovereignty, and as such Israel would be entitled to take sovereignty. It was only the act of the Govt. of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that did not annex these areas pending negotiations under UN SC resolution 242 that avoided this action then.
However, I disagree with Baker in one respect, he maintains that even if Israel had the right to take sovereignty of these areas, it would still have to negotiate with the Palestinian side over the borders. But, he is not taking into account that the Palestinian side do not recognize the existence of Israel as the Jewish State and therefore will never negotiate borders with us. On the contrary, their often stated policy is to destroy Israel and take the whole of “Palestine.” Under those circumstances, Israel’s only choice is to take the whole of “Palestine” itself, namely the western half of the British Mandate that was set aside for the establishment of a Jewish State. This would be the logical consequence of the Palestinian policy of unilateral Statehood.
I have always maintained that the reason why we have a hostile Palestinian entity adjacent to Israel is that Israel has never actually defeated the Palestinians totally in a war, as it did the other Arab countries. When they were totally defeated they had to do an about- face and negotiate with Israel and recognize it, at least Egypt and Jordan did. If the Palestinians had no choice they would be forced to accept that their “Palestine” no longer existed. But, there is the possibility that the UN SC under pressure from the UN members that support the Palestinians, would bring sanctions and/or force to bear against Israel to withdraw and recognize a Palestinian State. One hopes that it never comes to this.
All this could come about if and only if the UN SC allows a resolution that accepts unilateral recognition of a Palestine State that is opposite to all their previous binding resolutions on the Middle East conflict that requires negotiations. Let’s hope sense prevails and the US vetoes any such resolution and the Palestinians are then forced to reevaluate their unilateral initiative .
Jack Cohen: Born in London, UK, lived in suburban Washington DC area for 30 years, moved to Israel in 1996. He has a web site: Jack’s Blog
Current Members of the UNSC
Permanent and Non-Permanent Members
The Council is composed of 15 Members:
- five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
- and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):
- Argentina (2014)
- Australia (2014)
- Chad (2015)
- Chile (2015)
- Jordan (2015)
- Lithuania (2015)
- Luxembourg (2014)
- Nigeria (2015)
- Republic of Korea (2014)
- Rwanda (2014)
- Jack Cohen
