Will the UN Security Council Impose a Palestinian State?

FnazisJanuary, 2015 does not bode well for Israel at the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council (UNSC) will officially induct five newly elected non-permanent member-states replacing outgoing Rwanda, S. Korea, Australia, Argentina and Luxembourg, representing all the global regions. Unfortunately for Israel, the incoming states, particularly Venezuela and Malaysia, are hostile to the Jewish state. The other three, Angola, New Zealand, and Spain are pondering their position on recognizing Palestine as a full member-state of the UN.

It is apparent that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will seize the opportunity and try to win an almost guaranteed majority on the UNSC, to grant Palestine full UN membership. In Abbas’ calculations, receiving UNSC recognition will enable him to demand that the UNSC set a deadline for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 line. At the same time, he’ll avoid having to negotiate peace with Israel, or make any concessions to the Jewish state.

The Palestinians need nine votes at the UNSC to win acceptance. They previously received seven. This time it appears that they may achieve their goal. Among the five permanent members, China and Russia are likely to support recognition of a Palestinian State. Britain and France are yet undecided, and the U.S will likely object.

Among the ten non-permanent states on the UNSC, Chad will support a Palestinian state, Chile is leaning towards acceptance, Lithuania is likely to object, and Nigeria is still undecided. Malaysia and Venezuela will definitely support the Palestinian quest. If we are to anticipate the votes of the undecided members based on their November 29, 2012 votes at the General Assembly, to accord Palestine “non-member Observer State status,” it is more than likely that Angola, Nigeria, and Spain will also vote for acceptance. This would give the Palestinians 10 votes and full membership in the UN.

The only thing that can prevent the acceptance of Palestine as a member-state of the UN is a U.S. veto. In lieu of the tense relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government, Israel can no longer count on a US veto as a given. According to YnetNews.com (October 19, 2014) “Diplomatic officials said Israel is taking into bracing for a bad scenario in which the Democrats lose their Senate majority in the midterm elections, and will then be free of obligations, which might lead them to get back at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for all the public clashes with the Democratic administration at the White House.”

PM Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) on Monday (October 27, 2014): “I don’t see pressure on the Palestinians. I see only pressure on Israel to make more and more concessions…The Palestinians are demanding of us to establish a Palestinian state – without peace and without security. They demand withdrawal to the 1967 lines, admitting refugees and dividing Jerusalem – and after all these exaggerated demands they are not prepared to agree to the basic condition for peace between two peoples – mutual recognition!”

The U.S. has been reluctant to use its veto power at the UNSC, especially the Obama administration. Yet, the Obama administration in February, 2011 cast its first-ever veto at the UNSC, blocking a Palestinian-backed draft resolution that denounced Israel’s settlement policy as an illegal obstacle to peace efforts in the Middle East. In the case of a vote on Palestinian statehood, the U.S. is likely to pressure other UNSC member-states not to support the Palestinian move by offering alternatives such as the revival of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel. But, the fact that President Obama this time is not seeking reelection, and is unlikely to be deterred by Republican criticism, America’s veto must be considered uncertain at best.

The Europeans are seeking to position themselves somewhere between the U.S. and the Palestinian position. While they may abstain in the vote on Palestinian statehood, they will demand a set of parameters for a permanent agreement that will eventually lead to a Palestinian state. These parameters might include Israel’s withdrawal to the June, 1967 line with land swaps and East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

According to the European Jewish Congress press, “France will abstain at the UNSC vote on Palestinian UN bid, and Britain will do the same.” The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that “While the region is experiencing upheaval, the legitimacy of the Palestinian aspiration for statehood is indisputable. However, the Palestinian request has no chance of success in the UNSC due, in particular, to the opposition expressed by the U.S.” In other words, the Europeans wish to exculpate themselves in appeasing the Arab-Muslim world and their own Muslim constituents, while putting the onus on the U.S.

The Europeans, the State Department, and New York Times to name a few, are unwilling to fully consider the consequences of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, under unrelenting pressure from the above institutions, brought it numerous wars and unending terror. Israel removed 9,000 Jewish residents by force, destroyed their homes, but left their green-houses to the Palestinians. Hamas terrorists in Gaza have used the areas vacated by the Jewish residents as a base to lob over 10,000 rockets on communities throughout Israel.

A Palestinian state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza is unlikely to be demilitarized, and Hamas can be counted on to take over within a short time. Iran would immediately rush in heavy arms, and as a sovereign state, these arms shipments would arrive unhindered by air or sea. This would mean that even short range rockets from east of Jerusalem will target and hit Israel’s main population centers, including its international Ben Gurion airport. Israel would be paralyzed, and its economy and security in shambles. Any Israeli government will be compelled to react with force, and that would bring about international condemnation by the UN, and possibly sanctions. In addition, one can anticipate a regional war that might involve Iran’s nuclear weapons, and tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel.

At a press conference on July 11, 2014, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the Jordan River.”

British PM David Cameron opined that, “We support Palestine having its own state next to a secure Israel…In the end we have to recognize we will get a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state by the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down and talking to each other.”

US Department of State Spokeswoman Jen Psaki stated at a press briefing Friday (October 3, 2014), “We believe international recognition of a Palestinian state is premature. We certainly support Palestinian statehood but it can only come through a negotiated outcome, a resolution of final status issues and mutual recognition by both parties. I don’t think that we’ve seen evidence that they’re willing and able to either at this point in time.”

Mahmoud Abbas has been greatly encouraged by the Swedish and British parliaments votes to recognize a Palestinian state. Moreover, the new makeup of the UN Security Council as of January, 2015 will give him a tailwind to push for statehood. Only a U.S. veto at the UNSC can stop this madness, and compel Abbas to negotiate with Israel in earnest. Perhaps, in the interim, the Palestinians can evolve into a civil society with the rule of law, discard terror and incitement against Israel, and build a viable economy.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Bamaguje

    “The Europeans, the State Department, and New York Times to name a few, are unwilling to fully consider the consequences of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza” – Joseph Puder.

    It’s not that they are unwilling to consider the security implications… they just don’t care.
    As far as these closet antisemites are concerned, Israel is expendable in their endeavor to make nice with militant Islam.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      What “closet?” They’re all open Jew – haters.

    • Joy Beum

      Woe to the people who go against Israel. They will pay the price.

      • mikeh420

        2000+ paid that price in the last Gaza go round. Keep them coming, they’re worthless anyways.

        • Joy Beum

          They are even worthless to their leader, satan. They call him allah.

  • Caryn Lipson

    And if Israel resigns as a member of the UN…

  • mjsmart

    Declarations by the United Nazis mean nothing. Israel stands to be one of the largest oil and natural gas producers in the region, has technology that rivals (and in many cases exceeds) the U.S., China, and Russia. Ultimately, Israel will not permit anyone to impose borders on them. Consider the Samson Option, especially if you care about global markets, our cities, our ecosystems, our future.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Anschluss?

  • wildjew

    I am about halfway through this piece and in a bit of rush. I don’t appreciate the dispiriting title. Why not title it, “Will the UN Security Council (backed by the United States) impose a Final Solution on Israel?” We can see the direction this country is heading. It was expedited for the man I voted for in 2000 who made the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel’s heartland a “formal goal of U.S. policy.” Obama is Muslim-born with deep sympathies for the world of Islam and a deep-seated loathing for Israel. When (not if) the United Nations Security Council backed by the U.S., votes to recognize Palestinian statehood in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, etc., then the United States will need to cobble together a coalition of the willing to impose it.

    • AntAloy

      Dear Contributor

      You made no mention of international law and specifically the ruling of the International Court of Justice or UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478 concerning the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories. There are over 150 UN Resolutions plus the ruling of
      the International Court of Justice in the Hague with respect to the 421 mile illegal “wall” which the EU and UN both condemned.

      Likud reject the right of Palestine to exist and reject the international status of Jerusalem (as per UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478).

      What about the charters of Nafatali Bennett’s Home Party? This gentleman is part of the coalition that supports Mr Netanyahu.

      Members of the Knesset advocated sustained massacres
      against the Palestine people – inflammatory comments by Ayelet Shaked are brought to mind. We should not forget – Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, who had published a plan for the total destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

      Baruck Goldstein who had sprayed Palestinian people with his
      automatic Galil rifle in the Palestinian city of Hebron. Goldstein is revered by settlers.

      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settlers-remember-gunman-goldstein-hebron-riots-continue-1.263834

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.620734

      West Bank mosque torched in suspected settler attack. Eyewitnesses said Israeli settlers arrived at the Nablus-area mosque after midnight and carried out attack.

      Also see: http://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

      Israeli Supreme Court upholds law allowing housing discrimination against Palestinians:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/allowing-discrimination-palestinians#sthash.VyHJMcK9.dpuf

      Palestine is occupied and has Israel has not complied with the International Court of Justice or over 150 UN Resolutions. Palestine
      was recognised again in 2012 by a massive 138 countries.

      The new Palestinian Government is made up of technocrats and has been acknowledged by the EU and US.

      Thank you.

      • wildjew

        “At the weekly cabinet meeting:

        a) The Government of Israel rejects and condemns the United Nations Security Council resolution of Wednesday, 20 August, on Jerusalem, a decision made possible by the abstention of the representative of the United States.

        This was a surrender to the pressure of oil blackmail.

        We regret that friendly countries have decided to transfer their embassies from Jerusalem to the coastal plain. We regret the amazing vote of the United States, which came in the wake of the speech of the Secretary of State. This vote, as already stated, made possible the passing of the resolution calling on several embassies to leave Jerusalem, while there are clear pledges in the United States to transfer the American embassy from the coast to Jerusalem.

        The ancient people of Israel does not need the recognition of the Security Council, nor the agreement of its members, for Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state.

        Jerusalem will continue to be, as it has been for over 3,000 years, Israel’s capital, one city, indivisible, the center of the life of the Jewish people.

  • http://israelisverige.info Ralph Haglund

    And much of this is because Netanyahu totally refuses to use LAW, as in the Levy Report. He refuses to annex area C. Abdullah, screaming that Israel is not allowed to defend its capital against arabs, refuses to see that if Netanyahu lets Hamas fill area A and B of the West Bank, ISIS will come the other way, and then Israel will be busy and cannot help them. The world is goin insane because of plain dumbness.

  • Space Cowboy

    I hate to rain on their clueless parades, but what is happening in Israel is not a so-called conflict over land illegally occupied by Israel. Instead, it’s an old fashion run of the mill jihad waged by the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxies the so-called Palestinians against the Jewish infidels to make Islam and its followers not only supreme in Israel, but ultimately to make Islam and its followers supreme throughout the world.

    As a matter of fact, Israel’s Islamic enemies are not just the eternal mortal enemies of only the Jewish infidels in Israel. Indeed, they are the eternal mortal enemies of ALL INFIDELS IN THE WORLD! As the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam, which also happens to be the only kind, is to convert or kill all infidels through jihad, which is a so-called holy war, and through the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is draconian Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam and its followers supreme throughout the world.

  • Bert

    The corrupt Israeli government and the corrupt American Jewish establishment must also be held accountable for this situation. It is the Jewish leadership itself, with rare exceptions, that falsely admits it is occupying the ‘west bank’ which admission is a gift to Israel’s enemies. These Jews ignore the monumental evidence that the entire land belongs to the Jewish People. In Moses time 10 of the 12 tribal leaders rejected the promised land that G-d offered to the Jewish People. The dire consequences of that rejection played out over the centuries with the events of the 9th of Av. In addition there is the Oslo Syndrome http://www.oslosyndrome.com The book, The Oslo Syndrome – Delusions of People Under Siege was written by a psychiatrist Dr. Kenneth Levin of Harvard Medical School. The Jewish people still remains psychologically sick and unable to break out of this suicidal delusion. Let us stop blaming our enemies when we ourselves provide the knife for them to cut our throats.

  • carpe diem 36

    “In lieu of the tense relationship” I do not know whether this is a typo or whether the author does not know the meaning of this word. I believe he meant to say “in view”, but if he meant to say “in lieu” which means instead of, I do not know what he meant to say. I hope someone can clarify this for me.

  • carpe diem 36

    “The Palestinians are demanding of us to establish a Palestinian state” If this is what the world is demanding, Israel does not need to comply. What if they establish a Palestinian state and put at its head A Jew!! and a Jewish Knesset, will this satisfy the demand? How can a state, any state, establish a new state? if the people of the state are not capable of establishing a state, they are for sure not capable of running one. What an idiotic world we live in?? They are such fools that they do not even realize how stupid this whole thing is, and they are running our world, from the UN to The USA to all of Europe – all super idiots!!!

  • Essloyd

    Cut off their water, electricity and VIP passes to their officials. It is hard to have a state without water or electricity these days.

    • amongoose

      Especially if that state cannot provide them itself.
      Ironically the ones they claim are imposing genocide on them are the ones who provide it.

  • Joy Beum

    We will soon be taking America back and will again be a true ally with Israel, as it should have been all along. As our country regains it’s strength, the arab world and arab-lovers will be much less bold.

  • Joy Beum

    My sentiments exactly!!

  • AntAloy

    Dear All

    The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at the following URL:
    http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCHA_IsrSettlementPolicies.pdf.

    The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied Palestine (recognised by 138 nations in the world including India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Denmark, Norway, Belgium Greece, Japan, Serbia, New Zealand, Thailand and Iceland) in 2012. Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the “separation barrier”. This “wall” is over 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall (in fact the “wall” is 421 miles long).

    UNESCO’s recognition of Palestine in 2011 was supported by France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium. Norway, Greece and other European nations.

    International law and UN Resolutions (over which there are over 150) are ignored by Israel.

    God bless

    *** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 – BINDING

    The Security
    Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the
    acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the
    enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a
    change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its
    implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with
    resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways
    and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the
    United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980),
    in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the
    enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal
    to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

    *** Resolution 694 (1991) – BINDING

    Adopted by the
    Security Council at its 2989th meeting on

    24 May 1991

    The Security Council,

    Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),

    Having learned with deep concern and
    consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth
    Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security
    Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a
    comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four
    Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,

    1. Declares that the action of the
    Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of
    the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the
    Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

    2. Deplores this action and reiterates
    that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian
    civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return
    of all those deported;

    3. Decides to keep the situation under
    review.

    *** Resolution 672 (1990) – BINDING

    Adopted by the
    Security Council at its 2948th meeting on

    12 October 1990

    The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),

    Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,

    Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,

    1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;

    2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;

    3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

    4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.

    24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

    “I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove – not legalise – outposts across the West Bank. “

    Furthermore, I would like to refer you to specific serious concerns raised by the
    International Court of Justice (2004) – with relevance to the ‘security
    barrier’ – which was viewed with alarm by the international community.
    Incidentally the reference to the illegality of settlements in the West Bank
    and East Jerusalem was also reinforced when the International Court of Justice also found the following (indeed the EU supported the UN vote pertaining to the ‘security barrier’):

    That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the
    establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court
    pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located
    between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the
    opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured
    private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague
    Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this
    context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by
    Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied
    territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation
    barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The
    court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against
    invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and
    17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right
    to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are
    enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on
    Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

    • JayWye

      the UN is corrupt and needs to be dissolved. it’s a JOKE.
      it’s run it’s course.
      Pay it no attention.

    • iluvisrael

      happy eternal nakba!!!!!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The UN has been HIJACKED by the same Islamofascist ideology which hijacked 4 passenger planes on 9/11.

      Considering that Muslims are at War with Bahais, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians and the wrong kind of Muslim,,,

      clearly Israel is NOT the problem. Islamism is the problem.

      Happy ETERNAL NAKBA to Pal-e-SWINE and its supporters.

  • JayWye

    if a State of Palestine were made official,then that State could legitimately buy armaments on the world markets,including long-range SAMs,main battle tanks,heavy tube artillery,etc. Ben Gurion International Airport could not operate at all,under threat from mobile SAM batteries like Buk(or even MANPADS,it’s well within their range),being bombarded by 152mm artillery and heavy mortars.(like Assad used to do from the Golan Heights),and shelled by 125mm tank cannon.
    I suspect several nations would “loan” the money and/or sell the weaponry at deep discounts,and provide security for their delivery into Palestine.

    Israel would be forced to wipe them out,and to intercept(shoot down) the foreign aircraft delivering the weapons. That could be very destabilizing to world peace.

  • Gee

    There is one slight problem – the UN nor the Arabs own the land. Israel does and Israel will tell the UN to go f*ck themselves.

  • vnamvet1969

    The UN is a joke.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The morally bankrupt UN has devolved into a socialist, islamofascist debating society.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Jordan is Pal-e-SWINE.

    That’s the East Bank of the Jordan.

    If Jordan is unacceptable, Sweden or the UK can be an alternative site.

  • mikeh420

    The U.N has been trying that for 66 years, but the Palis don’t want their own state, because they would have to build it themselves, something Arabs are incapable of. Instead, they’d rather have an already made state, Israel.