Double Standards Flutter Again in the United Nations

Double standards! That phrase is familiar to the ears of people who pay attention to the growth of the conflict in the Middle East and the attitude of the United States toward Israel and Arab-related matters, especially those related to Palestine.

On Sept. 23, the struggle of Palestine entered a new chapter, which attracts attention and even triggers tense reactions. For supporters of Israel, the attitude of President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine may cause resentment because it is nonsense to request to take back the territory that has been occupied by the rival since the War of 1967.

Meanwhile, those who support Palestine never stop wondering why Israel would conduct peace negotiations but never make a concession — surrender the conquered territory.

Tel Aviv keeps building Jewish settlements on Palestine's land. Israel never agrees to discuss or even hand over East Jerusalem, which has become the city of “three sky religions”: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

What happens in the United Nations raises a new wonder. President Barack Obama has stated that the United States will veto the attempt of President Abbas to win recognition for Palestine in the United Nations Security Council. Nevertheless, it is believed that the number one person in Uncle Sam’s country understands that the problem is not Israel's security but Palestine's sovereignty.

The president of Palestine chooses the “ultimate weapon” by approaching the United Nations General Assembly; Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to give a speech and express his willingness to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23 because the peace talks with Israel have generated no progress after about a year.

On the other side, the leaders of the United States contend that direct negotiation is the only way to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine and to obtain headway on the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Many Western diplomats have been reported to blame the delay in peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel on the settlement development in East Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Washington and Europe have cursed the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, when Abbas expressed his plan to ask the United Nations General Assembly to acknowledge Palestine as a country, the United States issued a veto threat to the Security Council while Europe did not show any support towards Abbas' effort.

The organ of the United Nations that can legalize Palestinian sovereignty is the Security Council — where United States is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members (the others are England, Russia, France and China).

Washington has vetoed more than 40 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council that criticize U.S. policies, some of which were developed by U.S. allies in Europe.

If people observe conditions in the Middle East nowadays, they will realize that the action does not advantage any parties. The vetoes do not bring benefit to the peace and security in the always-quarreling territory (the Middle East).

All this time, the mechanism and idealism of the United Nations in the political arena have been stained by the problem in Palestine. The effort to neutralize the involvement of the United Nations has been spearheaded by the United States.

This week, the effort by the Obama administration, which works in the name of Israel as a whole, has raised the defense to a new level.

The competition inherited from the Cold War era has also contributed to the United Nations paralysis in solving Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflicts. This situation seems to answer the question of why more than 690 resolutions legalized by the United Nations General Assembly from 1947 until 1990 have never been heeded.

The United Nations has been involved in solving all the major conflicts during post-Cold War era, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and recently Lebanon and South Sudan. However, U.N. involvement seems to be just like the wind when it comes to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The peace process between Palestine and Israel has been managed by the United States, but the tight relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv causes the United States to be everything but an impartial arbitrator.

The result is not only that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been taken away from the United Nations but also that the United Nations resolutions that criticize Israel have been ignored by the United States, which has become the peace process arbitrator.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a simple two-sided conflict; where all of Israel — or even all Jews with Israeli nationality — has one vision, while all Palestinians have the opposite vision.

Between the two nations, which have the same ancestor, there are people and groups who suggest a total territorial exclusion of another community. Some suggest a two-country resolution, and others suggest the two-nation solution with one secular country covering today's Israeli territory, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

After the peace process failed for a decade and after the ratification of the Oslo Accords on Sept. 13, 1993, President George Bush, as reported by Transnational, allowed the United Nations to take action, but only as a lesser partner in an international quartet that had just been formed — the quartet includes the European Union and Russia, both of which are members of the United Nations.

Meanwhile, Israel never pays attention to scores of United Nations resolutions that “denounce,” “exclaim,” “push,” “suggest” or “curse” the attacks, the settlement development, the expulsion, the occupation and other actions of Israel. Moreover, Israel never heeds all the requests and demands for political and humanitarian intervention.

The only time when the United Nations was allowed to make a move was in 1997, when the worldwide organization sent unarmed international observers to Al-Khalil (Hebron), which was occupied by Israel. However, those observers did not have any mandate to speak openly about the violations that were happening.

For about four decades Israel has violated many United Nations resolutions. One of those is Resolution 464 of 1980, which strongly denounces all of Israel's actions to change the physical characteristics, demographic composition and the status management of Palestine and other Arab territories including Jerusalem, which Israel has occupied since the Six Day War in 1967.

Israel also ignores Resolution 476, which reaffirms that Israel's occupation of Arab territories, which has been lasted since 1967, must be ended.

The Security Council and the international community have never threatened to use military force or to even attack the Jewish country. Pay attention to Libya: We only needed one resolution from the United Nations to suppress the North African country.

In the mean time, the only United Nations Security Council resolution that was accepted by both the United States and Israel as a basis for diplomatic process, Resolution 242 in 1967, has also been systematically violated.

Israel has lengthened the development of the settlements while the resolution has requested the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

Ironically, Israel was formed by the recommendation from the United Nations Partition Proposal in 1947. The Jewish country was then even accepted as a new member of the United Nations on the basis of the commitment to respect U.N. resolutions, especially Resolution 194, concerning the Palestinian refugee problem.

Now, after trying and failing in all kinds of ways, including 18 years of bilateral negotiation, the U.N. Security Council must take the responsibility to demand that Israel implement all their obligations as they apply to the U.N. Charter and affirm the fundamental importance to self-determination of Palestine, by virtue of which they freely determine their status in their country.

Failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Israel's 40-year occupation, in the words of former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, would continue to hurt the reputation of the United Nations and raise questions about its impartiality.

Two Sides

Although it has been obsolete, the Palestinian National Authority is still struggling with a very difficult situation and the objection to an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Jordan River. For almost 60 years, Palestinians have borne the burden of occupation, if we cannot call it colonialism. Israel, during that time, has been gathering international support while the majority of powerful countries recognized “their legitimate right.”

Later, European countries — which are “demure” — have helped PNA, with the hope of persuading their allies the United States and Israel, to admit what is inevitable.

Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which have become paragons because of their economic expertise, perseveringly announced that the PNA is ready to take on responsibilities of statehood.

Although it has to face the international stance, Israel chooses to oppose Palestine. Tel Aviv never stops spreading rumors that Israel's security is threatened. Strangely, is it fair to ask why the government of Israel fail to maintain perpetual security while the Jewish country incontrovertibly has the nuclear ability to protect their country from destruction?

Why did people have to believe when Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman shamelessly announced that President Mahmoud Abbas chose violence and bloodshed after the U.N. Security Council voted to support independence? More importantly, when will American officials — who know that Lieberman is not an emotionally stable person — disagree with a lie like that?

Actually, Lieberman and his prime minister realize that Abbas is an ideal negotiation partner because President Abbas wants to enliven the Palestinian-Israeli relationship, which has become very complicated. Abbas has the willingness to be involved in an effective discussion so that he can realize a lasting solution.

For Palestine, the voting in the United Nations due to Palestine is not a meaningless symbol. It is a tool to revive the peace talks, which have been jammed.

The process in the United Nations shows that in accordance to the dramatic changes in other Arab territories, the leaders of the PNA have tightened more to the commitment to avoid more bloodshed.

If the majority of the United Nations members in the General Assembly legalize the membership of Palestine but Washington vetoes the motion in the Security Council, will that guarantee Israel's security and avoid more bloodshed?

Besides, in another consideration, although many people realize that the United States always supports Israel, the veto can attract even more rancor. The sense of anti-Americanism may disseminate widely not only among Arab and Muslim communities, but also among elite societies who feel disappointed and want to keep themselves away from the prejudiced power.