The piece has been published in Fathom Journal by ECAJ co-CEO Alex Ryvchin.

The United Nations and various member states are poised to revisit the question of Palestine with renewed vigour. This invari­ably means flushing more money into UNRWA, a special agency devoted to keeping Palestini­ans in refugee camps in pre­par­a­tion for their long foretold conquest of Israel, and by again upgrading the Palestini­an status, recog­nising them as a state despite virtual consensus, even among sym­path­isers, that they in no way meet the legal defin­i­tion.

The United Nations’ handling of the issue is a story of mostly good ideals, good inten­tions and good people slowly asphyxi­at­ing under a mass of com­mit­tees, rap­por­teurs, com­mis­sions of inquiry, urgent sessions and special reports. It is an example par excel­lence of how insti­tu­tions formed to do something noble can cave in on them­selves through the hypocrisy and malice of a few.

This issue is not a mere curiosity. It goes to the heart of how states engage in matters of peace and security, and how the budgets harvested from the incomes of our working pop­u­la­tions are spent.

The United Nations first came to examine the question of Palestine in 1947. The British had been appointed trustees of the territory in 1922 pursuant to the ‘mandatory’ system, under which the vic­tori­ous allies would take respons­ib­il­ity for the former Ottoman colonies ‘until such time as their native peoples could stand on their own.’ Britain got Palestine, severed it in two in 1922 and created Trans­jordan (now Jordan) in eastern Palestine the following year. The remaining piece of land between the River Jordan and the Medi­ter­ranean Sea had been, under inter­na­tion­al law, des­ig­nated for the Jews, who as Winston Churchill noted had been ‘intim­ately and pro­foundly asso­ci­ated with Palestine for over 3,000 years.’

British gov­ern­ments came and went, Hitler rose to power, the Arabs in Palestine began to revolt, par­ti­tions of what remained of Palestine were recom­men­ded and swiftly rejected by the Arab side, the Holocaust began, Jews sought passage to Palestine, more revolts. The long and the short of it is that the British were chal­lenged in attempt­ing to deliver on their legal oblig­a­tions of a Jewish state and keep the peace.

The British found one side that was willing to com­prom­ise, accept less, and upbuild their state in fact, not merely proclaim it in name. They found the other side obstinate to a fault, abso­lutely con­sist­ent in rejecting any notion of con­cili­ation or coex­ist­ence, standing their ground doggedly and pulling out all means to thwart their opponents, while building precisely nothing.

In response to this, Neville Cham­ber­lain told his cabinet, ‘If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.’ Indeed. Why not offend the side that had shown itself to be more accepting of dis­ap­point­ment, the numer­ic­ally smaller side that hardly mattered in the grander scheme of world affairs just as World War was des­cend­ing?

After the War and after the near anni­hil­a­tion of those Jews who remained in Europe, Britain sur­rendered its trust­ee­ship and turned the matter over to the United Nations for speedy res­ol­u­tion. The UN formed a committee, as it tends to do, which seriously examined the issue and the way forward and reported that ‘regard­less of the his­tor­ic­al origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs, there are two peoples in the land who are dis­sim­il­ar in their ways of living and separated by political interests. Only by means of partition can these con­flict­ing national aspir­a­tions find sub­stan­tial expres­sion and qualify both peoples to take their places as inde­pend­ent nations.’ Correct again.

The upshot of this was Israel’s declar­a­tion of inde­pend­ence on 14 May, 1948 and its accept­ance as a full member of the United Nations the following year. This was despite the promise of hell to pay from the Arab world and the invasion of Israel by six Arab armies leading to mass dis­place­ment and fresh trauma for a nation of kib­butzniks and survivors.

In the 74 years that have followed, Israel has continued to upbuild, absorb millions of refugees from Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, has forged peace with old bel­li­ger­ents like Egypt and Jordan and more recently, Morocco, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Sudan. The Arabs in Palestine, now the Palestini­ans, have for the most part remained unchanged through those years, still viewing their struggle as one against European col­on­isers and not the ancient cus­todi­ans of the land, and believing that if they resist long enough, the arc will bend in their favour and the Jews will even­tu­ally go some place else.

The inter­na­tion­al community, par­tic­u­larly the United Nations has been unwaver­ing in its approach too. If the UN must offend one side, let it be the side with one country and one vote in the General Assembly rather than the side backed by entire regions and a murderers row of despots and failing states ranging from North Korea to Venezuela.

The United Nations granted the Palestini­ans observer status in 1974 to elevate their cause and give them the stage. The next year they forced through a res­ol­u­tion that deemed the Jewish eman­cip­a­tion movement that created Israel, Zionism, to be a form of racism. No Palestini­ans were aided by this res­ol­u­tion of course but Jewish students on campus still get assaulted with it. In 2012, the United Nations, upgraded the Palestini­ans status to non-member observer state cal­cu­lat­ing that it would encourage the Palestini­ans to negotiate an end to the conflict and achieve that final step of becoming an actual state and a full member of the UN.

In the decade that has followed, we have seen the question of Palestine remain as a permanent agenda item for the Human Rights Council, the only country-specific item. Com­mis­sions of Inquiry have been convened and Special Rap­por­teurs appointed, invari­ably led by those with records of hardened oppos­i­tion to Israel, ranging from sup­port­ing the boycott movement against it to spouting full-blown antisemitic con­spir­acy theories. UNRWA continues to receive $1.6 billion a year. The UN marks an annual day of solid­ar­ity with the Palestini­ans, 29 November, which in an act of supreme irony is the date the United Nations endorsed the 1947 partition plan and the idea of ‘two states for two peoples’, a phrase no Palestini­an leader has ever uttered.

Perhaps it is time to rethink this approach that made mockery of Britain’s position as an inter­na­tion­al power­broker and has tied the hands of the UN for more than seven decades. It is time to deliver the hard truth that those who reject inter­na­tion­ally brokered plans of partition, reject every offer of statehood put to them, and con­sist­ently use violence as a political device, do not set the terms. It is time to risk offending the other side.

Peace can only come through genuine party-to-party nego­ti­ations and a will­ing­ness to com­prom­ise. For as long as the Palestini­an lead­er­ship receives the cost-free solid­ar­ity, currency and dip­lo­mat­ic recog­ni­tion of the world, a nego­ti­ated outcome is an impossib­il­ity.