Arab States in UN Contest Israel's Right to Represent Territories

By Russell W. Goodman

Since 1982, one of the most predictable United Nations General Assembly traditions has been the annual attempt by the Arab Group to expel Israel from the ranks of UN member states because of its non-compliance with a series of UN resolutions. Traditionally, one of the Nordic nations has then introduced a resolution to take no action on the Arab Group's proposal.

Noting that the Scandinavian initiative has been adopted and that support for the Nordic group has grown from year to year, the Arab Group this year has decided on a new and more promising tack. It has prepared a measure declaring that Israel does not represent the territories it has occupied since the 1967 war.

Lebanon's UN Ambassador Khalil Makkawi is a chief proponent of the amendment, which reads in draft: "The Arab Group approves the report of the credentials committee on the understanding that the credentials of Israel do not cover territories occupied since 1967, namely, Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights."

Makkawi explains that the draft's reference to Jerusalem encompasses the entire city, not just the eastern portion seized in 1967. The original UN action to partition Palestine did not assign Jerusalem to either of the contemplated Jewish and Arab states, but reserved it as an independently administered "corpus separatum" under international supervision.

A Change in Tactics

This year's move appears to be a change, in tactics for the Arab Group, which is now down to 21 nations from 22 since the reunification of the Yemens on May 22. It is not yet clear whether it replaces the tried-and failed strategy to expel Israel from the world body, or whether that traditional approach is merely being held in reserve.

Makkawi expects that the new amendment may have to run the same gauntlet as did the former approach. The first order of business may have to be the defeat of the "Nordics' procedural move" to avoid its consideration.

"I'm sure the US is against us, " Makkawi said, "and so are most of the European countries." The Arab Group is "concentrating our efforts on the African groups, Islamic groups, the Latin and Asian countries, all the other groups.

The move needs a simple majority to pass in committee and become a part of the credentials committee's report, and then be voted on by the full Assembly.

"No other country in the world has so repeatedly refused to abide by UN resolutions as Israel."

If adopted, such an amendment to the report of the credentials committee could exclude a nation from membership in the United Nations.

Assuming passage, what practical effect can be expected?, Makkawi concedes that it would not weaken an Israeli resolve to maintain a grip on the territories.

"But it's a form of legal pressure," he said. "This is the whole exercise. There is no other country in the world which has so repeatedly refused to abide by UN resolutions as Israel. "

In his estimation, the amendment is consistent with UN resolutions passed over the years relating to Israel and the occupied territories, and lends weight to them.

Consistency or Redundancy?

That very similarity between the proposed restriction and prior resolutions renders the exercise irrelevant in the mind of at least one legal expert, however.

Charles Gustafson, a professor of international law at Georgetown University Law Center, who has worked with the American delegation, says, "I don't see any practical effect of a resolution or amendment like this. You've got existing resolutions from way back to the '67 war, and Israel's failure to comply for a host of reasons."

Gustafson referred to UN Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967, and UNSC Resolution 338 of Oct. 21-22, 1973.

The former reads in part:

"The Security Council ... Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live insecurity ...

"l. Affirms that the fulfillment of charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. . . "

Briefer overall, Resolution 338 specifically calls "upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts. . .

An Historical Precedent

Makkawi said the Arab Group's current proposal is analogous to and inspired by action taken in 1973 by African nations seeking to wrest Angola and Mozambique from Portuguese control.

The amendment to Portugal's credentials was initially opposed by the US and some other countries, but ultimately the US voted to accept the credentials committee's report.

Makkawi noted US and some other representatives have opposed the Arab Group Is proposed change on the grounds that it would set an unacceptable precedent mixing political and procedural issues and granting second-class status to Israel.

But the Lebanese ambassador pointed out that the precedent was already set with the US vote on the Portuguese issue.

"Under the pretext of expressing concern for procedure and not confusing political issues with procedure, they are protecting the credentials of Israel," he charged.

Gustafson said there are impediments to a declaration by the Security Council that Israel's occupation is a threat to international peace. "You would have to avoid a veto by the five [permanent] members of the Security Council, and [the US] won't do that, " he said.

However, "in the long run, it will be hard to square the US position on Iraqi occupation of Kuwait versus 23 years of occupation on the part of Israel," Gustafson said.

Makkawi feels the Arab Group has seized upon an idea whose time has come. "In view of the historical situation [failure to expel Israel] and what's happening in the Gulf and on the international scene," Makkawi explains, "this year it was decided to have a new approach."

Russell Goodman is a Washington, DC-based lawyer and free-lance writer.