For Second Time, General Assembly Votes to Condemn Israeli Settlements

by Ian Williams

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson is indeed a nice guy, and not only because Israeli Charg d'Affaires David Peleg says so. He is friendly to and approachable by staff, delegates and press alike. But one can't be sure that anyone has actually asked him the question put by several Palestinians at the U.N. Why, since he has some Native American ancestry on his Mexican mother's side, is he not more sympathetic to another people who were dispossessed from their land by settlers?

In the meantime, back in the Security Council, on March 21 he cast the 72nd U.S. veto, his second, and Washington's 34th veto on Middle Eastern affairs, effectively as a proxy veto for Israel. Even by the usual outrageous standards, this was difficult to justify. It was the blandest and most anodyne resolution possible, mildly reprimanding the Israelis for building settlements in East Jerusalem. It did not call for action, condemnation or even express a legal opinion. Moved by Egypt and Qatar, the resolution simply called for what the U.S. administration itself had called for, that Israel stop the construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim and at settlements elsewhere in the Middle East. Apart from the U.S. veto, very heavy pressure from Washington persuaded the Costa Rican delegate to abstain. The rest of the Council, including all of the U.S.'s best friends, voted for the resolution.

Neither U.S. nor Israeli delegates want the world organization involved in the "peace process," which they say should be conducted entirely on the basis of bilateral negotiations. Of course, in the real world, the Palestinians are so weak, that this is like watching a Sumo wrestler mug a 6-year-old and standing by because it would be "unfair" to intervene.

Which is why, within hours of Richardson's veto, the Palestinian Mission had set in train a move to the General Assembly, where of course the U.S., and hence Israel, has no veto. In fact, just as the subject went twice to the Security Council and was vetoed there twice by the U.S., this was its second trip to the General Assembly.

After the first U.S. veto in the Security Council (No. 71), a similar resolution was passed in the General Assembly by 130 to 2 (the U.S. and Israel) votes. It was after the U.S. again vetoed the second, watered-down resolution in the Security Council (No. 72) that Palestinian delegate Nasser Al Kidwa again took a resolution to the General Assembly.

However, that resolution did not call for action. Under the U.N. Charter, the General Assembly technically cannot deal with matters which the Security Council has under discussion. The exception, however, is that under a 1950 resolution called "Uniting For Peace," the General Assembly decided that it could take action on matters vetoed in the Security Council.

Arab diplomacy has made a quantum leap in sophistication.

Ironically, it was the U.S. that drafted and moved the proposal designed to thwart the Soviet veto. One can't help wondering if its framers ever thought that its most frequent use would be against the American veto. To call a special "emergency" session, the U.N. moved at its traditional glacial pace. It took several weeks before the necessary letters came from a majority of members to call the meeting, but when it did there was little doubt of the outcome.

When the vote came, on April 25, so compelling were the U.S. and Israeli arguments that they persuaded the Federated States of Micronesia to vote no as well. The population of the Pacific archipelago is probably less than the number of people employed by the U.N., but it does have a unique qualification. It is even more dependent on the U.S. Congress for funds than is Israel.

Otherwise, 134 countries voted yes for the strong resolution that Palestinian envoy El-Kidwa called "in a sense the strongest resolution that the U.N. has ever passed" on the issue. It confirmed that the Geneva conventions still apply to the Israeli-occupied territories including Jerusalem. It condemned the settlements, and expressed its concern about armed Israeli settlers' behavior. Importantly, it called for action, which if the U.S. follows its own vote in 1950 is binding. First, it called for the parties who signed the Geneva Convention, such as the U.S., to do their duty to ensure compliance with them. Controversially, it called for the "cessation of all forms of assistance and support for illegal Israeli activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, in particular settlement activities."

The Palestinian interpretation is that the resolution precludes funding by NGOs for settlement activities as well and Palestinian Ambassador El-Kidwa thinks that it could even legitimize the renewal of the Arab boycott, as long as it aimed specifically at the settlement activity rather than the destruction of Israel.

Suspended, Not Adjourned

Finally, the Assembly also mandated U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the situation and report back within two months. It remains to be seen if the Israelis will cooperate even with this part, not least since Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy described the resolution as "null and void" just like all its predecessors. But if they carry on their activities, the emergency General Assembly session has only been suspended, not finally adjourned, so it can be reconvened in a hurry.

Of course, Washington is no keener to have the General Assembly "intrude" than the Council. So Bill Richardson said that "The Security Council and the General Assembly should not insert themselves into issues that the negotiating partners have decided will be addressed in their permanent status talks." He also deplored that the resolution "prejudged" the Jerusalem issue.

However, the world community has for a long time "prejudged" the Israeli behavior in Jerusalem. Like most forms of theft and deprivation of human rights the world thinks it is wrong and illegal.

It has to be said that much of the world, the West in particular, would just as soon the issue went away. But Arab diplomacy has made a quantum leap in sophistication since Oslo. Instead of out-rhetoricing each other, serious work went into making sure that the message was specifically tailored to be acceptable to the European Union and other Western countries. Most were prepared to go along with it, but under heavy pressure from the U.S., some abstained, notably Australia, Canada, Germany and Norway. The Canadians, fairly typically, admitted the settlement was illegal and "harmful" to the peace process, but parroted the American line that only direct negotiations between the parties were relevant.

A Canadian diplomat also told WRMEA that Ottowa objected to the "one-sided" condemnation of Israel. However, invited to move an amendment condemning Palestinian settlements in Tel Aviv, the diplomat replied, "But there aren't any!" Exactly.