By Robert Inlakesh

Realistically speaking, these resolutions achieve nothing. Why? Because Israel only takes them as an invitation to visit even greater violence on Palestinian civilians as a result.

The recent adoption of a declaration, calling for the “peaceful path” to a “two-State solution,” has been debated as a “game changer,” yet represents little but a repetition of the same votes we have seen for three decades. Not only is the language employed minimizing and dismissive of Palestinian aspirations, but alone it is just a pat on the back for complicit parties in the Gaza genocide.

It is long past due that these insulting UN resolutions, proposed by statesmen who care only about protecting their own political capital, be not only called out, but outright condemned as what they are.

While at first glance, the recent United Nations General Assembly vote on the “New York Declaration” — which passed 142 to 10, with 12 abstentions — appears on the face of it to be a strong statement in favor of forwarding Palestinian statehood, it means little on the ground.

Neo-conservative think tanks added to the debate on this issue by claiming what the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) branded a “misguided and ill-timed” resolution, while Israel predictably tried to argue that the UNGA was siding with Hamas.

What We Know About Charlie Kirk and Israel: Fact-Checking Claims and Theories

Yet, those of us who have followed the issue for long enough remember the countless UNGA resolutions adopted over the period of around 30 years now, all of which have looked very similar in terms of the international vote and in terms of paving the way to a Palestinian state based upon specific tenets of international law.

This New York Declaration is more of the same. It brings nothing new to the table, beyond a few key points, which are that it urges Hamas to hand over all its weapons to the Palestinian Authority and allow for an international peacekeeping force to be deployed into the Gaza Strip. So let’s start by looking at these points.

The Day After in Gaza and “Non-Violence”

The passing of the UNGA’s declaration on establishing a Palestinian state uses the language of non-violence and labels the day after in Gaza a “peace day.” Its sanitized political language, evidently employed in order to capture the votes of Western nations who engage in this exact “two-State” sophistry, leads it to contradiction.

While claiming it seeks non-violence and that non-State actors should be disarmed or discouraged, it also states that it intends to pursue the assembly of a multinational militarized force to operate in Gaza. The declaration states that this initiative would be followed through on at the UNSC, which means that the US will simply veto it if it so chooses.

Considering that the UNSC passes a resolution allowing for an international force to deploy into the Gaza Strip, the question arises of what strategy they will be pursuing there. Will they coordinate with Israel? Will they work with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on disarming Hamas? Will they stick to the doctrine of non-violence if they are murdered by Israeli forces?

To briefly answer these questions, we can look to the UNIFIL example in southern Lebanon as a comparable model in the event that this even occurs. These UN forces coordinate with Israel, yet are still targeted in bombing attacks and refuse to defend themselves. While they largely stay away from Hezbollah, the mission in Gaza would have to facilitate a PA takeover, meaning they will undoubtedly be forced to carry out missions against Palestinians. Even if Hamas disarms, the other resistance groups are unlikely to do so.

Abandoning Resistance: Syria is Now Openly Collaborating with Israel

So, in other words, this UN force is not there to combat Israel; it would be there in order to force the Palestinian resistance to give up their struggle in Gaza.

Despite this, the Israelis have not even entertained allowing this for a second and are now responding to this symbolic declaration by escalating their bombardment of Gaza City, expanding their illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and threatening de jure annexation.

We are now less than a month away from the two-year mark for this genocide in the Gaza Strip, yet the declaration talks about “targeted action” against individuals as its answer, then larps on about a political process that would need to include Israel, the same Israeli government that vows to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state and is carrying out a genocide.

Targeted action has already been taken by a number of states. In fact, until the Trump administration reversed the moves, the Biden administration had applied targeted sanctions against specific settlers living in the occupied West Bank. This was done while Herzi Halevi was Israel’s chief of staff for its military; he himself is a West Bank settler and was commanding the Gaza genocide, prior to Eyal Zamir’s takeover.

This declaration is oxymoronic, attempting to take a neutral approach to a settler-colonial entity committing a genocide and advocating the higher-ground position of non-violence, while advocating sending in a militarized force.

What does such an international military mission actually mean to do? Is it set out to force the Israeli army to withdraw from the occupied territories? If so, how exactly does that work without violence or at least the threat of force? Also, non-State actors have a right, enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention, to armed struggle, and according to the United States and other Israeli allies like Germany, the Palestinian Authority is also a non-State actor. Keep in mind that the declaration seeks to stamp out non-State actors.

The declaration also talks about de-radicalizing school curricula. This again is targeting Palestinians and not Israelis, despite the letter of the word in the resolution. Reading between the lines here, the Israelis will not even consider this declaration as valid, or stop blocking humanitarian goods from entering Gaza, let alone change their textbooks, while on the other hand, the PA, reliant on Western aid to continue operating, is the only one open to such a step.

When it comes to the question of so-called de-radicalization in the Gaza Strip, where are these changes supposed to be implemented — is UNRWA supposed to change its textbooks further?

The reason for interrogating these points is simple: it leads to answers that undermine the rhetoric employed in the first place.

Here’s Why Israel’s Failed Assassination Strike on Doha is Not Surprising

Taking Moral High Ground

The people of Gaza are enduring genocide, a Holocaust. These resolutions and declarations, that parrot the tired old discourse of a non-existent path to a so-called “two-State solution,” are not only simply symbolic, they are outright insulting to the victims of Israel’s brutality.

When the history books are written and people look at these declarations, they will read no differently than if a neutral resolution were issued during the Nazi Holocaust. Meanwhile, the only ones doing anything to apply real pressure will be noted. To this effect, the only ones we can say have acted to the full extent of their power to bring the genocide to a close have been the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government in Sana’a.

Other than this, the only other nation to have acted with force to pressure the Israelis to stop what Benjamin Netanyahu calls his “seven-front war” is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then there are non-State actors, the most notable of which has been Hezbollah, which also used its power to pressure Israel to stop and suffered immensely for it.

What has this so-called “international community” done to those who have actually taken solid measures against Israel? The US attacked Iran, and the UN’s secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, refused to even label the assault as a violation of the UN Charter, failing to even rise to the occasion in the way Kofi Annan did when the US attacked Iraq.

This same “international community” has condemned Yemen’s government and watched on as the US led a multinational naval mission to bomb the Yemeni authorities into submission, in a failed attempt to force Ansarallah to abandon its military pressure on the Israelis. Saudi Arabia, which, along with France, was behind the New York Declaration, has even used its air defenses to defend Israel and permits free trade with the Israelis.

Then, when the Israelis murdered 5,000 people in Lebanon, the US President at the time, Joe Biden, celebrated Israel’s conduct, including the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, which Israel admitted was predicted to kill 300 Lebanese civilians in order to achieve.

There could also be the honorable mention of some other nations that cut off ties and trade deals with Israel, while the South African government did indeed take Israel to the International Court of Justice for genocide.

Hezbollah Disarmament Plan: Why It Makes No Strategic Sense For Lebanon

Realistically speaking, these resolutions achieve nothing. Why? Because Israel only takes them as an invitation to visit even greater violence on Palestinian civilians as a result and will not even entertain talking about a so-called “two-State solution.”

If this international community was truly concerned about a just peace and really implementing a two-state solution, the formula is very simple: a full international economic embargo on Israel, followed by military intervention if they still fail to comply. It suffices to say, this isn’t even on the cards. Why? Because these resolutions are performative, meant only to benefit those morally bankrupt political forces behind writing them.

This brings us to the next natural part of this conversation, which is Western recognition of Palestine at the UN. Again, performative. Israel is currently working on West Bank annexation and even threatening to dissolve the PA, while the likes of the UK continue to sell weapons to the Israelis and even welcomed its genocidal President Isaac Herzog just last week.

Actions like these are similar to all of the meaningless resolutions adopted by the largely complicit Arab League and Islamic conferences; most of the nations signing these declarations and resolutions are knee-deep in the blood of Palestinian children. Some will say that this rhetoric is harsh; it’s not. Many of these international actors deserve a lot more than harsh words; they deserve to be held criminally liable and languish in maximum-security incarceration for the rest of their existence.

(The Palestine Chronicle)