Many were shocked when the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted its new Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 on 18 September 2024; a Resolution that can indeed be described as a ground-breaking, not least because it mentions a taboo in the context of Israel - "sanctions". The UNGA opened this Resolution, "Guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including the inalienable right of self-determination of peoples and the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force".
In what should instead be described as an unspeakable tragedy for the UN system as a whole, the UNGA - in the very same Resolution - managed to (1) tear asunder long-standing UN resolutions pertaining to Israel and "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force", (2) trample upon long established principles of "international law" concerning Jerusalem, and to (3) fundamentally eschew - under the direction of today's unelected Palestinian leadership - "the inalienable right of self-determination of [Palestinian] peoples".
Yet the UNGA did not execute this legal hara-kiri alone; it was lured by the very same jurists that were supposed to guide it. In "the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice [ICJ], rendered on 19 July 2024, " the Court determined, inter alia, that: " International organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory " and that this illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967".
I found this shocking, as someone convinced that the Israel-Palestine conflict did not in fact begin in 1967; but yet this is exactly what the UNGA is now asking us to believe. Had the UNGA instead consulted its very own Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 - given as it is so obviously the starting point of the conflict, in terms of international law - what it might have instead realised is that its own 1947 'Plan of Partition with Economic Union' had "awarded 56 per cent of the territory of Palestine to 32 per cent of its population". As if that wasn't generous enough (of the overwhelmingly white, colonialist UNGA), "In the 1948 War the new State of Israel expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine".
To rephrase, during the 1948 War, the new State of Israel occupied an additional 21% of the territory of historic Palestine - over-and-above - what it had been gifted, with no legal basis whatsoever and in flagrant violation of UNGA Resolution 181 (despite that same Resolution having insisted: "The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, " any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution"). If the UNGA and ICJ are indeed such staunch protectors of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force", they should explain upon what legal basis they have decided to erase from the statutes this additional 21% of historic Palestine that the State of Israel acquired by force, in the opening months of that State's establishment.
UNGA Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 went on to call "upon international organizations, including the United Nations, and regional organizations ... not to recognize " any measures undertaken by Israel ... to effect any changes in the demographic composition or geographic character or institutional structure of the Territory". Given several other references in this Resolution to an "occupation that began in 1967", one can only assume that the UNGA is referring here to "changes in the demographic composition or geographic character" of the Territory" since 1967; not at all that 21% of historic Palestine whose demographic composition and geographic character were both violently altered - by force - by Israel in 1948, without any justification whatsoever under international law.
The same Resolution "Calls upon the United Nations, and its bodies and organs, to respect and act in a manner consistent with the determinations made by the International Court of Justice, including in relation to all relevant maps". Here it must again be assumed that the UNGA, by referring only to "relevant maps", is in effect asking us to forget the original Map attached to its Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947; which instead shows Israel being allotted no more than 56 per cent of historic Palestine.
At this point in time I am likely to be challenged as to how it is possible that the UNGA - under the direction of the geriatric Palestinian Authority - could possibly walk roughshod over its self-same resolutions? The answer is in fact quite simple, although completely unspoken. The answer is also something I presaged in an Article from 2007: the 'Haram-for-Right of Return' formula. For those that are unaware, what Jews call the 'Temple Mount', and what Muslims refer to as the 'Haram al-Sharif', is that compound within the Old City of - East - Jerusalem that houses the Wailing Wall - the holiest site in Judaism - as well as both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock - making it the third holiest site in Islam. Anyone taking a close look at Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 may well notice that whilst Gaza and the West Bank are mentioned only 7 times, Jerusalem is mentioned 15 times. Noting this disparity, it immediately becomes clear that this Resolution is not fundamentally about "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force", but instead about Palestinian control over East Jerusalem - over the Haram al-Sharif.
Another question that is likely to arise at this point, is that even if the Palestinians have indeed decided to put control of East Jerusalem ahead of all other earthly concerns, what could cause them to simply drop the subject of the additional 21% of their historic territory occupied by Israel in 1948? Again, the answer is very straightforward. UNGA Resolution 181 - the 'Plan of Partition with Economic Union' - not only declared the establishment of "Independent Arab and Jewish States", but also a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem". The consequence of this legalistic show-stopper, is that Palestinian leaders have only one game plan available to them in their latest Crusade for Jerusalem: Everyone needs to forget about UNGA Resolution 181. Not surprisingly, Israel has no problems with this approach either, given it has effective control today over the entirety of Jerusalem; since declared to be its own unified capital - hence the term 'Crusade'.
Despite the - entirely unchanged - legal 'Status of Jerusalem' as "Special International Regime", we nonetheless read in the most recent Resolution of the UNGA's newfound "commitment for " the territorial integrity and unity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem". I similarly found this - explicit - inclusion of East Jerusalem in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" as juridically shocking. Should the UNGA instead refer to the conclusions of a 1981 paper prepared by its very own 'Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People', The Status of Jerusalem, it might instead be reminded that "During the period 1950-1967, despite the international acquiescence in the division of the City of Jerusalem, the General Assembly continued to uphold the principle of the internationalization of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum". Furthermore, "The resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council in relation to Jerusalem following the occupation of the entire city of Jerusalem by Israel in June 1967 also maintained this original principle of internationalization".
Given all of this, it was very strange indeed to read in its latest Resolution, the UNGA's 'Reaffirmation' of "the illegality of " measures aimed at altering the " character and Status of the City of Jerusalem and of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole". If I'm not mistaken, it is the UNGA itself that is currently attempting to rewrite the decades old Status of Jerusalem, by making reference to such things as: "the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem".
And what of the Palestinians leadership themselves? Is it possible that they are innocently unaware of the ongoing and unchanged legal Status of the City of Jerusalem, for which they are currently crusading? That seems unlikely, given as it is that Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law - who had advised the Palestine National Council on their 'Proclamation of the State of Palestine' of 15 November 1988 - did not fail to provide the PNC with reliable legal counsel: "neither Israel nor Palestine nor both together have the basic right under international law to dispose of Jerusalem". As such, it seems eminently provable that the Palestinian Authority knows exactly what it is playing at, almost 40 years later - very strangely however, with the connivance of at least 124 UN Members that have all apparently been sold the 'Haram-for-Right of Return' formula in back-room negotiations.
To put an end to this sorry saga, we must consider exactly how it is that Palestinian representatives at the UN have just bartered away "the inalienable right of self-determination of peoples", for control over the Haram al-Sharif. Most people reading this Article will already be aware that as a result of Israel's 1948 'War of Independence' (from the land's natives): "Over half the indigenous Palestinians fled or were expelled, the refugees numbering 726,000 by the end of 1949". They may also be aware that today, the number of Palestinian refugees - emanating from the 1948 War alone - now number around 6 million; many of whom have spent their entire lives living as foreigners inside camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
It was by its Resolution 194 of 11 December 1948 - before the War's conclusion - that the UNGA 'Resolved' that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible". This Resolution gave rise to what has been referred to ever since as the Palestinian 'Right of Return' - to their pre-May 1948 homes and lands. What's more, according to the Palestinian Return Centre at least: "Multiple international treaties and conventions recognize the inviolable character of the right to return of refugees - including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights".
Yet surprisingly, the 'Right of Return' of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 War is nowhere to be seen in UNGA Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 - quite the opposite. In mild defence of the ICJ, part of the reason for this is that their mandate was very clearly and carefully prescribed by its Palestinian authors: "What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967". I'm sorry, why "since 1967"? What of "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination", for those expelled since 1948? The ICJ informs us that "The Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, a right that constitutes a peremptory norm of international law", yet the UNGA now asks us to believe that this peremptory norm of international law is only "peremptory" from 1967 onwards? I do wonder if the Palestinian Authority asked the millions of refugees living interminably in squalid camps - as a result of the 1948 War - if they're willing to offer up their "inalienable right of self-determination" - "a peremptory norm of international law" - so that a new Palestinian 'entity' might one day raise its flag over the Al-Aqsa Mosque?
Again, we need look no further than the research papers of the UNGA's own organs to get an informed, scholarly opinion on this third topic. What we do read in The Right of Return of the Palestinian People (1978), also prepared by the UNGA's own 'Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People', is that: "In the case of the Palestinian people, the individual or personal Right of Return assumes a special significance for without its restoration, the exercise of the collective or national right of self-determination, itself guaranteed by a variety of international instruments, becomes impossible". By eschewing the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees, the UNGA has not only done far too little to support "the inalienable right of self-determination of peoples", it has also made this inalienable right an impossibility for the Palestinian Nation as a whole - by excluding refugees from 1948 - through an unlawful, realpolitik declaration that Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands did not start until June 1967, and that this occupation somehow also included 'Palestinian East Jerusalem'.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
