Inconsistency in the Argument against the U.N. Upgrade of Palestine's Status
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Journalist
December 21, 2012
On November 29, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to upgrade the status of Palestine from a non-member observer "Organization" to a non-member observer "State" with the approval of 138 states including Japan. In his speech preceding the vote, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, appealed that this was another step forward in the direction of creating an independent state of Palestine that could coexist with Israel.
Last fall, President Abbas applied to the Security Council seeking full U.N. membership for Palestine, but the effort ended without success as the United States exercised its right to veto any vote. This time around, the goal was lowered to a vote in the General Assembly, where the United States had no vetoing power. Nine countries including Israel and the United States opposed the resolution, while 41 countries including the Balkan states abstained. Immediately after the resolution was passed, the Palestinian Authority changed its name to "Palestine."
The opposition from Israel and the United States is based on the argument that Palestinian independence should ultimately come about only as a result of direct negotiations with Israel, and that it was irrelevant to seek a U.N. resolution as its basis. The territorial delineation in the latest proposal by President Abbas was based on borders that preceded Israeli occupation. Israel is stingy with territorial concessions, and it would be safe to say the United States paid due consideration to Israel's position.
However, I would like to pose a question on their argument. It was 65 years ago on November 29,1947 - the same date of the latest U.N. resolution – that the same General Assembly adopted a resolution to divide the then mandated British territory of Palestine into an Arab state and an Israeli state. The Arab camp, which had been opposed to the division itself, refused to accept this resolution, while the Israeli side accepted. Six months later in May 1948, the founding of the state of Israel was declared, citing this resolution as its primary basis in international law. Not only was there any agreement with the local Arab population (the Palestinians) or neighboring Arab nations, there were no negotiations whatsoever, and subsequent changes in Israel's territories and borders have been the result of repeated warfare.
In view of the flow of past events, the objection posed by Israel – and the United States – against the latest U.N. resolution seems to be legally inconsistent. While it is only natural that Israel has strong concerns about its own national security, it is a well-known fact that the Palestinian side has proposed holding future negotiations with Israel on this issue and on the issue of Palestine's territorial borders.
Following the U.N. resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a retaliatory gesture by constructing 3,000 Jewish settlements (housing complex) within the so-called E1 area neighboring East Jerusalem, which is located on the Israeli-occupied West Bank of the Jordan River. This has drawn fire from Palestinians and strong criticism from the international community as a move intended to completely cut off East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians consider their capital, from the West Bank, creating a north-south divide in the region.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called on both Israel and Palestine to resume peace talks. Yet, if the United States hopes to arrest the decline in its diplomatic influence in the Middle East, it would need to step up its intervention. Now in its second term, the Obama administration will soon have to demonstrate its stance.
The latest resolution by the General Assembly split the vote among countries in the European Union, and I think Japan merits high praise for casting its vote of approval along with countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Norway, instead of abstaining.
Kentaro Hirayama is former Executive Commentator of the NHK.
Last fall, President Abbas applied to the Security Council seeking full U.N. membership for Palestine, but the effort ended without success as the United States exercised its right to veto any vote. This time around, the goal was lowered to a vote in the General Assembly, where the United States had no vetoing power. Nine countries including Israel and the United States opposed the resolution, while 41 countries including the Balkan states abstained. Immediately after the resolution was passed, the Palestinian Authority changed its name to "Palestine."
The opposition from Israel and the United States is based on the argument that Palestinian independence should ultimately come about only as a result of direct negotiations with Israel, and that it was irrelevant to seek a U.N. resolution as its basis. The territorial delineation in the latest proposal by President Abbas was based on borders that preceded Israeli occupation. Israel is stingy with territorial concessions, and it would be safe to say the United States paid due consideration to Israel's position.
However, I would like to pose a question on their argument. It was 65 years ago on November 29,1947 - the same date of the latest U.N. resolution – that the same General Assembly adopted a resolution to divide the then mandated British territory of Palestine into an Arab state and an Israeli state. The Arab camp, which had been opposed to the division itself, refused to accept this resolution, while the Israeli side accepted. Six months later in May 1948, the founding of the state of Israel was declared, citing this resolution as its primary basis in international law. Not only was there any agreement with the local Arab population (the Palestinians) or neighboring Arab nations, there were no negotiations whatsoever, and subsequent changes in Israel's territories and borders have been the result of repeated warfare.
In view of the flow of past events, the objection posed by Israel – and the United States – against the latest U.N. resolution seems to be legally inconsistent. While it is only natural that Israel has strong concerns about its own national security, it is a well-known fact that the Palestinian side has proposed holding future negotiations with Israel on this issue and on the issue of Palestine's territorial borders.
Following the U.N. resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a retaliatory gesture by constructing 3,000 Jewish settlements (housing complex) within the so-called E1 area neighboring East Jerusalem, which is located on the Israeli-occupied West Bank of the Jordan River. This has drawn fire from Palestinians and strong criticism from the international community as a move intended to completely cut off East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians consider their capital, from the West Bank, creating a north-south divide in the region.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called on both Israel and Palestine to resume peace talks. Yet, if the United States hopes to arrest the decline in its diplomatic influence in the Middle East, it would need to step up its intervention. Now in its second term, the Obama administration will soon have to demonstrate its stance.
The latest resolution by the General Assembly split the vote among countries in the European Union, and I think Japan merits high praise for casting its vote of approval along with countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Norway, instead of abstaining.
Kentaro Hirayama is former Executive Commentator of the NHK.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
国連総会パレスチナ格上げ…辻褄の合わない反対論
平山 健太郎 / ジャーナリスト
2012年 12月 21日
国連総会は１１月２９日、パレスチナをこれまでのオブザーバー「組織」からオブザーバー「国家」に格上げする決議を、日本を含む１３８か国の賛成を得て採択した。パレスチナ暫定自治政府のアバス議長は、投票に先立つ演説で、イスラエルと共存しうるパレスチナ独立国家を実現するためのさらなる一歩であると訴えている。アバス議長は、昨年の秋にも、国連の安全保障理事会に、パレスチナを国連の加盟国として認めるよう申請しているが、アメリカの拒否権により不調に終わり、今回は目標を一段下げ、アメリカの拒否権が及ばない総会に持ちこんだものだ。イスラエルやアメリカを含む９か国が反対したほか、バルカン諸国など４１か国が棄権している。パレスチナ暫定自治政府は、この決議の直後自らを「パレスチナ-オーソリティ」から「パレスチナ」に改称している。
イスラエルやアメリカが反対した理由は、パレスチナの最終的な独立はイスラエルとの直接交渉の結果としてのみ実現されるべきであり、国連決議をよりどころにするのは筋違いだという論議だ。今回のアバス議長の提案がパレスチナ国家の領土の範囲についてイスラエルによる占領が発生する以前の境界線を基盤にするとしている点に、占領地の返還を渋るイスラエル側が激しく反発し、アメリカもこれに配慮したと見てよかろう。しかしこの論点に私は一つ疑問を呈しておきたい。今回の国連総会の日付１１月２９日は６５年前の１９４７年、同じ国連総会が当時イギリスの委任統治領だったパレスチナをアラブ人の国とユダヤ人の国に分割する決議を採択した日に当たる。分割そのものに反対していたアラブ側はこの決議の受け入れを拒み、ユダヤ人側は、これを受け入れ、この決議を主要な国際法上の根拠に、半年後の１９４８年５月、イスラエル国家の建国を宣言している。地元のアラブ人(パレスチナ人)や隣接するアラブの国々との合意はおろか、交渉も一切なく、以後の領土や境界線の変遷は繰り返される戦争の所産だった。こう見てくると今回の国連決議にイスラエル（そしてアメリカ）が示している難色は、法的にはつじつまが合わないのではなかろうか。イスラエルが抱いている自国の安全保障をめぐる強い懸念は当然理解できるが、この問題についても、またパレスチナ領土の境界線についても、パレスチナ側はイスラエルとの今後の交渉を提案しているのは周知の事実だ。
イスラエルのネタニヤフ首相は、今回の国連総会決議の後、東エルサレムに隣接するヨルダン川西岸占領地のいわゆるＥ１地域に３０００戸のユダヤ人入植地（団地）を建設する報復措置を採った。パレスチナ側が自らの首都と考えている東エルサレムを、ヨルダン川西岸から完全に切り離し、またヨルダン川西岸地域を南北に分断する措置として、パレスチナ側の反発や、国際社会の強い非難を招いている。
アメリカのクリントン国務長官は、イスラエル、パレスチナの双方に和平交渉の再開を呼び掛けているが、アメリカが中東での外交的な影響力の衰退に歯止めをかけたいならば、もう一歩踏み込んだ介入が必要だ。オバマ政権二期目の姿勢が問われる時期が迫っている。
ＥＵ諸国の票が割れた今回の総会決議で、日本が棄権せず、フランス、イタリー、スペイン、ノルウエイなどと同じ賛成票を投じたことも、大きく評価したいと私は考える。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹。）
イスラエルやアメリカが反対した理由は、パレスチナの最終的な独立はイスラエルとの直接交渉の結果としてのみ実現されるべきであり、国連決議をよりどころにするのは筋違いだという論議だ。今回のアバス議長の提案がパレスチナ国家の領土の範囲についてイスラエルによる占領が発生する以前の境界線を基盤にするとしている点に、占領地の返還を渋るイスラエル側が激しく反発し、アメリカもこれに配慮したと見てよかろう。しかしこの論点に私は一つ疑問を呈しておきたい。今回の国連総会の日付１１月２９日は６５年前の１９４７年、同じ国連総会が当時イギリスの委任統治領だったパレスチナをアラブ人の国とユダヤ人の国に分割する決議を採択した日に当たる。分割そのものに反対していたアラブ側はこの決議の受け入れを拒み、ユダヤ人側は、これを受け入れ、この決議を主要な国際法上の根拠に、半年後の１９４８年５月、イスラエル国家の建国を宣言している。地元のアラブ人(パレスチナ人)や隣接するアラブの国々との合意はおろか、交渉も一切なく、以後の領土や境界線の変遷は繰り返される戦争の所産だった。こう見てくると今回の国連決議にイスラエル（そしてアメリカ）が示している難色は、法的にはつじつまが合わないのではなかろうか。イスラエルが抱いている自国の安全保障をめぐる強い懸念は当然理解できるが、この問題についても、またパレスチナ領土の境界線についても、パレスチナ側はイスラエルとの今後の交渉を提案しているのは周知の事実だ。
イスラエルのネタニヤフ首相は、今回の国連総会決議の後、東エルサレムに隣接するヨルダン川西岸占領地のいわゆるＥ１地域に３０００戸のユダヤ人入植地（団地）を建設する報復措置を採った。パレスチナ側が自らの首都と考えている東エルサレムを、ヨルダン川西岸から完全に切り離し、またヨルダン川西岸地域を南北に分断する措置として、パレスチナ側の反発や、国際社会の強い非難を招いている。
アメリカのクリントン国務長官は、イスラエル、パレスチナの双方に和平交渉の再開を呼び掛けているが、アメリカが中東での外交的な影響力の衰退に歯止めをかけたいならば、もう一歩踏み込んだ介入が必要だ。オバマ政権二期目の姿勢が問われる時期が迫っている。
ＥＵ諸国の票が割れた今回の総会決議で、日本が棄権せず、フランス、イタリー、スペイン、ノルウエイなどと同じ賛成票を投じたことも、大きく評価したいと私は考える。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟