One last chance, before the sun sets on a Palestinian State

In Israel, there is dissent. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who led a right-wing government, wrote in The Guardian on 30 May that "what we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: the indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians". He said "the government of Israel is now the enemy from within… it has declared war on the state and its inhabitants," adding: "Israelis are committing war crimes."

Olmert is not alone in this view. Moshe Yaalon, the former defence minister and Chief-of-Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, admitted that Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing. Last month, he said the government was "sending soldiers to commit war crimes", adding that Israel had "lost touch with Jewish morality".

Getting it right

Although Israelis increasingly dislike their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whether to pave the road to Palestinian statehood, to fulfil the promise of Resolution 181, is still an open question for the international community. 

All eyes are on the big Western nations. Two months ago, there was a strong statement of condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza by Canada, France, and the UK. Israeli leaders disregarded it entirely, as they did the letter penned this week. To date, neither the UK, France, nor Canada has recognised a State of Palestine. Is this now the time? The following suggestions may help focus minds.

First, support for a Palestinian State should be unqualified. In other words, no conditions should be attached to it. There is no equivalence—moral, political or practical—between Israel as an occupying power and the Palestinian State, with its territory under occupation. 

Second, the Palestinian people require immediate protection. Israel has legitimate security concerns, but these cannot be addressed on the back of the Palestinian people. They are a regional matter and need to be discussed within this context.

Third, the current Israeli government is determined to prevent a Palestinian state, so there can no longer be 'business as usual'. It cannot be allowed to ignore General Assembly resolutions with impunity, as it has done for years. There must be consequences, and the conference outcome document needs to be anchored in international law.

Carrots and sticks

Israel should be incentivised by any outcome seeking to address its security concerns within the context of a regional security, political, economic, and military architecture, the implementation of which would be triggered when Israel reverses its policies. Yet there must be both a carrot and a stick for it to be effective, so a menu of sanctions should also be incorporated into the outcome document.

Such sanctions have international precedents and include an arms embargo, trade restrictions, asset freezes, financial penalties applied to Israeli banks, sanctions applied to Israeli arms manufacturers, a ban on Israeli participation in global sporting events and international cultural competitions (like the Eurovision Song Contest), port and airspace denial, inspection and interdiction mandates, and the implementation of dual-use technology export controls.

The Security Council could be asked to sanction specific Israeli figures and entities for sanctions, as it did with Syria (this would be vetoed by the United States) and authorise the monitoring of Israeli natural-gas revenues, with proceeds placed in a UN escrow account to compensate Palestinians victims, like the Oil-for-Food programme in Iraq.

Set a timeframe

To lend credibility, a deadline for Israeli compliance with the UNGA resolution should be stated, after which point further action would be taken. As per the suggestion of an Israeli who loves his country, I suggest 29 November as a 'by when' date. This would be 77 years since the General Assembly voted for the creation of the Israeli state, a fitting day for the same UN forum to usher in a Palestinian state. 

The Security Council should adopt a resolution with the universally accepted parameters for a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli problem, in particular the inadmissibility of territory acquired by force, coupled with a mechanism for establishing an international protection force for the Palestinians.

The US veto is always a factor. It is for Washington to decide on which side of history it wants to be. The General Assembly can suspend Israel's participation in its activities, having suspended South Africa in 1974 owing in part to its policy of apartheid. This effectively meant that South Africa could not exercise its UN membership.

Given that Israel has violated almost all precepts of international humanitarian and human rights law and destabilised the Middle East, Israel should be suspended from participating in the activities of the General Assembly until it implements UN resolutions. If South Africa was suspended in 1974 for similar reasons, why stand idle when Israel commits the same crimes on a grander scale?

Back-up needed

While of critical political value, action by the UN General Assemble is insufficient on its own. Member states need to implement parallel measures designed to convince the Israeli public that the course of their present government will only isolate Israel further. Israel is already losing the battle for public opinion. By its policies of occupation, expulsion, collective punishment, and starvation, it is losing the legal and ethical battles, too.

Censuring Israel may make it change course, but it is unlikely. Many would derail and dilute Palestinian state recognition by conditioning it. This is simply finding excuses to shield Israel from international opprobrium, when it should not be shielded. There should be a price to pay.

Before all that, the world must continue to strive for a lasting ceasefire, ensure uninterrupted humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, an Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza, and an end to settlement-building in the West Bank. Then we may have the debate.