But then, the United Nations security council inserted its ugly nose into the proceedings and passed a resolution condemning the massacre and calling for such a force to be introduced. This move by the UN continues a trend that has built up over the past forty years of chellenging and threatening every assertion of Jewish sovereignty over Israel. The massacre is to be condemned, and it has been, universally. But the United Nations has no business involving itsself in bipartisan disputes unless called upon to do so in the interests of peace.
It has been demonstrated over the past six months that the PLO is not interested in peace. They are interested in continued terrorism against Israel and Jews. The PLO invoked the UN, and demanded of it the recent resolution as a pre-condition for returning to the negotiations. Thus, the future of Middle East negotiations was held over the head of the security council as a demand for yet another anti-Israel resolution. And these negotiations have led only away from peace, rather than toward accomodation.
Nothing in this is surprising. What would have been quite pleasantly surprising would have been a refusal by the Security Council to pass Resolution 904. What I do, inexplicably, find quite surprising is the acquiescence of Israel in this farce. The presence of foreign troops on Israeli soil has never before been allowed by Israel for military purposes. What presence there is of United Nations personel is technically for humanitarian reasons, although there are political manifestations of this presence. There is no military capability or authority given to the personnel stationed in Israel. Even during the Gulf War of 1991, foreign military personnel was allowed in Israel only to operate defensive missile systems, and even they were not allowed to operate outside of operational defensive bases.
Under Resolution 904, which mirrors PLO demands made at the end of February, Israel will now allow foreign military personnel into Israeli territory, removing Israeli control and sovereignty from the heartland of the country. These forces will likely be given the run of Judea and Samaria, and exert untoward influence in Jerusalem neighbourhoods.
According to the United Nations daily press release DH/1605 of 18 March 1994, the United States abstained from the vote on Preambular paragraphs 2 and 6 in the paragraph by paragraph vote on the resolution. The reason given by US Ambassador Madeline Albright for this vote was the reference in these paragraphs to "Occupied Palestinian Territory" and to the inclusion of Jerusalem under this rubric.
According to a report making the rounds at the AIPAC conference in Washington in mid-March, the United States would have vetoed the entire resolution on these grounds had it not been for the request of Israel to let the resolution pass. By this resolution, the Security Council prejudices the negotiating process between Israel and the Arabs. The position has now been re-inforced that Judea and Samaria -- including Jerusalem -- and Gaza are to become an Arab state. The Clinton administration, from its election policy platforms through this resolution, holds the position that an Arab state in these areas in unacceptable. It is for this reason that they abstained in the vote.What is most instructive about the current situation in Israel is that the abstention came under pressure from Israel not to veto the resolution.
By Israel exerting such pressure on the United States, Israel acquiesced in the definition of Judea and Samaria, including Jerusalem, as "Occupied Palestine". This points to a significant change in Israeli policy regarding the cradle of Jewish civilization, and the national capital of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people. These areas -- including Jerusalem -- are no longer viewed by the Israeli government as a part of Israel. This is another manifestation of the renunciation of Israeli sovereignty.
It is, perhaps, instructive to note here, that the United Nations has never been friendly toward Israel, and that UN personnel has actively supported Arab terrorism in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Central Israel. In 1993, there were two separate attacks by Arabs upon Jews in which United Nations personnel actively assisted the murderers. As a result of the first attack, UNRWA worker Katherine Winston Stryker was expelled from Israel.
During the first 30 years of Israel's statehood, the Secutiry Council actively conspired against Israel in its handling of the various Arab-Israeli wars. Cease-fires were demanded only when Israel maintained the advantage on the battlefield. In Lebanon, UNIFIL workers have impeded Israeli pursuit of terrorists that continuously attack Israel's northern communities. In refugee camps, both in Israel and the surrounding countries, UNRWA or UNIFIL officials assist in the training and education of Arab terrorists to hate, and fight against, Israel.
For the United Nations to impose its control once more over a part of Israeli society is dangerous to Israel. For that control to be injected in such a volatile and mixed community as that of Judea and Samaria puts UN forces in the same untenable catalytic position as the British found themselves in in the 1930's and 1940's. And for UN forces to patrol Jerusalem, as Resolution 904 provides, puts Israel in the position it would have found itself in had the Arabs accepted the 1947 partition.
Under Resolution 904, Jerusalem is to become an international city under United Nations military control. Israel supported this resolution. Israel has lost its capital, and with it its sovereignty. The Jewish people have lost the one thing that has kept us alive for the past two thousand years, and with it, our national identity. All this is the fault of a Prime Minister who is more interested in achieving a place in history for himself than protection for the Jewish nation. Only his place in history is that of the only person to ever give away his nation and his country for a meaningless peace of paper.
Copyright 1994. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission only.
