The Blogs: Hitting Back At the UN

Overview

1/ This article sets out proposals for two Israeli resolutions to the UNGA. There are those who will claim that these proposals will have less than a snowball-in-hell’s chance of passing. I concur. Therefore, expectations must be quite different. In fact, the purpose of the resolutions is to begin an international political campaign to rectify serious and often malicious distortions and common misunderstandings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – as exemplified by last week’s ‘High Level Conference’ of UN states pushing for a Palestinian State.

2/ The predominant view of the ‘International Community’ has long been that Israel occupies Palestinian territory: the ‘West Bank’, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. This is held to be illegal, immoral, brutal and unjustified. It is the core issue behind international discomfort and widespread hostility to Israel. Yet, without any gain for Israel, the decision not to participate in the UN Conference last week left this conceptzia entirely unchallenged and intact.

Introduction to Resolution ONE

3/ The Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the current war consist of an endless stream of terrible event-facts that monopolize media attention and PR responses. Such event-facts, nasty as they can be, undoubtedly fuel the conflict but do not cause it. Yet this media focus keeps Israel overwhelmingly stuck on the defensive. As a result, international efforts to impose a Palestinian state have now reached an unprecedented scale and intensity. Unless checked, the political momentum for a Palestinian state will intensify and the diplomatic, economic, and political pressures on Israel could be disastrous.

4/ Therefore, to break-out of this deadly event-fact trap and tackle head-on the causal-facts and issues that underpin the attitude of the international public to Israel requires a sharp shift in Israel’s focus. In the absence of any suitable alternative political venue, the UN is easily the world’s greatest forum for political discussion. This is magnified enormously by the attention of the world’s media. Israel can take advantage of this. Distasteful as it is, Israel must participate.

5/ The two resolutions from Israel proposed below will generate both controversy and opposition. They will also command attention, generate interest and air-time. Without this, major foreign media outlets and senior international politicians will never never tell the truth about Palestinian intentions to destroy Israel. Instead they will keep the international public forever in-the-dark on this and other key issues which will permit the adoption of anti-Israeli positions free of resistance from an informed public.

Draft Text of Resolution ONE

Resolution to the UN General Assembly: the UN and Israel, September 2025

Preamble

RECALLING, the first purpose of the UN as stated in Article 1 of the UN Charter: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace (added emphasis).

NOTING, that for decades the UN has ignored this most basic and crucial purpose and has instead done nothing about the threats to peace and international law from those who intend to eradicate Israel.

NOTING with regret, that the UN has pursued in effect what may be called its 3-No’s:

1. No UN solidarity with Israel threatened with destruction by the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and others.
2. No UN criticism or condemnation of this illegal and genocidal aim by those who openly and explicitly assert it.
3. No UN demand or pressure on these states and organizations to immediately abandon this illegal and genocidal aim.

FURTHER noting, the ‘3-No’s’ have tolerated and thus permitted these eliminationist intentions to proceed unchecked. The current war in the Gaza Strip and the recent wars with Iran and Hezbollah have been the consequence.

The GA decides that the illegal and genocidal intentions to destroy Israel are fundamentally at variance with the purpose and methods of the UN Charter.
The GA further decides that these aims are incompatible with continued membership of the UN.
The GA also decides to refer this matter to the UNSC for any states that refuse to explicitly, convincingly and reliably abandon this illegal and genocidal intention.

******

Introduction to Resolution TWO

6/ Related to the above, the second resolution should focus on Israeli rights and the political consequences that follow, but which have been ignored in the rush to impose a 2-State Solution.

7/ It is frequently asserted that during the 6-Day War of 1967 Israel ‘occupied’ territories (the ‘West Bank’, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem) that were Palestinian. This is an impossibility for the following reasons:

1. There was no agreement or legal ruling that the territories were Palestinian in 1967.
2. The PLO manifesto, the Palestinian National Charter of 1964, contained no claim to sovereignty over them.
3. Article 24 of the Palestinian National Charter specifically rejected sovereignty over these territories.

8/ Likewise, since 1967 there has been no authoritative legal decision that has provided a legal basis for backdating supposed Palestinian sovereignty. Nor has there been any such agreement with Israel. Therefore, these claims are essentially political views masquerading as legalities.

Ignoring the Rights and Interests of Israel

9/ Additionally, numerous statements by the UN and the recent ICJ-Advisory Opinion have completely ignored the legal claims of Israel to these territories as if they were non-existent (see Annex 1 below). In fact, Israel’s legal pedigree is anchored in the post-First World War settlement enshrined in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This is continued in Article 80 of the UN Charter, and its territory is defined by the customary international law of uti possidetis juris to include the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem.

10/ Consequently, those who accuse Israel of the ‘inadmissible acquisition of territory by war’ are mistaken. The territory was already legally part of Israel when Israel retrieved it from its ‘inadmissible acquisition’ by Jordan and Egypt during their participation in the invasion of Israel by five Arab armies in 1948 (see Annex 2 below).

11/ It is beyond belief that such supposedly competent authorities are ignorant of this background and Palestinian claims in 1967. Yet on these assumptions, the UN, ICJ, the EU and many others promote the illusion that a Palestinian state based on the ‘West Bank’ is the only possible solution to the conflict. To make matters worse, none have undertaken due-diligence to establish if the Palestinians are willing to agree to such a state as an end to the conflict.

Aligning Palestinian Aims with a 2-State Solution?

12/ In fact, even a cursory examination of Palestinian intentions reveals that they reject the characterization of the conflict as between 2-Peoples. Simultaneously, they reject 2-states as an end to the conflict. This is why they have consistently refused solutions on this basis both before and following the creation of Israel.

13/ Instead, they see the conflict as a winner-takes-all struggle and endlessly claim the whole territory of Mandatory Palestine. Consequently, although a West Bank-based state may satisfy many, there is no indication that it will satisfy the Palestinians who still adhere to the programmatic aim of the Palestinian National Charter for the eradication of Israel and establishment of a state from-the-river-to-the-sea in its place.

14) Abundant evidence is available for this for those who undertake even elementary due-diligence (see Annex 3 below). Unfortunately, western supporters of Palestinian statehood in particular seem unable to imagine any palatable alternative to the simplicity and clarity of the 2-state compromise. Its inherent justice appears so morally conclusive that all decent people should agree. It is considered so self-evidently superior to alternatives that no further elaboration is required.

15/ Consequently, advocates of Palestinian statehood have failed to exercise due-diligence into Palestinian intentions in order to ascertain if they align or not with the 2-state vision.

Draft Text of Resolution TWO

Resolution to the UN General Assembly: Palestinian Statehood, September 2025

Preamble

NOTING the strength of legal and historical claims of Israel over the territory of Mandatory Palestine.

NOTING also that the Palestinians maintain an intransigent opposition to a Jewish state on any part of the territory.

NOTING with regret that the latter presents an insurmountable obstacle to any peaceful settlement of the conflict.

CONSIDERING that neither peace and security for the region nor any Israeli agreement to withdraw from territory claimed by the Palestinians can be undertaken safely unless Palestinian factions no longer intend to destroy Israel.

RECALLING that in accordance with the opening paragraph of the UN Charter, the UN is ready to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace.

The GA decides that the commitment of the PA/PLO to the destruction of Jewish state of Israel is an insurmountable obstacle to any lasting solution to the conflict.
The GA further decides that it stands in solidarity with Israel against these illegal, genocidal, and eliminationist threats.
The GA also decides that all Palestinian intentions to eliminate Israel must be abandoned along with all incitement against the existence of Israel and its citizens.
The UN further decides that explicit, convincing and reliable evidence of Palestinian acceptance of the Jewish state by the Palestinian factions is required. All other Palestinian reforms are secondary to this measure.
The GA decides that all previous GA resolutions that endorse Palestinian statehood are revoked due to the explicit Palestinian intention to destroy Israel.
The UN further decides that the Palestinian factions must immediately abandon the aim of eliminating the Jewish state.
The GA also decides that until such time as the Palestinian factions demonstrate convincing and reliable evidence that they have abandoned this aim, all privileges enjoyed by the PA as a non-member organization of the UN are immediately cancelled.
The GA further decides that to have any realistic prospects of success any genuine negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, as required by the Oslo Accords, can only proceed on the basis of this understanding.

3 Key Questions for Advocates of a Palestinian State

16/ By measures such as the two resolutions proposed – even assuming they will fail – Israel can capture a welcome degree of initiative to focus on aspects that are normally hidden. They should be the opening shots of a sustained Political Campaign at the UN to reverse the blame and thus guilt for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By demonstrating that the driving force of the conflict is the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state, the ONLY possible peaceful solution is also indicated.

17/ All these issues can be reinforced by the repeated reiteration of just 3 questions which advocates of a Palestinian state prefer to avoid:

1. How can a state that intends to destroy Israel produce a peaceful and successful 2-State Solution?
2. How can regional peace and security be served by the creation of a state that intends to eliminate another?
3. How is international law served by establishing a state that aims to destroy another state?

18/ Finally, the UN is a superb international arena for Israel to stir matters up, make a noise, be politically assertive, show political determination, build alliances, disrupt the established UN narrative, and generate controversy, interest and air time. In short, it is full of potential for a sustained public political campaign by Israel that will also provide political ammunition and leadership to friends.

Annexes

Annex 1 Judging the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion.

Annex 2 The Palestinian Intention to Destroy Israel.

Annex 3 Refuting the Charge of Israeli ‘Occupation of Palestinian Territory’.