Discussing Israel's colonial expansion at the UN Security Council

Recurring trends regarding the peace negotiations have emerged from the latest United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting. Language shifted from heroic to compromising, within a veneer of fabricated equality which rarely challenged Israel’s imperialist-supported policies. Despite the alleged concern to implement a just solution enabling Palestinians to achieve self-determination, the debate highlighted the manifestation of allegiances which, despite exhibiting symbolic solidarity to Palestine, failed to expound upon the necessity of holding Israel accountable for its violations of international law.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon imparted the illusion of equality by insisting upon the necessity of compromise, stating “I do not underestimate the difficulties, but the risks of inaction or surrender are far greater.” Describing 2014 as decisive in shifting the perceived stalemate, Ban acknowledged the illegality of Israel’s settlement expansion as a major obstacle. However, there was no departure from the incessant endorsement of the US involvement in the negotiations. Discussions regarding Palestinian right to self-determination and land remain fettered to imperialist support for Israel. The impasse is also debatable when applied to the context of Israel’s settler-colonial plans and Palestinian resistance. Israel’s impunity enables it to enforce its superiority, ingrained within the knowledge that opposition to its actions remains confined to rhetoric. Palestinian resistance is deconstructed by Israel to justify further violence and atrocities. Alleging an impasse serves to further Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, as it continues to impose its colonisation policies partly through retaliation for the release of Palestinian political prisoners, but also through the imposed disassociation from Palestinian history incorporated within the plan which does not question Israel’s fabricated legitimacy.

Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine Riyad Mansour insisted upon the necessity to hold Israel accountable for its international law violations, mentioning the fragmentation of Palestinian territory, settler-violence, the plight of Palestinian prisoners including children, in Israeli jails and the continuous internal forced displacement of Palestinians. Appealing to the UNSC, Mansour asserted “The message to Israel must be clear: illegal actions will entail consequences and Israel should be held responsible should such actions lead to the collapse of peace efforts and the two-State solution.” The statement is reminiscent of Palestine’s fragile position in the process, reflecting the subjugation of a nation embroiled within discussions dictated by allies and utilising an international platform which is biased against the legitimate demands of Palestinians.

Reverting to the release of Palestinian political prisoners, Israel’s ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor proceeded to complain about alleged Palestinian incitement endorsed by the Palestinian Authority. Prosor also denied the existence of the blockade on Gaza and accused other countries, including Iran and Malaysia, of human rights violations while attempting to illustrate Israel’s illusory humanitarian compassion by narrating a solitary incident regarding the treatment of an injured Syrian soldier at the border.

The majority of countries condemned Israel’s settlement expansion yet remained reluctant to develop the argument beyond the dominant discourse framing the negotiations. France, Australia, the US and the UK persisted in ambivalent rhetoric, focusing upon the negotiations rather than decades of colonial oppression resulting in a diplomatic deception labelled by Israel and its allies as the ultimate possibility towards establishing peace. On the opposite end of the political spectrum Cuba’s representative to the UN, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, called on the UN to recognise Palestine as a UN member state. Reyes was also a solitary voice which directly insisted upon an end to Israel’s colonising policies, reflecting the necessity of imparting history and its repercussions in an authentic manner, as opposed to the disassociation embraced by Israel, its allies and the subjugated representatives of the international community.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.