UN Fourth Committee's elimination of anti-colonial discourse

A report by the UN Fourth Committee dealing with decolonisation has determined the hypocrisy of those who dismiss the high number of Palestinian civilian casualties during Israel’s colonial massacre as “collateral damage”. However, while discourse clearly conveyed the unsustainability in Gaza exacerbated by the destruction wrought during Operation Protective Edge, the expressed criticism departed clearly from a compromised premise, namely the two-state conspiracy and the description of 2014 commencing “on a hopeful note, with the United States-brokered peace negotiations”.

According to the Observer for the State of Palestine, “Despite the gravity of the situation, Palestinians have not given up on peace.” Feda Abdelhady-Nasser’s statement was reflected in comments from other participants in the committee’s deliberations, resulting in the displacement of Palestinian narratives as well as international support. Although expected, the emphasis upon “peace” prior to liberation and decolonisation reflects the Palestinian leaders’ absorption of colonial and imperialist demands. Within the context of the US-brokered negotiations, “peace” represents the willingness to navigate a political situation that prioritises the two-state narrative above legitimate Palestinian demands, including the legitimate necessity of resistance to Israel’s brutal military occupation.

Comments offered a comprehensive overview of Israel’s human rights violations, thus providing a context for Protective Edge that went beyond the usual portrayal of an isolated incident. However, the futile and repetitive recommendations for Israel to abide by international law expose the dynamics of the UN, with the usual adaptation of legal frameworks replacing proper investigation into decades of abuse which the organisation helped to create. Citing Israel’s refusal to cooperate in matters pertaining inter alia to the constant abuse of Palestinian political prisoners, administrative detention, settler violence and settlement expansion exposes the futility of the UN’s purported efforts to investigate, compromised as always by collaboration with Israel in defending colonial violence through dissemination of its narrative.

With both Palestine and the UN endorsing the dominant narrative, feedback from participating countries reflected the two-state requirement. Settlement expansion, discussed by Saudi Arabia’s representative, criticised the expansion of the account that renders the “two-state solution impossible”, rather than a continuation of historical violations. The same view was expressed by the representative of the EU Delegation, Ioannis Vrailas, who distorted colonisation into a conflict necessitating “a final and comprehensive peaceful settlement”.

Eliminated from the discussion was discourse of the anti-colonial struggle, which is of paramount importance to the struggle faced by Palestinians. Yet, the omission reflects the general sentiment outlined also in the UN’s ineffectiveness of declaring its intention since 1960 to speed the decolonisation process elsewhere in the world while allowing Israel to persist in its colonisation of Palestinian land. In 1960 Fidel Castro reiterated the main obstacle to articulating the anti-colonial struggle by the fact that the narrative of the colonised had always been expressed through the oppressors. As countries continue to navigate the platform offered by the UN in terms of compromise, Palestine is mired within discourse of “an independent state” and “peace” that fails to challenge the colonial reality perpetrated by Israel. In the absence of references to decolonisation, international complicity in crimes against Palestinians seems destined to become more complex, as the framework for safeguarding Palestinian rights is diluted through the endorsement of compromise.

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