August 2004

The United Nations and Israel

Although the UN charter rests on the premise of the "sovereign equality" of all states, one state is treated differently at the United Nations than the others. Why is Israel so special? And how does Israel's special treatment affect Israel itself, the Middle East, and the United Nations? Experts discussed this subject--one made all the more timely by the recent actions of the International Court of Justice and the General Assembly--at an August 4 AEI conference.

Mark Lagon
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

Israel, though the most democratic country in the Middle East region, constantly has its sovereignty and right to defend itself called into question by the United Nations. UN counterterrorism efforts possess a grave flaw, namely the existence of terrorism aimed at Israel. Many of the nations committed to blocking terrorist financing and fighting terrorism are unwilling to recognize organized actions to annihilate Israel as terrorism.

The U.S. government is concerned by the overall imbalance in treatment Israel receives. Not only does Israel receive a disproportionate amount of resolutions, but a disproportionate amount of time is spent focusing on this one state. While, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deserving of some attention, it is a distraction from many autocratic governments whose own records should receive deliberation. There is also imbalance within the resolutions passed on Israel. The UN Security Council, General Assembly, and Commission on Human Rights look at the need for Israel to restrain itself without addressing the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to restrict terrorism.

More broadly, Israel is simply not treated as a normal nation in the UN system. Under the caucusing system in the UN, within which countries run for positions in the various UN bodies, Israel should be part of the Asia Group. However, the Asia Group has refused to allow Israeli membership. The Western European and Others Group has allowed Israel to join it in the New York for the purposes of running for elections, yet Israel is still denied a role in other venues of the UN, such as Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi.

As a nation, Israel, like any other, has the right to exist and defend itself. At the very least, Israel should be able to consult with other nations and belong in the normal regional bloc system of the UN.

Tal Becker
Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations

Israel firmly believes in the ideals of the United Nations. While it is not portrayed by the media, Israel does make great efforts to be involved in the endeavors of the United Nations. For example, Israel is taking a leading role in negotiating the Rights of People with Disabilities Convention, the UN environmental program, the Commission for Sustainable Development, and the Commission for Narcotic Drugs.

All too often the noble ideals of the UN are exploited, sometimes by member states, and unfortunately sometimes by the Secretariat. Within the UN the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not treated as a conflict between two peoples who both possess responsibilities. Instead it is perceived as a conflict about injustice; there is a victim and a villain. One side has rights and the other responsibilities.

The result of a black-and-white perspective is that Palestinian violations of their obligations can be forgiven, and the focus will always be on Israel's compliance. Within the context of the debate on the Israeli security fence, the question posed to the court was not about terrorism itself, but rather the Israeli response to terrorism. While this perspective does harm Israel, the harm to the United Nations itself is much greater.

Israel is a democracy and should be held to the highest standard. It is right and legitimate to criticize us. The standard that we should be held up to should be absolute, not relative. The fact that the UN does not hold other countries in the region to the same standard that it does Israel portrays that it is not genuinely concerned about justice and law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion reveals the damage to the UN in a real and crucial way. By failing to mention the terrorism that has necessitated the fence, the ICJ's conclusion bears grave implications. Any state that is interested in defending itself against terrorism is challenged by that opinion. Any state desiring protection by the ideals of the UN are challenged by this agenda being pushed forward by some of the worst human rights violators. The message the ICJ sent is that it can be manipulated and politicized.

Karen van Stegeren
First Secretary for Middle East Issues, Royal Netherlands Embassy

The European Union does put terrorism against Israel on trial. We do not discriminate when it comes to our definition of terrorism and are quick to make declarations against terrorist attacks on Israel.

The twenty-five members of the EU all share a fundamental commitment to the multilateral system and support for the United Nations. We, as a body, are committed to upholding and developing international law. We believe there is no alternative to the UN as a guarantor of the international order. We recognize that the UN is not perfect. Rather than only using the multilateral system when it benefits us, the EU has committed itself to renovating and strengthening the UN so that it can continue to serve as a relevant force in the face of twenty-first century challenges.

In recent weeks the EU has been accused of inconsistency. The EU, in fact, has acted very consistently on three levels: its approach toward the multilateral system, its approach toward the Middle East peace process, and its position towards Israel's legitimate security concerns. When the EU abstained from the General Assembly resolution that referred the question of the legal consequences of the barrier, it was assumed that the EU would then ignore the ICJ's conclusions. It was for political and not legal reasons that the EU deemed the referral to the ICJ inappropriate; it was not of the EU's belief that the proposed advisory opinion would not help re-launch negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Another criticism of the EU is that it does not acknowledge the effectiveness of the barrier and the security and stability it offers Israeli citizens. The EU does recognize Israel's security concerns and right to self-defense. We therefore do not object to the barrier itself; what we do object to is its route. The EU has made its feelings perfectly clear in its demands over the last several months that Israel stop building and reverse the construction of the barrier.

The EU is committed to helping the peace process gain momentum. Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan is a courageous first step to break the deadlock. The EU, however, sees it as paramount that the plan becomes a two-way street, a process that the whole international community will be able to support.

Ruth Wedgwood
Edward B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy and Director of the International Law and Organization Program, Johns Hopkins University

The operative language of the resolution just passed by the UN General Assembly demands that Israel comply with its legal obligations, calls upon state members to comply with their legal obligations, and calls upon both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to immediately implement their obligations under the road map. It does not, however, call upon non-state actors to cease from violating international humanitarian law.

The case was brought to the Court and the advisory opinion was issued in an extremely hurried process. The ICJ typically takes years to handle even the most urgent of issues, such as the Bosnia vs. Serbia genocide suit. The two-month rush that the ICJ undertook to question Israel's wall is most atypical.

The ICJ has difficulty with fact-finding; they do not appoint special masters and simply find what they can where they can. In this case, there was no attempt to fact-find. The judgment that the court pronounced was unmindful of the roadmap process, the Geneva Accords, or the offer by Israel to withdraw from Gaza.

In addition, the consent-based jurisdiction is important to the future of the Court. The ICJ relies upon the willingness of nations to submit their disputes based on the assumption that they will receive a fair hearing. It does not possess police authority.

What the United States finds most troubling about the actual decision of the ICJ is that it says the right of self-defense is limited to international states. This is inconsistent with Article 51, which states, "Nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."

Israel may have its problems; however, many unattractive governments that do very unattractive things to its people have regional membership. The Western European and Others Group scandal needs to be solved, and Israel needs to be granted membership.

AEI staff assistant Kara Nichols Barrett prepared this summary.