By Seb Zerilli, University of California, Los Angeles
The establishment of the State of Israel received widespread support from the Western world, often seen as a response to the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. However, the international community did not fully account for the displacement of the population already residing on the land they sought to assert as their own – the Palestinians.
In response to the perceived oversight, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 in 1947, a document that has faced ongoing academic scrutiny due to its perceived inequities toward the Palestinian people. The resolution outlined the establishment of two separate states, one for the Arab population and one for the Jewish community, with Jerusalem designated as an international territory. A major point of contention arose from the territorial distribution proposed in the UN Partition Plan. The plan allocated fifty-five percent of the land to the Jewish state, encompassing cities with predominantly Palestinian Arab populations and a crucial coastal stretch from Haifa to Jaffa. Critics argued that this distribution would significantly compromise the agricultural and economic viability of the envisioned Palestinian state. Consequently, the proposal was rejected by the Palestinians, leading to armed conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Zionist groups. Adding to the complexity, some viewed the conflict as unjust given that Zionist factions had received significant training and arms from their collaboration with Britain during World War II.
As such, these actions associated with the establishment of the State of Israel led to the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic, which was a significant event in 1948 that resulted in widespread devastation of Palestinian territories. Some believe that the Nakba was included attempts at ethnic cleansing. Rooted in the ideological principles of Zionism, a political and ideological movement supporting the creation and maintenance of a Jewish homeland in the region of Israel, approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, and 530 cities and villages were destroyed. In response to the humanitarian crisis, the international community addressed the situation through UN Resolution 194 in 1948. The resolution affirmed the inherent right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, specifically their return “at the earliest practicable date.” It also recognized the entitlement of reparations for losses incurred during the forced diaspora. Despite the legal safeguards provided by Resolution 194, the realization of the right of return for Palestinians has not materialized, highlighting a human rights concern and emphasizing the enduring consequences of historical events such as imperialism.
In 1949, the establishment of Jewish settlements covered seventy-eight percent of historically Palestinian territory. Following the Six-Day War in June 1967, the United Nations responded to Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip by enacting Resolution 242. This resolution called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” However, Israel has consistently violated this resolution, asserting control over Palestinian territories through the construction of illegal settlements, accommodating between 600,000 and 750,000 illegal settlers. The majority of these settlements have been built, either entirely or partially, on privately owned Palestinian property, thus extending beyond the officially recognized boundaries of the Israeli state. Many settlers have been attracted to the land by government-subsidized housing and additional benefits specifically extended to Israeli Jewish citizens. As of 2017, 6.6 million Jewish individuals were residing on land beyond the internationally recognized borders, a figure that has substantially increased since then.
The strategic policies and geographical positioning of the Israeli occupation are perceived by critics as deliberate efforts aimed at undermining the viability of the Palestinian state. This is often achieved through economic exploitation and the utilization of resources from the local population, particularly in agriculturally advantageous regions. The economic benefits Israel gains from the occupation are evident in the approximately $3 billion generated annually from the sale of Dead Sea minerals and the roughly $130 million in revenue obtained through the use of native Palestinian land and its resources. In 2016, the United Nations indicated that ending the occupation would lead to a twofold increase in economic and financial prosperity for the Palestinian territories. Israeli-controlled areas are established on fertile lands conducive to optimal mining and mineral extraction, as well as possessing abundant water resources. In the West Bank, Israeli settlers control approximately 90 percent of the water resources, a disproportionate share compared to the 3.1 million Palestinians residing in the same region. Notably, over 96 percent of the water in Gaza’s aquifers is rendered non-consumable, leading to the need to purchase trucked water at inflated rates. The intentional control over water resources in the Israeli-occupied territories is argued to not only exacerbate economic hardships but also perpetuate a cycle of dependence. This compels Palestinians to buy water at inflated rates due to the contamination of Gaza’s aquifers. Additionally, the prohibition on Palestinians collecting rainwater since 1967 is seen as not only criminalizing a basic practice but also deepening the manipulation of essential resources as a method of exerting control and causing suffering to the civilian population.
The disregard for the mandates of the UN Resolutions sustains a cycle of displacement and hinders justice for those forcibly uprooted from their land. As the international community observes the erosion of justice and human rights, essential questions emerge. What potential repercussions may arise from the ongoing non-compliance with UN Resolutions? How can the international community actively enforce accountability for governments that fail to adhere to these mandates? What is the efficacy and purpose of the UN if there is no mechanism in place to hold member states accountable for their failure to comply with mandated resolutions? These inquiries seek an objective assessment of the challenges and effectiveness of the UN in ensuring adherence to its resolutions.
Image source: Associated Press
