From 1967 to 1998, the Security Council adopted 131 anti-Israel resolutions
Photo: EPA
Elyakim Haetzni
Photo: GNET
Empty Palestinian threats
Op-ed: Terrorists in suits are threatening Israel with a UN bid, but history shows that Security Council resolutions are futile.
Everyone knows that we benefit from the "security cooperation,"
but for the establishment in Ramallah it's a life insurance. Yet halting it has been described as a threat to Israel, not to the Palestinians. Why?
Granted, we did dress Fatah in a civil suit in the Oslo Agreements, but it continues its murderous terror under the brand "the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades." It has one leader, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as "Abu Mazen"), whose government incites to terror, pays salaries and hands out rewards to living terrorists, commemorates dead terrorists and educates the youth about their way.
Taking criminal measures against us in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for "war crimes" is another empty Palestinian threat. Why who are we being threatened by? A terrorist organization!
Palestinian Leader
Analysis: In the double game he is playing, the Palestinian president complains about Israel while owing the country a massive debt.
So who is the war criminal here? Israel, which requires legal advice for every single tweet, which judges and investigates itself endlessly, or the licensed terrorists?
And in general, would anyone think of blackmailing America into making diplomatic concessions in exchange for outrageous acts of the CIA, based on Ramallah's childish and ridiculous threat: "A Palestinian state or The Hague"? They could have only reached such a distorted idea due to our paranoia.
Mahmoud Abbas. 'Who is the war criminal here?' (Photo: AFP)
We are mainly being terrorized by the Palestinian threat to turn to the United Nations Security Council.
Here's a little history: The Security Council condemned Israel in 1955 for invading Gaza, and then for the Samu and Karameh operations. It called on Israel not to hold a march in Jerusalem and then expressed "deep regret" over the decision to hold it, condemned Jerusalem's unification and demanded an end to settlement construction, rebuked Israel over the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, announced that the annexation of the Golan Heights was cancelled, slammed the killing of the arch-terrorist Abu Jihad as a "blatant violation" of the UN Charter, and since 2002 has been calling for the "two-state solution."
We persisted, and miraculously stayed alive. And so, with everything collapsing around us, we are still defending ourselves from the Golan and from Judea and Samaria and from united Jerusalem, which we have managed to populate with hundreds of thousands of Jews.
From 1967 to 1998, the Security Council adopted 131 anti-Israel resolutions. And what about the Turks in Cyprus, the Indians in Muslim Kashmir, the Italians in South Tyrol? Why is it that in every place in the world the status quo has been frozen for decades, and the only thing that troubles the world is the status quo of the Jew in his land?
A useful example can be found in Western Sahara. It has a territory which is about 10 times bigger than Israel and only 513,000 residents. It was a Spanish colony until 1975, and was then divided between Morocco and Mauritania. The local Sahrawis created an underground, the Polisario Front, and launched a war. Mauritania withdrew and Polisario declared the independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which today controls about 20% of the territory and had been recognized by several countries. The rest was annexed by Morocco.
The ICC rejected Morocco's territorial claim and recognized the Sahrawis' right to independence. In response, King Hassan II led hundreds of thousands into the area as part of The Green March, expelled 200,000 of the original residents and replaced them with 100,000 settlers.
The fighting ended in 1991 with a ceasefire, which has lasted till this very day. Morocco built a defensive wall along 2,700 kilometers and is keeping an army of 120,000 soldiers there.
The UN approved the Sahrawi people's right to self-determination. There was a "peace process," which led nowhere. Our acquaintances James Baker, Condoleezza Rice and the UN secretary-general got involved – and failed. Nothing came out of the Security Council resolutions.
Occasionally, riots break out. Nonetheless, the status quo has been maintained for decades. The Security Council calmed down and the world is indifferent. After all, it has much more urgent things to deal with. Like Israel, for example.
