Revisiting a Commentary piece (pdf) by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (1989);
THE basis of Arafat’s assertion that the PLO has the right to use force rests on a long string of resolutions and redefinitions of the General Assembly stretching back to 1960. From these regulations have come new names for old acts – names as arbitrary as those conferred by Alice’s mad queen, as dangerous as the bombs and bullets they seek to justify. Together they comprise the ideology which Arafat cites today to justify violence against Israel and to deny Israel the right to self-defense.
IIt is an ideology that integrates the Arab nationalist struggle against Israel with the struggle against “colonialism,” “imperialism,” and “racism,” and in this fashion extends and exacerbates the conflict by involving countries in it that are remote from the Middle East. Anti-colonialism is meaningful to virtually all former colonies, which are thereby invited to identify the PLO’s claims with their own fights for independence. The struggle against “imperialism” pits “progressive” forces against any country perceived by Marxists or quasi-Marxists as an obstacle to the “socialist camp.” The struggle against racism asks the world’s colored peoples-most of whose countries see themselves as part of the Third World-to join a coalition for one more battle against white exploiters.
The association of each with the others reinforces the whole. Moreover, each of these ideological terms is anchored in an organized group in multilateral arenas. Arab nationalism is embodied in the Arab countries and in the Islamic Conference. The “anti-colonialism” struggle is carried by the Nonaligned Movement (NAM). Anti-imperialism is pushed by the Soviet bloc and the “progressive” camp. Racism is a major concern of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
These overlapping blocs are the action units of multilateral organizations and multilateral diplomacy. Inside the UN, blocs function like political parties-they mobilize and “structure” issues and votes. They eliminate the need for individual governments to make their own decisions on issues. Together the blocs arrayed against “colonialism,” “imperialism,” and “racism” constitute the famous “automatic majority” of the United Nations. They reward loyalty and encourage cohesion. They can offer members protection from negative actions aimed at them. They can also deliver a majority against some targeted country or cause-such as Israel.
[…]
Basing himself on Stalin’s classification of legitimate and illegitimate wars, Khrushchev declared that an “imperialist” power fighting against a Third World country was engaged in an unjust “local war” which violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force; but wars of national liberation and popular uprisings against “colonialism” and “imperialism” were, Khrushchev argued, “good force,” a fulfillment of the UN Charter, not a violation of it.
NOT long after Khrushchev articulated these distinctions, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted them. Where the Charter permitted force by member states only to defend themselves against attack, GA Resolution 2708 XX (1970) created a new category of “legitimate” force which could be used against member states. This new right was confirmed in subsequent resolutions approving the struggle of “liberation” groups against “colonialism” by “all necessary means at their disposal.”
Step by step the new doctrine was codified in the General Assembly. In 1970, with U.S. and Western support, the General Assembly adopted the “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Nations” which further expanded the rights of “peoples” and restricted those of states by providing, inter alia, that “all peoples have the right freely to determine without external influences their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”
Moreover: “Every state has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives people . . of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against resistance to such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter” (emphasis added).
[…]
WITH its Covenant, the PLO thus claimed all the rights of a people under the redefined UN Charter and denied the state of Israel any rights whatsoever. That claim became more serious as the UN General Assembly began to adopt the PLO Covenant as its own, importing its key elements into resolutions and citations of resolutions. A first step was the explicit recognition of Palestinians as a people.
Until the adoption by the General Assembly of Resolution 2535 B XXIV in 1969, there had never been any mention of “Palestinians” in UN resolutions; they were, as already noted, “Arab refugees.” But that landmark resolution spoke of the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,” including the “right” of “self-determination.” Indeed, Palestinians were now usually described not only as “a people” but as “a colonial people” whose struggle was identical with that of other colonial peoples. As the self-designated representative of this newly identified people, the PLO was ripe for designation as a national-liberation movement and its struggle as a war of national liberation.
But if the Palestinians were victims of colonialism, Israel must be a colonial power. Manifestly, Israel did not possess colonies. How then could it be a colonial power? By virtue of the fact that “colonialism” had already been redefined so that it was no longer a historical condition, but a political designation deriving from the relation of movements and countries to Marxist goals.
It’s only seven pages long, and well worth your time. HTML version for those who have difficulty opening the pdf.
(h/t to “Me No Dhimmi” from the comments.)
