by Zalman Shoval
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
was unfazed by the reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas and urged Israel
to continue with the peace talks as if nothing had happened. U.N. special envoy
to the Middle East Robert Serry even issued a statement suggesting he welcomed
the reconciliation.
In 1955, when then-Defense Minister
David Ben-Gurion suggested to Prime Minister Moshe Sharett that Israel should
take the Gaza Strip over the near-nightly terror attacks launched by the
Palestinian fedayeen, Sharett refused, warning of the U.N.'s backlash against
Israel.
Ben-Gurion dismissed Sharett's
concerns with the now-iconic dismissive "Um-Shmum" ("U.N., Shmu-N"). Ben-Gurion
was not truly dismissive of the importance of the international community's
support -- or at least its non-opposition -- to military moves by Israel, but he
had no illusions when it came to the U.N., both over its ineffectiveness and its
innate bias against Israel.
When Sharett reminded Ben-Gurion that
the U.N. had formed the State of Israel, Ben-Gurion admonished him, saying it
was the Jews' own courage -- not the U.N.'s -- that had formed the State of
Israel.
The majority of U.S. presidents were
also not convinced that the U.N. -- other than holding symbolic value and being
a convenient international platform for public diplomacy -- was the best
institution to promote the free world and America's agenda. That is, until U.S.
President Barack Obama came along, touting the international body's
institutions, and especially the Security Council, as the foundations upon which
his policies should be based.
This reflected Obama's worldview and
his intention to diminish U.S. involvement in global affairs as well as its role
as "the world's policeman," opting instead to expand U.S. ties with the nations
that make up the majority in the U.N. General Assembly, namely the Islamic
states and African and Asian states.
The U.S. is no longer a distinct,
leading member of the U.N. It is now and equal, loyal partner in the family of
nations, one that prefers leading from behind or, as it seems, not leading at
all.
Reality, however, proved different
from these idealistic and utopian theories, as events such as the bloody civil
wars in Syria and south Sudan, the Ukraine crisis, and North Korea's nuclear
ambitions, served as a rude awakening for Washington, making it clear to the
president that the U.N., as an instrument of American diplomacy, has little sway
over matters of international importance.
Is there really any chance that the
Security Council would approve military action against Iran's nuclear program
should it become necessary? It is unclear whether Obama has come to his senses,
but American diplomats and analysts have suggested that the administration "has
grown tired" of the U.N. and that there are growing doubts as to whether the
U.N. is an asset or a liability.
As for the potential repercussions of
Israel -- it has never had too many illusions regarding the U.N., despite the
positive role it played in 1947 and despite the fact that talented and eloquent
Israeli ambassadors have known how to make extraordinary use of its platform in
service of Israel's public diplomacy.
Nevertheless, based on past
experience extending beyond our region, no one could ever convince Israel that
the U.N. and its "soldiers" could ever serve as a substitute for the ironclad
principle that Israel is the only one that could and should defend its own
security.
In 1956, when Russia invaded Hungary
to crush the uprising against the communist regime, the masses expected U.N.
troops to swoop in and save the day, but all the U.N. did was send a lone
emissary -- who was denied entry to Hungary. One could only hope that as
Washington regains a more balanced and realistic view of the U.N. it would work
in Israel's favor, and that it would include countering the Palestinians'
unilateral moves for international recognition in the U.N.
This further mandates responsible and wise
diplomacy on Israel's part, to minimize as much as possible any political gaps
between Jerusalem and Washington. The U.N.'s status may be precarious, but one
should not interpret another saying by Ben-Gurion, that Israel's "future does
not depend on what the goyim say, but what the Jews do," to mean that what the
Americans say is not important.
Zalman Shoval
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8231
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment