In his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his discontent with what he sees as the organization’s bias against Israel. He claimed that until this anti-Semitic situation is properly addressed, principled people around the globe will regard the United Nations as a farce. Additionally, just days prior, Israel labelled UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as “persona non grata,” effectively barring him from entering the country.
Israeli media is depicting the strain in relations between Israel and the United Nations as a temporary issue triggered by recent comments made by António Guterres during a UN Security Council meeting about the situation in Gaza as Guterres stated that “the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip threatens the Middle East” and reaffirmed his commitment to the General Assembly’s resolution to “end the Israeli occupation.” However, Netanyahu’s current media campaign against the UN has broader objectives beyond this specific issue. Moreover, despite what Israeli channels are portraying, Israel’s relationship with the UN has historically been tense, despite significant concessions made to Israel due to American pressure.
Since its inception, the Israeli entity has viewed the United Nations as an obstacle to its ambitions in the region. Consequently, one of the primary objectives of the State of Israel since its establishment has been to undermine the role of the United Nations, paving the way for Israel’s expansion in the area—a goal that Ben-Gurion has consistently articulated. Furthermore, Ben-Gurion disregarded the UN partition plan for the establishment of two states from the outset and crafted the Declaration of Independence for Israel in a manner that facilitated its expansion and the realization of its colonial aspirations in the region. Ben-Gurion’s desire to weaken the United Nations, during his tenure as Minister of Defense and Prime Minister while leading the country during the 1948 War, continues to influence policymakers in Israel to this day. What Netanyahu is doing today is merely a continuation of Ben-Gurion’s plans for regional expansion, which fundamentally require the diminishment of the United Nations role.
In the early days of the United Nations, there were hopes for establishing a new global order. In 1947, the UN was tasked with determining the future of Palestine, home to a significant Jewish and Arab population. After sending a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to examine the issue, the majority recommended the partition of Palestine into two states. This led to the General Assembly endorsing a plan to establish “two independent states, Arab and Jewish,” along with a “special international regime for the city of Jerusalem.”
Despite the earnest efforts of Zionist diplomacy to secure what has come to be known as the “Partition Plan,” figures like Ben-Gurion and many others harboured significant reservations about key aspects of the United Nations proposal. This plan undermines the aspiration to establish a state encompassing all of Palestine, as half of the territory was designated to become an Arab state. While the dominant Zionist leadership officially accepted the plan, Ben-Gurion’s perspective was quite different. Years later, he remarked: “In 1947, we acquiesced to the idea of receiving the remaining part of Palestine according to the United Nations settlement [i.e., the Partition Plan]. We did not believe this settlement was just, as we knew our efforts here warranted a greater allocation of land. However, we did not press this point.”
For that reason, David Ben-Gurion worked diligently from the outset to avoid establishing clear borders for the State of Israel in the Israeli Declaration of Independence issued on May 14, 1948. He opposed the inclusion of the term “borders” altogether. He questioned the necessity of mentioning borders, stating that the future was uncertain. He indicated that if the United Nations stood firm, Israel would not engage in conflict with it. However, if the UN failed to act and Arab forces attacked, leading to a successful defence that resulted in the capture of strategic areas such as Western Galilee and the routes to Jerusalem, those territories would naturally become part of the state. In essence, Ben-Gurion aimed to annex any strategically vital territory acquired during a conflict with an Arab aggressor.
In the declaration, he stated: “We decided not to address this issue (he means the borders), leaving the matter open for future developments.” Thus, David Ben-Gurion presented the final draft of the Israeli Declaration of Independence for approval by the People’s Council, notably omitting any mention of “borders” from the document. Ben-Gurion’s clever manoeuvre in phrasing enabled the possibility of revising the partition map. As a result, Israel’s territory expanded from the 55% allocated under the partition plan to 78% of Mandatory Palestine by the end of the 1948-1949 war.
The principle of partition itself, which is central to the United Nations’ plan for resolving the Palestinian issue, was skillfully manipulated by Ben Gurion, and this provision also underwent revision. Up until the draft by Shertok on 13 May, the UN plan was officially referred to as the “Partition Plan for Palestine with Economic Union.” However, during the session held that day, Ben Gurion insisted on removing any mention of partition, questioning, “Why should we mention partition?” Consequently, the term disappeared from the discourse.
Later, Ben Gurion claimed that the United Nations had done nothing to establish the state, asserting that it came into existence solely through military force and that the UN resolution was mere “ink on paper”—as he stated in 1949 when he moved Israel’s capital to Jerusalem.
Since that time, the Israeli state has disregarded numerous United Nations resolutions and international court rulings without facing any repercussions. Israel has overlooked Resolution 194, which guarantees the right of return for Palestinians displaced in 1948 from the territories occupied by Israel, as well as the right to compensation. Additionally, it has ignored rulings condemning its forceful acquisition of land and the annexation of East Jerusalem following the 1967 war, along with its ongoing and expanding settlement policies in the West Bank, among other issues.
This is not merely a casual statement; it is a documented history within political research. Readers can explore further through the writings and studies of Martin Seth Kramer, an American-Israeli scholar specializing in Middle Eastern affairs at Tel Aviv University and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His work focuses on the history and politics of the Middle East, contemporary Islam, and Israel.
In summary, what Netanyahu is currently undertaking is a systematic plan to undermine the role of the United Nations, a strategy initiated by Ben Gurion and now continued by Netanyahu. The situation we observe in the Middle East today is essentially a colonial war aimed at expanding Israel’s territory. Netanyahu is unlikely to relinquish any land acquired during this fabricated conflict against Hamas or Hezbollah, whether in Palestine or Lebanon. The future appears grim, especially given the United Nations’ inability to intervene and the unwavering support from the United States and the United Kingdom under the pretext of “Israel’s right to defend itself.”
Dr Marwa El Shinawy – Academic and Writer
