The UNESCO Vote…What it Really Means

By Sherwin Pomerantz

This week’s vote by UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization to admit Palestine into full membership is clearly in violation of its own constitution.

Art II.2 of the UNESCO Constitution states: “Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.

As a non-member of the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority which aims to create a future state called Palestine is, today, not a state at all. It is perhaps true that there are those who can make a cogent argument that it has many of the trappings of a state and has successfully built a number of institutions required for statehood, but it is definitely not a state under the commonly accepted definition which the UN itself uses.

To qualify as a subject under the traditional definition of international law, a state has to be sovereign: It needs a defined territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. Clearly the land now overseen by the Palestinian Authority is not sovereign, its territorial borders are not accepted by international bodies and it is certainly not solvent. The permanent cut off of donor funds would bankrupt the authority in 30 days.

Yet 107 countries voted in favor of the proposal to admit Palestine, 14 voted against and 52 countries abstained. All of this on the heels of the recent interview by Egypt’s Dream2TV on October 23rd where Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas said: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state (of Israel), or a Jewish State.” Commenting afterwards on the recent release of 1,027 convicts in order to bring Gilad Schalit back home he said: Hamas kidnapped, or rather captured, a solider, and managed to keep him for five years and that is a good thing. We don’t deny it. On the contrary, it’s a good thing that on a small strip of land, 40 x 7 kilometers, they were able to keep him and hide him.” Later in Ramallah at a celebration honoring the release of the convicts he added, “We need more Gilad Schalits so we can ultimately free all of our people held in Israeli jails.”

One wonders therefore, what kind of contribution this new group can make to UNESCO when its own educational approach is to vilify its neighbors at every turn and which continues to use textbooks in its schools which talk about Jews as dogs, vermin and other less than laudable terms.

The United States was right to cut off funding to UNESCO given a 1994 law on the books of the US Congress that barred funding “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”

There are those who believe, probably with good cause, that at the end of the day the Palestinian Arab leadership has no interest in ending the conflict with Israel. In spite of the evidence I still hold out hope because, as I said earlier this week, I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. But concessions are not a one way street, and if the Palestinian Arab leadership persists in thumbing its nose at the fundamental principles of international diplomacy, it will get what it deserves and should not complain about it. The door to our Prime Minister’s office is open wide and Abbas should take advantage of it before it is sealed shut.