Israel should not reject U.N. resolutions out of hand

By Rabbi Dow Marmur

JERUSALEM–Professor Stephen Toope, the new Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, is in Jerusalem. On Tuesday he spoke at the Hebrew University under the auspices of its Centre for Canadian Studies about “Israel and the United Nations System.” There’s much to report from his excellent presentation. Here’re a few of his points, selected almost at random and interpreted with good intentions.

Instead of giving up on the UN because of its unbalanced and ridiculously frequent anti-Israel pronouncements, Israel should remember that not all UN resolutions are hostile. On the whole, therefore, Israel is better off with the UN than without it.

Mature people take seriously suggestions by their friends, even when they’re critical. A mature state must do the same. Toope was particularly concerned about Israel’s contribution to breaking the United States bipartisan, at times even critical, support for Israel. He didn’t mention Prime Minister Netanyahu’s notorious speech to Congress about the proposed Iran deal, but he must have had it in mind.

Uncritical supporters of Israel do little for it. As he put it, “Canada is Israel’s best friend – so what? Israel gets absolutely nothing from it”. Canada would have been a much better friend had it been constructively critical. I understand this to mean that the approach by a Bob Rae would do much more for Israel than the seeming adulation by Stephen Harper and John Baird when he was in office.

During the question period I asked the speaker what he would advise the next Israeli ambassador to the United Nations who’s about to be appointed. He offered three suggestions which are a variation of the above:

1. Grin and bear the barrage of unjustified anti-Israel resolutions. That’s how the UN is and Israel isn’t its only victim. Though Israel may be a frequent target, it’s by no means the only target. Being offended doesn’t serve Israel’s interests.
2. Keep close touch with Israel’s friends in the United Nations of whom there’re many. It’s not a matter of better public relations (hasbara – Toope used the term), as Israel supporters seem to believe, but of being big enough to take the criticism and the constructive suggestions by Israel’s allies – and act on them. Israel should look carefully at the French effort currently under way to propose a new resolution – not do dismiss it out hand, which many seem to be tempted to do even before they studied it.
3. Concentrate on the work of the Security Council and those members that may support Israel. Obviously, the United States is essential; Israel’s contribution to breaking up the bipartisan support constitutes a danger to Israel and perhaps also to its friends.

Even though this was an academic lecture, the speaker made it obvious that he believes that to stay away from negotiations with the Palestinians is very bad for Israel and probably also for other states in the region and elsewhere. He quoted Winston Churchill that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.

As he spoke I thought of Mr. Netanyahu’s cynical appointment of Silvan Shalom as the minister in charge of relations with the Palestinians: Shalom had repeatedly stated his opposition to a two-state solution. What can we expect from his efforts now?

Mr. Netanyahu could do well listening more to Stephen Toope, the constructive critic, and less to Sheldon Adelson, the adoring sugar daddy.
*
Rabbi Marmur is spiritual leader emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto.  You may comment to him at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com, or post your comment on this website provided that the rules below are observed.

__________________________________________________________________
Care to comment?  We require the following information on any letter for publication: 1) Your full name 2) Your city and state (or country) of residence. Letters lacking such information will be automatically deleted. San Diego Jewish World is intended as a forum for the entire Jewish community, whatever your political leanings. Letters may be posted below provided they are responsive to the article that prompted them, and civil in their tone.  Ad hominem attacks against any religion, country, gender, race, sexual orientation, or physical disability will not be considered for publication. There is a limit of one letter per writer on any given day.
__________________________________________________________________