Why Didn't the UN Simply Divide Palestine and Israel in the 1950s?

Questions about the role of the United Nations (UN) in resolving conflicts often lead to a deep dive into the organization's history and its limitations. One frequently asked question is:

'Why didn't the UN just divide Palestine and Israel into two separate countries by force in the 1950s, giving all of Israel's biblical land to Israel and everything west of Israel towards Egypt to Palestine?'

Challenges in UN Diplomacy

The UN is often seen as an organization that should solve all kinds of world problems with a single, bold action. However, the reality is far more complex. The UN is manned by a diverse group of diplomats, politicians, and international officials, many of whom have ties to their home countries or other powerful entities.

These diplomats are not solely focused on international peace and justice; they are also concerned with their own interests, the interests of their countries, and the diplomatic challenges that come with diverse global stakeholders. This can make it extremely difficult for the UN to carry out actions that don't align with these various interests.

UN's Historical Roles and Limitations

The UN, particularly the League of Nations before it, has attempted to divide territories in the past. In 1922, the League of Nations proposed a division of Palestine into separate territories for Arabs and Jews. However, this was not enforceable by force, as the UN does not have the authority to compel a country to follow its recommendations or decisions.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed to divide Palestine into two states, was met with some success. The Jewish state of Israel accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it and instead declared war, which resulted in the plan being declared void.

Past Procedural Missteps and Rejection by Stakeholders

The UN's attempts to partition Palestine were based on the principle of self-determination, but this principle was not fully respected. In 1947, the majority of the Palestinian population did not accept the partition plan, which rendered it null and void. This rejection by the Palestinian community, along with the subsequent military conflicts, further complicated the situation.

As a result, any attempt by the UN to force a partition by military or other means would face significant opposition and would likely be seen as illegitimate. The international community, including the UN, tends to respect the sovereignty and governance of recognized states, making such a forceful division highly improbable.

Current Reality and Future Outlook

The reality on the ground in the Middle East is that the situation has already evolved beyond the initial UN partition plan. Israel has since established itself as a state, and Palestinian territories have also developed their own systems and governance structures.

Given these contextual factors, the UN has had to work within the framework of existing states and their boundaries. While discussions and proposals for resolution continue, any permanent solution must take into account the complex realities of the region and the interests of all involved parties.

It is important to recognize that the UN operates on a principle of consensus, and any significant changes or divisions would require widespread agreement from all relevant parties, including Israel and Palestine. The current situation, while far from ideal, represents a reality that must be managed carefully to ensure stability and future peace.

Looking forward, the hope is that future discussions and negotiations will lead to a more sustainable and just resolution. The defeat of extremist groups like Hamas may provide an opportunity for more productive discourse and a shift towards more practical solutions.

However, the path to resolution is likely to be fraught with challenges, and patience and perseverance will be essential. The international community must continue to support and facilitate ongoing negotiations and dialogue to bring about a peaceful and just outcome.