Paris Buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334
72 States and Organisations meeting in Paris on 15 January have repudiated Security Council Resolution 2334 (“UNSCR 2334”) – just three weeks after it was passed on 23 December 2016…writes David Singer.UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s:
“vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”
The final Paris communique dumped this “two democratic states solution” by reaffirming:
“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”
The word “democratic” was in fact omitted in the Paris communique in nine places – signalling that Paris did not accept the definitive terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council.
The Paris communique deliberately sought to mislead and deceive what UNSCR 2334 had actually stated – declaring the Participants:
“welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which … called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ;
– blatantly failing to identify that it was the “two democratic states solution” that was envisioned in UNSCR 2334.
Paris went even further in attempting to gloss over the obligation for any Palestinian State to be democratic – the communique noting:
“the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation.”
No mention about addressing the absence of democracy in Gaza – where Hamas has denied the Arab population any elections for the last 10 years.
Paris omitted any reference to the only framework within which Israel and the PLO have been negotiating during the last 13 years – the 2003 Bush Roadmap – which clearly states:
“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”
The Paris communique:
“called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016 ; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016.”
However one Quartet recommendation states:
“Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.”
Kerry mentioned “two-state solution” 29 times but never once uttered the word “democratic”.
Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future.
Paris has managed to bury the “two democratic states solution” in just 24 hours.
The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.
Perhaps the Security Council and the Paris participants should now consider the “two-state solution” first envisaged in 1922:
One Jewish State – Israel – and one Arab State – Jordan – in the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.
This territorial subdivision has already happened in 95% of the Mandate territory. It can happen very quickly in the remaining 5%.
In fact it only involves redrawing the existing international boundary between Israel and Jordan – two states already living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.
Simple and achievable.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
David
The history of the long War of Arab Aggression against the Jews is littered with Western repudiation of international law,of the mandate, of UN General Assembly recommendations, of Security Council resolutions, of accords, armistices, ceasefires, Montevideo Conventions etc- all of them the constructs of the very states that promulgated or helped to promulgate them.
The reason for this dishonourable misconduct can be summed up by quoting the words of a British official of the Mandate era.
He said, “If we have to offend either the Arabs or the Jews, let us offend the Jews.”
David, I hope you know all participants of this circus right now. Can you please make a list?
Kind regards
Lucy Levina
Lucy – I am afraid I can’t help you.
I sent a request to the French Foreign Ministry 36 hours ago for a list of those attending. I am still waiting…
Vive la France
Maybe they are too embarrassed to respond. After all they held a conference where 70 attendees repudiated UNSCR 2334 which France had itself voted for.
How dumb is that.
David, please permit me to remind you – yet again – that there is an international border between Israel and Jordan. Prof Eugene Kontorovich pointed out that that border, the Jordan River, was established in 1922 (I think) when the Brits carved Trans-Jordan out of their mandate.
1923 Paulet-Newcombe Agreement borders, which were Jordan, Syria & Lebanon with Israel, were drawn up by the British and the French. They were subsequently recognised in 1949.
In 1949 at the end of the War of Arab Aggression no international borders were fixed between Israel on the one hand, and its Arab neighbours on the other.
The Armistice Agreements that were signed by the belligerents provided for lines of separation of forces, and those agreements explicitly asserted that these lines were temporary, subject to further projected negotiations, and that they in no way prejudiced the territorial claims of the respective parties.
Paul
Transjordan remained part of the Mandate for Palestine until granted its independence by Great Britain in 1946.
Yes – there is an international boundary between Israel and Jordan which is expressed in Article 3 of their 1994 Peace Agtreement:
1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
My proposal for the status of those territories to be determined involves direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan by redrawing their present agreed international boundary.
I am continually amazed that the UN Security Council and those 70 countries turning up at the Paris Conference – including Australia – still try to cling to an articial solution to create a second Arab State in the territory of the Mandate – in addition to Jordan – where none has ever existed in recorded history.
Guess not losing face is more important than securing peace between Arabs and Jews.