With pleasure and I’m a good shot.

Leon

The first thing to establish is that everyone is talking about the same end goal – a democratic State of Palestine alongside the democratic State of Israel

If the players cannot publicly declare this is the final outcome they all want to achieve then there is no point in having any negotiations at all.

At the moment listening to McCully, Kerry and reading the draft text of decisions to be taken at the Paris Conference this is by no means what is contemplated.

it is a fundamental question to be answered before any negotiations take place – a democratic State of Palestine or an any kind of State of Palestine?

David
No interpretation or gloss on the resolution can erase its malevolent intent for it is rotten at its core.
It is an historic indelible stain on Western civilisation.
That civilisation couldn’t care less if their intended illegitimate state is democratic or not; their sole objective is to endanger the lives of Jews, using Hamas, the ‘Palestinian’ “Authority”and others as proxies to do the dirty work for them.

And even if their pet state were to be democratic, its voters would always endorse the agenda of Hamas and the PA.

The PLO’s long-standing plan for the phased annihilation of Israel is in top gear.

You state:
“Those who doubt the seriousness of the settlements issue should read the report of the Middle East Quartet of July 1, 2016.”

Strange that you fail to mention the following in the same Report:

“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.”

The Quartet is referring to a “democratic Palestinian authority”.

Resolution 2334 is referring to “two democratic states”

Why aren’t you?

Leon

Mr McCully needs to confirm that Resolution 2334 has as its objective the creation of a democratic State of Palestine living in peace alongside the democratic State of Israel.

The Paris Conference needs to confirm this is the objective that their talks are focusing on.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry need to confirm this is what they mean when they use the term “two-state solution”

Indeed Mahomoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi must commit to the two democratic states solution.

Come to think of it so should our former Foreign Minister and President of Labor Friends of Palestine – Bob Carr.

The other members of the Security Council must likewise confirm this is the solution proposed in Resolution 2334.

If any of these players obfuscate on this being the solution then bye bye Resolution 2334.

Speak out ladies and gentlemen – and soon.

David, the “New Zealander’s” blather is an amalgam of typical UN hypocrisy, double-talk and newspeak.
As for any Arab state being or becoming democratic, the probability is about equal to the probability that the Maori People will ever regain their indigenous sovereignty of which they were dispossessed by British colonialists.
And anyway, since when has New Zealand or any other Western state refused to profit from any “business opportunity” with non-democracies?
They are falling over themselves in the scramble for Iranian money, much of which has now been provided by the New Zealander’s mate, that great democrat, Mr President Obama. Business is booming with all the Gulf states.

Isn’t it heart-warming to see the “do-gooder” being so concerned for “the good of Israel,” just like his friends, Obama and Kerry, and unlike the People of Israel, who don’t know what’s good for them. Sounds like the Mafia expression, ” an offer you can’t refuse.”

Michael

Simply amazing that Mr Mc Cully can still use the term “1967 borders” when the Resolution he sponsored – and presumably read very carefully – correctly refers to “the 1967 lines”

I have no doubt Mr Mcully will be in Paris.

I hope he has the time to respond in any address at the Paris Parley to the comments posted by me and you and hopefully others who are similarly concerned at his sponsorship of and voting for Rsolution 2334.

You state in your article in relation to Resolution 2334:

“There have been some misleading and irresponsible claims made by critics of the resolution”

I have criticised the resolution as being illegal in international law because it violates article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

You can read my reasons in this article:
http://www.jwire.com.au/palestine-anti-israel-security-council-resolution-2334-violates-un-charter/

Are you prepared to initiate action in the Security Council to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to deal with my claim?