McCully puts Cart before the Horse Again
Murray McCully again puts the Cart before the Horse. You can’t sort settlements until you have agreed borders, then it becomes obvious what happens to the settlements outside the boundaries of Israel…writes John McCormick.
John McCormick
Let me compare resolution wordings.
UNSC Resolution 242 of Nov 22 1967 states;
Clause 1 (I) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
This is very precise wording, The words “all” or “all the” are not used.
UK UN Ambassador Lord Caradon who was a co author of the resolution said in 1978. “we didn’t say there should be a total withdrawal to the 67 line, we did not say ‘all the’ territories deliberately… We all new that the boundaries of 67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the 67 boundaries must be forever..”
President Johnson said in 1968 relating to 242 that ‘We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. it is clear however that a return to the situation of June 4 1967 will not bring Peace.’ Don Mckinnon said similar things here when Minister of Foreign Affairs.
UNSC resolution 2334, Dec 23 2016
Clause 3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties though negotiations;
This wording demands a withdrawal to the June 4 1967 lines and adds as an after thought that if Israel can negotiate changes with the Arabs that’s ok but if you have the border back to the June 4 lines why would you want to make changes unless you got more territory not less. This resolution gives no incentive to the Palestinians to talk, it just demands the withdrawal to the June 4 lines.
This resolution changes the Status of Jerusalem from a City and surrounds treated separately from the West bank. It was set up as an International city under the control of the UN not Israel or an Arab state. The reason for this was to protect and insure access to the Holy sites of the city and Bethlehem which was also in the International Zone. This status of “corpus separatum” is the reason Embassies are in Tel Aviv not Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not to be any bodies Capital City.
The issue of the status of Jerusalem now it is just occupied territory with no special status for religious reasons. The resolution pays lip service to religious freedom and access to sites. After the 1948 war Jordan agreed to give Jews access to the Western Wall and other sites in its control as part of the cease fire agreement. and never once allowed a Jew to visit the Western Wall from
1948 to 1967.
It is these fundamental changes to NZ policy that has caused New Zealanders to react as they have. Not everyone is religious but we all say ‘stop messing around with Jerusalem and the religious sites there in’. Both Labour and National Governments have had the same policy since the Nov 29 1947 Partition resolution until Dec 23 2016.
Prime Minister Ehud Barack made a peace offer of the return of 94% of the west bank. 3% of Israel territory. A land corridor with save passage between Hebron and Gaza comprising another 3% of Israel’s Land. Withdrawal of all settlements and Jerusalem as Undivided capital, jointly controlled by both Israel and the Arab state. plus 5 options on refugees. Arafat said NO.
To Mr McCully I have one Question. You and who’s army are going to enforce this resolution?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John B McCormick is the Chairman of Hawkes Bay Friends of Israel Assn in New Zealand and a Member of Hawkes Bay Branch of NZ Institute of International Affairs.
Mr McCormick
Your clearsightedness, acquaintance with the facts and willingness to defend truth are most laudable.
Could I make a comment regarding your wording relating to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.
You stated that he offered “the return of 94% of the West Bank…”
Using the word “return” implies that the Palestinians had previously been the sovereign in those territories, and that Israel was simply offering to return what had been theirs.
As you know, the Arab Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had in 1948 illegally waged war against Israel and had illegally occupied the territories in question, ethnically cleansing all the Jews out of them (including from the old part of Jerusalem.)
Now, therefore, if “return” were to be contemplated, it would logically mean the return of control to Jordan, the entity that replaced the British Mandatory trustee in the “west Bank.”
Thank you