McCully says two state solution “moving beyond reach”
New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully has addressed the U.N. Security Council saying that trust between Israel and the Palestinians has been eroded.
His full speech:
“Next Saturday will be two years since negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were suspended.
Murray McCully
In the meantime, violence has escalated, settlements have continued and trust between the two parties has been further eroded. And the Council has been largely a spectator.
It has been common ground in this Council, and in the eyes of the international community, that the two state solution is the only path forward for resolving this matter.
Yet today it is becoming increasingly apparent that the two state solution may be moving beyond reach and that if matters continue as they have for the last two years without action from this Council and others, the two state solution will be dead.
Against this background it is difficult to understand why the United Nations Security Council has not passed a single resolution on this question in over seven years – that the Council could be a silent witness to the demise of the two state solution.
So what does the international community expect of the Security Council in the difficult circumstances of today?
First, they expect the Council to reassert the two state solution as the only pathway to a secure and lasting peace. And they undoubtedly expect the Council to condemn the violence on both sides and the ongoing settlements programme as unacceptable obstacles to the two state solution.
Second, they expect the Council to support and give momentum to the work taking place outside the Council- in the Quartet, amongst the Arab League members, and through the proposed French international conference. That work is necessary to rebuild confidence and trust, and prepare the parties for negotiations.
And third, at the right time, they expect the Council to endorse a pathway back to negotiations, potentially through a parameters resolution.
Mr President, opinions differ as to the sequencing of some of these elements. In particular there is debate as to whether a Council resolution focused on preserving the two state solution, stopping violence and rhetoric, and stopping settlements might best precede the proposed French Conference or whether it might follow.
But I believe there is broad agreement as to the content of these three phases.
When New Zealand proposed draft text last year, in the absence of any alternatives, we were persuaded through the process of consultation that there was insufficient support for it to succeed and that other processes in play might have been affected by Council action at that time.
However the situation has deteriorated further and the threat to the two state solution has become greater.
So New Zealand will, over the coming weeks, resume the conversation about the sequencing and content of a focused Council resolution as the views of the French representatives and the Quartet take greater shape.
The efforts of those parties are vital. But they are not sufficient. And they cannot absolve this Council of its responsibility to lead.
It is our absolute conviction that a Council resolution is an essential ingredient in the steps that lie ahead, the only issue is its timing and relationship to external processes.
New Zealand would find it hard to understand how a text with the limited purpose and focus I have outlined could be too strong to be acceptable to other Council members.
Conversely, some others may be underwhelmed and want a more wide-ranging resolution. However, from the very careful soundings we have taken, our conclusion is that, in the current dire circumstances, maximalist positions will almost certainly fail, and serve only to consign the Council to continuing to preside in silence over the demise of the two-state solution. Our immediate task must be to preserve that ultimate goal, and to put the Council’s weight behind the first steps on the path
I know that there are those who would rather the Council played no role and others who will assert that there are risks around a Council resolution at this time.
But the greater risk by far is that the Council might do nothing at all as the two state solution is pronounced dead and buried.
So, New Zealand is committed to seeing this Council resolve a clear plan over the coming weeks.
Between the work of the Quartet, the Arab League, the French initiative and others, there is a vitally important role for this Council.
We will work with others to determine whether a Council resolution can best support the work of the Quartet, the French and Arab ministers by being finalised before or after the other initiatives that are underway.
However, whether a Council initiative is concluded imminently or a little later in the year, we believe it will be useful to start discussions at an early time about text and about synchronising the Council’s consideration with other parties and external initiatives.
We hope, Mr President, that by the time of the next Middle East debate in the Council, there is greater clarity and unity about a way forward.”
Murray McCully – what exactly is your agenda? The Quartet, the Arab League members and the proposed French international conference … what a motley, inappropriate lot they are!
From whence comes your impassioned plea (made twice within one article) for this two-state solution? How is it you cannot acknowledge that it is already dead and buried, was a long time ago due to Arab intransigence? When Israel’s right as a State to exist is recognised and its security assured, then we can talk.
The unmitigated cheek of you!
At last Murray McCully has got the jist of the situation and while he dreams of renewed peace talks, it is true that the 2 state solution is definitely not a solution. When you consider the hatred being taught to the Palestinian children, ther renewal of suicide bus bombings as of today with great cheers from Hamas and co, it is only a blind man who thinks he can restart a defunct process, even if New Zealand thinks she can do the impossible. The real problem is that the UNSC and all others of their ilk eg.UNESC et al,is that they are fighting against the G-d of Israel who has given the whole land to the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham some 3000 years ago, and He has never changed his mind. McCully is bumping his head against a brick wall.
Murray McCully has so many kangaroos missing in his top paddock it’s totally wollied over with dumb sheep. Get this idiot out ofUN they have enough problems… on second thought leave him there, they’re all nuts.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully has one eye for Israel and the other on the mighty dollar. He heads off to Iran so we can secure a good trade deal with a nation that wants to wipe Israel off the map, then another deal with the Saudi government to secure a live sheep deal there, ignoring the fact they chop peoples heads off in the main street and fund enumerable terrorists around the world – refuse to take any Muslim refugees. Ignoring the fact that Turkey is buying oil off ISIS and then blackmailing the EU to let Turkish citizen into the Europe. But Israel is the problem.
And then we have the school material in Gaza which everyone knows is full of hate and lies.
To see evil and say nothing is evil Minister McCully – when John Key got a job at the UN he said New Zealand was going to be an honest broker, this is an out right lie and the National party should hang its head in shame.
I have no doubt that had this government been around before WW2 we would have secured a live sheep deal with Hitler and the Nazi’s just to turn a dollar. This is not what the people of New Zealand expect from i’s leaders. Once upon a time honesty and integrity meant some thing, the New Zealand government has turned it into a meaningless word.
The only person worse we could deal with would be the devil, the only reason we don’t have a trade deal with him is because McCully has not figured out a way to contact him, still it’s early days give him time!
What makes Mr McCully think that the fabrication of yet an additional failed Arab state will be “a solution?”
What empirical evidence can he adduce?
While it may ( or not) be in Israel’s interests to countenance further “disengagement,” beyond the current PA autonomy, even if that were to happen, the Arabs have made it clear that this would be only a stage in their aspiration for the phased extinction of Israel.
And yet, knowing this, Mr McCully and his government reveal their “morality” by pushing this morally bankrupt barrow.
Time for a reality check: Two state “solution” = Two state suicide for Israel.
The decades of hatred and misinformation taught to Arab children, the fundamental Islamic Jew hatred and the disintegration of Arab states with strengthening of Islamic terror groups (ISIS, al-Nusra, Islamic Jihad,Ansar Bayt al Maqdis and others) and Irans $ billions in sanction relief due to the nuclear agreement disaster, means that only a misinformed fool or someone determined to destroy Israel could support a new Islamic fundamentalist state in the region.