Palestine: Paris Conference Challenges UN Security Council Resolution 2334
Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried…by David Singer.America’s House of Representatives voting 342-80 has already declared that it:
“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that—
(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and
(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”
Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:
“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”
Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:
- A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:
“.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.
France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.”
Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic”.
The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.
- An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz – indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.
This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.
- The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:
“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”
This statement is the very antithesis of democracy – seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.
Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:
“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”
Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech – China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.
However the other eight democratic member-States on the Security Council – France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.
Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 – and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution – will not be embraced at this Conference.
- Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”.
The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:
- Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four year Presidential term,
- Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and
- two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.
Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Found this, quite a pithy and succinct summary of the Paris outcome:
SEE YNET ISRAEL [YEDIOTH AHRONOTH] : “PARIS MEETING, MARKS END TO OBAMA’S FAILED MIDEAST DIPLOMACY”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4907130,00.html
4. “Not one word in the summary statement, says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”.”
Yes, dead right Dovid! In the main, it shall be “Eastern Palestina” as an extremist, Islamic, highly militarised dictatorship bent on the utter destruction of the State of Israel. Israel already has a military dictatorship to its East: Jordan. Just using English practicality – why add to the affray? Interesting to see in recent weeks, reports that Abdullah Hussein has allegedly expressed doubts that he shall be able to hold Jordan together for another 12 months. If that happy kingdom collapses, I would have thought this would be quite enough for Israel to cope with, while “the international community” stands by and mouths all the usual pieties.
Lizzie, via Bendigo Vic
V interesting and educative. Thanks for posting this.
Mr. Singer, can you please let me know what 70 countries will participate in Paris? I could not find this information anywhere.
Kind Regards
Lucy Levina
Sorry Lucy but I do not know.
The French Foreign Minister told a press conference on 27 December:
“The conference will be held at the ministerial level in a larger format than the ministerial meeting of June 3: 70 States and organizations are invited.”
Hopefully we will find out who attends this meeting when they turn up for the cocktail parties and banquets that will no doubt accompany their futile efforts to achieve anything of meaningful substance.
The other 123 States that miss out on this memorable occasion won’t be too happy – especially if France is meeting the cost of the privileged 70 who France deems important enough to be invited to gay Paree
A propagandist would probably claim that France was “an apartheid State” for acting in this manner.
Thank you David, I thought it was only me who could not find anything. But I worry about implications this conference can have on Israel. You are a lawyer maybe you know if the state is not a member of UN must this state do what UN decided regarding this state? If Israel get out of UN must she comply with their decision?
Regards
Lucy Levina
Lucy
The UN is like a club. You have to apply for membership (Chapter II) so you can withdraw as well.
Whilst member States are obliged to take action againt another member State under certain circumstances – I do not believe there could be any sanctions on a member state who acted contrary to a resolution to take action against a non-member State.
No doubt not being a member of the UN has its benefits.
Just look at how the “Palestinians” – artificially created as a “people” in 1964 – have secured massive financial and diplomatic support from the UN.
Fiction built on fiction built on fiction has now seen Resolution 2334 passed by the Security Council on 23 December 2016.
The Security Council should hang its head in shame.
I don’t think Israel will withdraw from the UN.
Rather I think the UN is doing a good job in signing its own death warrant because of its total ineffectiveness to end conflicts in Syria, Libya and Iraq, countering Islamic State, allowing China to rule the South China Sea, coughing politely at what is going on in Iran and North Korea and in passing Resolution 2334.