Updated Security Council resolution calls for East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, Israel says UN creating ‘second Hamastan’

Israel/Palestine
on 75 Comments

Late Monday evening Jordan submitted an updated version of a draft resolution seeking to end Israel’s occupation to the United Nations Security Council. The latest document maintains a 2017 deadline for an end to the Israeli occupation but contains a handful revisions including substantive changes on the status of Jerusalem and Israel’s separation wall. Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Negotiation Affairs Department spokesperson Ashraf Khatib tells Mondoweiss the edits were made in consultation with the Arab League after Jordan submitted the first draft on December 18, 2014.

The updated draft calls for East Jerusalem as a “capital” for the “state of Palestine,” while the last version submitted two weeks before labeled “Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States.” The newest draft also added an amendment reaffirming the 2004 International Court of Justice ruling that condemned Israel’s separation barrier. A note on water and prisoners, key negotiating points during the Oslo period, which were not mentioned in the first draft, were added.

The United States has said they would not support the latest Palestinian-Arab draft resolution, citing differences over how to achieve the shared goal of a negotiating a two-state solution.

Reporting on the Ground

“As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have,” said State Department Spokesperson Jake Rathke yesterday hours before Jordan gave the resolution to the secretariat. Rathke continued, “We think it sets arbitrary deadlines for reaching a peace agreement and for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, and those are more likely to curtail useful negotiations than to bring them to a successful conclusion.”

“Further, we think that the resolution fails to account for Israel’s legitimate security needs, and the satisfaction of those needs, of course, is integral to a sustainable settlement,” he added.

The State Department’s comments mark a departure from previous remarks where Secretary of State John Kerry has said the U.S. could not support a Palestinian resolution if the text called for “unilateral” action to achieve an independent Palestinian state. The latest text does not, as the 2017 deadline to end the occupation is described as a recommendation, not a hard timeline.

Palestinian leaders have maintained the draft resolution will come to a vote before January when the four temporary members of the Security Council rotate. Khatib reiterated this, telling Mondoweiss the leadership hopes a vote is brought Wednesday morning. There is skepticism as to whether they can meet their deadline. In part this is because the Palestinians leaders are subject to Jordan’s decision of when to call the vote, as they are the Arab partner on the Security Council and Jordan has consistently been vague on the time frame.  Jordan’s Ambassador to the United Nations Dina Kawar recently said they are now selecting “the best time to pass the vote.”

“If I tell you this week and it happens next week you’re going to come back and ask me why this week and not the last week,” continued Kawar evading press queries on when the vote will take place.

The Palestinians have not been able to state if they have enough committed votes to have their resolution pass the Security Council. Over the weekend Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the resolution on a phone call, indicating lobbying was still in play.

Also on Sunday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decried the Security Council draft resolution to his cabinet, stating that it would lead to a “second Hamastan and would endanger our security.” On Monday, the Prime Minister rebuked the Jordanian sponsored Palestinian measure further in a meeting with the Governor of Indiana Mike Pence citing a doomsday scenario was underway, “Israel and our civilization is under attack,” he said.

“The attack is now coming on Israel from the Palestinian Authority seeking to impose on us a diktat that would undermine Israel’s security, put its future in peril,” he said. “But I want to guarantee you, to you and to the people of Israel: If the international community does not reject the Palestinian Authority’s proposal, we will. Israel will oppose conditions that endanger our future,” added Netanyahu.

Full text of the Security Council draft resolution:

Provisional
17 December 2014

Original: English

Jordan: draft resolution

Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,

Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,

Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012, and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,

Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties,

Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),

Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement,

Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,

1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfils the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;

2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:

  • –  borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
  • –  security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces, which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region;
  • –  a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III);
  • –  a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

– the just settlement of all other outstanding issues, including water and prisoners;

3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;

4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the centre of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;

6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement and provocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence- building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;

7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;

8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighbourly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;

9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations;

10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, as well as all provocations and incitement, that could escalate tensions and undermine the viability and attainability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

10bis. Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem;

11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

75 Responses

  1. a blah chick
    December 30, 2014, 11:52 am

    Wow, them Palestinians sure are a mighty folk. Without tanks, fighter jets or killer drones they imperil the entire Israeli national state by just submitting a piece of paper.

    Makes you wonder what all those nuclear weapons are for.

  2. Whizdom
    December 30, 2014, 12:21 pm

    The draft resolution appears to be startlingly and precisely the US official position for decades, it is just an affirmation of our policy. Our own State Department could have written it verbatim.

    Israel gets to keep the territories seized outside the 181 boundaries in 48 and 49, and the Arabs get a state in the rest. Big win for Israel.

  3. amigo
    December 30, 2014, 1:28 pm

    “As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support ” .

    Fine, then write your own proposal and present it to the stakeholders.You seem to know what you could support , so get on with it or is there a reason why you cannot write an independent proposal.

    • Giles
      December 30, 2014, 4:19 pm

      I believe you are forgetting the time when the USA (Susan Rice) had to vote against a resolution they had themselves submitted at the direction of their Israeli bosses.

      • amigo
        December 30, 2014, 4:52 pm

        Remind me of that Giles.My memory fails me on that one.There were so many vetoes.

      • a blah chick
        December 30, 2014, 4:53 pm

        “(Susan Rice) had to vote against a resolution they had themselves submitted at the direction of their Israeli bosses.”

        Bwahahahahahaha!

  4. Whizdom
    December 30, 2014, 2:04 pm

    To a vote tonight at 10 PM EST tonight. One way or another, there is gonna be new status quo.

  5. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    December 30, 2014, 2:52 pm

    Surprise surprise – not – Britain has said it will not support this resolution because it does not address ”Israel’s security concerns”. As though a supremacist state built on someone else’s land has the right to security.

    And that’s how it always is. No proposal is ever ‘moderate’ enough to convince the great and good of the West. Nothing can ever quite assuage the ‘concerns’ about ”Israel’s security’. The time is never quite right for Palestinian statehood. Something else is always a higher priority.

    When are the Palestinian ‘leaders’ going to learn that Western politicians are NOT their friends and that no amount of pandering will ever be enough?

    • RockyMissouri
      December 31, 2014, 1:15 pm

      But MANY American people ARE..!! I am grateful for them. Thank you for a great comment.

  6. mondonut
    December 30, 2014, 4:40 pm

    What a farce, of course no country should support it. No state or person with half a brain would support a process that is formulated to provide to the Palestinians nearly everything they demand in the absence of the Israelis agreeing to provide everything they demand.

    And in return the Palestinians are pretending to offer an end of all claims that they are wholly incapable of delivering.

    • Shingo
      December 30, 2014, 6:31 pm

      No state or person with half a brain would support a process that is formulated to provide to the Palestinians nearly everything they demand in the absence of the Israelis agreeing to provide everything they demand.

      Which goes to show you have even less than half a brain.

      Saddam wasn’t asked to agree to provide what the UNSC demanded when he was ordered out of Kuwait, so why should Israel.

    • talknic
      December 30, 2014, 8:41 pm

      @ mondonut Strange.

      The Palestinians ask for LESS THAN their legal rights under the laws Israel agreed to uphold.

      On the other hand, Israeli demands have no legal basis what so ever.

      In so called ‘negotiations’ Israel will now demand the Palestinians forgo even more of their legal rights. Alas, the more those who support an illegal Greater Israel get, the more they want. More than enough is never enough.

      If peaceful means do not work, the Palestinians have the right to use violence against the Occupying Power, which is unfortunately exactly what the Zionist land grubbers need to keep a choke hold on their victim

    • talknic
      December 31, 2014, 1:24 pm

      @ mondonut ” No state or person with half a brain would support a process that is formulated to provide to the Palestinians nearly everything they demand in the absence of the Israelis agreeing to provide everything they demand.”

      Anyone with half a brain can see Israel is not being asked to ‘provide’ anything. In fact Israel has been offered more territory that is its due and politely asked at the highest level, in accordance with the UN Charter to adhere to its legal obligation to end the occupation.

      Israel has won nothing by this latest ridiculous setback, its legal obligations still stand, it is still in breach of the law and UN Charter per hundreds of UNSC resolutions

      “And in return the Palestinians are pretending to offer an end of all claims that they are wholly incapable of delivering”

      Your sentence does not compute. One does not ‘deliver’ a claim. The Palestinians claim less than their rights for peace. Meanwhile Israel claims what is not Israeli and has failed to deliver on its legal obligations as an Occupying Power for almost 67 years and now rejects this latest offer of peace.

  7. Boomer
    December 30, 2014, 4:53 pm

    Yesterday the NYT reported that the U.S. needs to target the psychology of the Islamic State. It naturally prompted a fantasy, in which one changes “Islamic” to “jewish”:

    “WASHINGTON — Maj. Gen. Michael K. Nagata, commander of American Special Operations forces in the Middle East, sought help this summer in solving an urgent problem for the American military: What makes the Islamic State so dangerous?

    “Trying to decipher this complex enemy — a hybrid terrorist organization and a conventional army — is such a conundrum that General Nagata assembled an unofficial brain trust outside the traditional realms of expertise within the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence agencies, in search of fresh ideas and inspiration. Business professors, for example, are examining the Islamic State’s marketing and branding strategies.

    “We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it,” he said, according to the confidential minutes of a conference call he held with the experts. “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”

    from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/politics/in-battle-to-defang-isis-us-targets-its-psychology-.html?_r=0

    • piotr
      December 30, 2014, 5:07 pm

      Good catch. “The fact that someone as experienced in counterterrorism as Mike Nagata is asking these kind of questions shows what a really tough problem this is,” said Michael T. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency who has publicly raised similar concerns.”

      On the negative side, eliminating idiots from Defense Intelligence Agency would leave an empty building. On the positive side, it could be used to decrease the deficit.

  8. italian ex-pat
    December 30, 2014, 5:15 pm

    ”. ….this draft resolution is not something that we could support …”

    So then, how about abstaining (from vetoing it)? Technically, that would not be “supporting” it, would it? Honestly, after wasting nine months going around in circles getting nowhere, are you (Obama, Kerry, etc.) still insisting that negotiations are the only acceptable way to get results?
    Acceptable to Netanyahu, of course, he would like nothing better than to prolong the charade
    for another few years, but I’m sure our President and our S of S can see through the duplicity, and the fact that they are not willing to call off Bibi’s game can mean only one thing. This is also obvious to Abbas, so who can blame him for finally seeking support elsewhere?

  9. Ramzi Jaber
    December 30, 2014, 5:46 pm

    As I have stated in another MW post……. shameful COLLUSION.

    UNSC voting results: 8 YES. usa escapes veto thanks to abbas. By waiting just TWO days would have forced the us to veto and show its true colors. us saved by the treasonous abbas and pa.

    1S1P1V. “Palestine will BE through the womb not war” as President Arafat used to say. Demographics, the true coming tsunami.

  10. Ramzi Jaber
    December 30, 2014, 5:58 pm

    I am TOTALLY DISGUSTED with abbas, pa, and all the arab regimes. They can’t even get nigeria to vote yes and they talk about getting the zionists to withdraw from Palestine. LOL.

    Bunch of f$*@^!& s&%#heads.

    • ritzl
      December 30, 2014, 6:34 pm

      Ramzi, not to play devil’s advocate, though it may be that I am, in the sense of “exhausting all remedies” in an approach to the ICC, this defeat was necessary. That may be why the PA did this prematurely.

      If they had waited for a more supportive makeup of the UNSC, and the resolution passed, it may be that the peace process farce would have had to continue for the duration of whatever length of time the UNSC consensus dictated (with or without an anticipated and therefore ignorable US veto). The world consensus would have been on record as supporting another prolonged “negotiation” period. Now that is not an option. This “defeat” leaves clear the path to the ICC.

      It may not be a “defeat.”

      Time will tell.

      In any event, 1S1P1V is the inevitable outcome at this point. There may be/are multiple viable paths to that end result.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 30, 2014, 7:01 pm

        ritzl, this is what i think too. who wants to wait 3 years. i think it was a formality this time prior to going to the ICC. that’s what israel really doesn’t want anyway. if it was a 3 year wait and then israel didn’t comply (which is about 99.999999%) only then would the UN engage (maybe) this way they go to the ICC and get the ball rolling now.

        israel knows this, the threats were already out over abbas going to the ICC yesterday. so all parties have moved on to phase %$&^@#%$. plus, the geneva initiative is ready to roll. all the ducks are in a row, so i hope abbas signs up fast!

      • ritzl
        December 30, 2014, 8:04 pm

        @Annie, the Palestinian ambassador’s speech was a litany of Israeli war crimes, presented on record (vs. the Israeli rep’s thuggish “How dare you [get all uppity]” three sentence rebuttal).

        So many maybe’s in all this, but “sign up fast” is the operative phrase/action.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 30, 2014, 8:53 pm

        Palestinian ambassador’s speech was a litany of Israeli war crimes

        right up my my alley, give em hell.

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2014, 11:06 pm

        ritzl: “In any event, 1S1P1V is the inevitable outcome at this point.”

        —–

        “At this point”? That hedging phrase defeats the meaning of “inevitable”.

        In any case, I’m surprised so many people think that some possibility deep into the future, with no clear steps to realization, is “inevitable.”

      • ritzl
        December 31, 2014, 12:25 pm

        Sibiriak, With all due respect, “In any event” is a disconnect/de-link, not a hedge.

        As in, in any event, I didn’t owe you an explanation but I did so as a courtesy.

        As in, the inevitability of one state is completely separate from these current two state gyrations. Israel is NEVER going to give up the WB, and has said and demonstrated that root fact repeatedly. What that reality spawns in terms of politics and future equal rights struggle (and timing) is anyone’s guess.

      • Sibiriak
        December 31, 2014, 1:33 pm

        ritzl: “” With all due respect, “In any event” is a disconnect/de-link, not a hedge. “

        ?? I made no reference to the phrase “in any event.”

        “the inevitability of one state is completely separate from these current two state gyrations…”

        I referred to the supposed inevitability of 1S1P1V. Following your logic, Israel will “never allow” 1S1P1V in a single state comprising Israel, Gaza the and the West Bank, so that eventuality is far from inevitable “at this point.”

      • Annie Robbins
        December 31, 2014, 1:49 pm

        So many maybe’s in all this, but “sign up fast” is the operative phrase/action.

        well, that really didn’t take long now did it!!!!

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/fireworks-international-criminal

      • ritzl
        December 31, 2014, 2:10 pm

        Sorry Sibiriak. I see what you’re saying. My bad. I was being a dick.

        I guess “at this point” is my way of saying that it wasn’t always inevitable but is now. Not that it might change going forward. Again my inartfulness.

      • ritzl
        December 31, 2014, 2:20 pm

        Can’t edit on the phone… Sibiriak, my logic on 1S1P1V is that 2-4M incorporated Palestinians are never going to go away so the combination of never giving back the WB and never going away leaves onky two outcomes. I don’t believe the genocide/al option is feasible even by Israeli moral standards. Time frame is TBD.

        Peace.

    • Blownaway
      December 30, 2014, 8:13 pm

      I totally agree…it’s time for Abbas and his government to resign. They have failed in every respect except to guarantee themselves and their kin lots of money. Let those who continue to thwart every legitimate peaceful effort by the Palestinians deal with the aftermath. Israel’s are gloating but he who laughs last laughs best

      • Shingo
        December 30, 2014, 8:55 pm

        I totally agree…it’s time for Abbas and his government to resign.

        Isn’t he supposed to be resigning anyway?

  11. Whizdom
    December 30, 2014, 6:05 pm

    Nigeria and Israel have close relations, military and trade ties. The PA knew the resolution would fail, and probably wanted it to fail.
    Well, now the one state situation kicks in. Abbas dissolves the PA, turns over the keys.

    • Blownaway
      December 30, 2014, 8:42 pm

      This was never designed to pass. Abbas would have waited a coup,e of days if he wanted it to pass. And anyone who thinks that Abbas has the cojones to go to the ICC in any meaningful way is smoking crack. The solution has to come from the grassroots in the world and Palestine. Governments are too corrupt.

  12. Teapot
    December 30, 2014, 6:12 pm

    This is such a disappointing outcome. And I am feeling very pessimistic about the ICC right now.

  13. Bornajoo
    December 30, 2014, 7:28 pm

    I agree with Ramzi. This is collusion and was designed to fail

    In order to prove us wrong (and I for one would be extremely happy to be wrong) then I want to see Abbas sign up to the ICC NOW! No messing around, no more delays, no more excuses.

    His next steps will prove who he and the PA really are. And if they are going to really happen then they need to happen immediately.

  14. Shingo
    December 30, 2014, 7:32 pm

    It looks like the resolution was defeated because it only won 8 votes at the UN. The US and Australia voted against it with 5 abstentions.

    Slimy Power was up to her usual prostitution tricks:

    U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said the American no vote wasn’t meant to indicate support for the status quo, but was instead a reflection of what she saw as a flawed resolution. “This text addresses the concerns of only one side,” she said after the vote. “It is deeply unbalanced.”
    Is this news or is the resolution being reworked and re-submitted?

  15. Ramzi Jaber
    December 30, 2014, 8:28 pm

    ritzl, Annie, Whizdom, and Bornajoo, oh how much I wish you are right in your optimism and next steps. But the facts, evidence, and data from the past point to the contrary. Nothing of substance will follow.

    Bottom line: Palestinians do not need any justification or a “failed” UNSC resolution to join ICC/ICJ. This is our right. Just as is the right of return, the right not to have illegal squatters on our land, the right for freedom and justice and human rights. We don;t need nobody’s permission or agreement to go to ICC/ICJ.

    The problem is that abbas and the pa never did any act of courage and in support of Palestine. They are just zionist agents, pure and simple.

    Proof? Had they waited TWO DAYS, we would have gotten 10 maybe 11 YES votes, forcing a us veto. Then abbas and pa would have the full backing of all Palestinians to honorably quit, hand over the keys, and make way to a new generation of Palestinian leaders.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 30, 2014, 8:59 pm

      i’m still optimistic ramzi. i’m sure palestine will be free someday i am just not sure how or when. it will happen tho.

    • ritzl
      December 30, 2014, 9:13 pm

      Ramzi, For whatever it may be worth, I get it. The PA is a corrupt org. That was the vote/referendum result in, what, 2006. It’s not about popular belief. Palestinians wouldn’t seem to me to need any more stoking in that respect. You/they know the score, so it’s currently about mechanism. How to push it over the line, if possible. This is endgame stuff given the current power balance and political realities. One LAST try.

      If the PA delays going to the ICC this time, yeah, it’s over for the PA. But, imho, in order for them to leverage such vastly more powerful (albeit changing) opponents, and not prolong the farce, they had to do it this way.

      Personally, and other than for leveraging world governmental opinion (“We’ve tried it your way, now we’ll try it ours.”) I really don’t see much point or substance (or angst for that matter) in a UNSC resolution proclaiming/prolonging the notional desirability and/or viability of two states. Whichever way it had gone, whenever they (the PA) had done it. As you say so often, for Palestinians two-states has been over for a long time. Today’s result echoes that and caps it off, internationally. Finito in any meaningful sense (though of course we all know that it’s not really finito because the US and Israel will keep jawboning it ad infinitum).

      I don’t think a US veto changes any of that. Heck, we vetoed our own publicly stated policy, verbatim, when the settlement resolution came up a few years ago. More evidence is simply not necessary as to where the US stands on this issue. Time to check the box and go forward, which is what I HOPE the PA did here.

      But maybe they didn’t. Don’t know.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 30, 2014, 9:17 pm

        ritzl, I hope you’re right. We shall all find out soon, very soon.

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2014, 10:46 pm

        ritzl: “ If the PA delays going to the ICC this time, yeah, it’s over for the PA.

        —–

        I’m curious: how do you see the PA/ICC option playing out ideally? What cases would be brought? Which would be accepted? How long would they take? What individuals would be convicted? What would be the results of those convictions for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 30, 2014, 11:15 pm

        sibiriak, there are 2 initiatives going on simultaneously, the other was mentioned here: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/occupation-netanyahu-diplomatic

        as of dec 23 The United Nation Human Rights Council of the Fourth Geneva Convention signatory states ordered an investigation which begins next week. the results of this would probably be buttressing any actions wrt the ICC.

    • RockyMissouri
      December 31, 2014, 1:21 pm

      I agree. Two days would have made a difference.

  16. JustJessetr
    December 30, 2014, 8:46 pm

    RE: Abbas going to the ICC.

    What do you think of the possibility that he will never go? He would be just as open to accusations of war crimes himself now that Shurat HaDin, who even Abbas admits, has beat him to the punch by filing the first claim. Hamas, now part of a (*cough*) unity gov’t, is probably in the same boat.

    http://ilcblog.org/2014/12/22/palestinian-leaders-and-media-alarmed-by-shurat-hadins-war-crimes-campaign/

    • Shingo
      December 30, 2014, 9:00 pm

      He would be just as open to accusations of war crimes himself now that Shurat HaDin, who even Abbas admits, has beat him to the punch by filing the first claim. Hamas, now part of a (*cough*) unity gov’t, is probably in the same boat.

      Nice try but fail.

      Whatever war crimes Hamas might have committed pale into insignificance. What’s more, because the initial war crime was created by Israel’s war of aggression and conquest, according to the Nuremberg Principals, it is Israel is responsible for any war crimes that eventuate as a result of their aggression.

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2014, 10:54 pm

        Shingo: “ Whatever war crimes Hamas might have committed pale into insignificance.

        Absolutely true.

        But Israeli legal actions at the ICC could certainly muddy the waters. From a legal standpoint, each case stands or falls on its own merits, not in comparison to other crimes. In the end, years later, the court could end up convicting some Israelis and some Palestinians. Then what?

      • JustJessetr
        December 30, 2014, 11:02 pm

        @ Shingo. Is this your bona-fide legal opinion, or a wish?

        I think the latter, since you also predicted that the ICC would condemn Israel for the Mavi Mamri.

      • Shingo
        December 30, 2014, 11:41 pm

        Is this your bona-fide legal opinion, or a wish?

        The Nuremberg Principals defined the ultimate war crime as the one of aggression and that it was unique insofar as it includes all the war crimes that result from it.

        I think the latter, since you also predicted that the ICC would condemn Israel for the Mavi Mamri.

        They did. They called it a war crime.
        http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_ihh-icc-finds-israel-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-mavi-marmara-raid_363650.html

        Try to keep up.

      • JustJessetr
        December 31, 2014, 12:03 am

        @ Shingo

        “They did. They called it a war crime.
        link to todayszaman.com

        Try to keep up.”

        I can only keep up by passing the finish line and then sprinting backwards to let you get ahead.

        Again, you indulge in wishful thinking. The ICC threw the Mavi Mamri case out. Their personal opinions matter in this regard as much as yours. Which is to say, not at all.

        And to circle back, you neatly dodged my original question: What if Abbas never goes to the ICC? He most certainly is afraid of being brought up on charges himself, as the link I posted has attested to.

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 1:06 am

        I can only keep up by passing the finish line and then sprinting backwards to let you get ahead.

        Yeah sure, like JOhn McCain said about Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, you got me right where you want me. LOL.

        The ICC threw the Mavi Mamri case out. Their personal opinions matter in this regard as much as yours. Which is to say, not at all.

        False. They did not throw it out, they declared it a war crime, though thanks to US pressure, they agreed not to prosecute it.

        And to circle back, you neatly dodged my original question: What if Abbas never goes to the ICC? He most certainly is afraid of being brought up on charges himself, as the link I posted has attested to.

        Why would he be afraid? Abbas is not guilty of any war crimes.

        Best you put down the stick and step back from the dead horse, in case you end up hurting yourself as well as embarrassing yourself.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 31, 2014, 2:06 am

        Best you put down the stick and step back from the dead horse, in case you end up hurting yourself

        LOL

      • oldgeezer
        December 31, 2014, 12:04 am

        @Sibiriak
        “In the end, years later, the court could end up convicting some Israelis and some Palestinians. Then what?”

        Potentially liberation?

        Liberation for Palestinians from a half century (plus) of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity from an oppressive and criminal regime?

        For western nations liberation from the corruptive influence of zionist money which buys favours from western politicians to the detriment of their own countries and citizens.

        I look forward to the day that these venal politicians try to justify to their constituents why they actively promoted and supported a criminal enterprise in Israel.

        In the west the police generally don’t get a lot of respect. They are seen as the enforcers of the ruling elite or those people who hassle otherwise law abiding people with tickets. Lawyers? Ambulance chaser. The courts still have respect though (in my opinion) and if nothing else I will enjoy watching those politicians who try to explain away their unquestioned support for one of the worst human rights abusing countries on the planet. Are they worse than Iran or Saudi Arabia? Nope. Are they any better… Once I stop laughing I will answer Nope.

      • Walid
        December 31, 2014, 2:47 am

        “Then what?”

        Absolutely nothing, Oldgeezer, nothing from the UN and even more nothing from the ICC. The UN just voted for the 9th successive year to have Israel compensate Lebanon over $800 million for the oil spill is deliberately caused in its aggression on Lebanon in 2006. Think this has bothered Israel in any way? Israel had also ignored during 18 years Security Council Res 425 ordering it to end its occupation of South Lebanon from 1978 until 2000.

        With over 60 resolutions, opinions and so on by the UN against it, none of those have fizzed on Israel. There’s even one, although non-binding for whatever this is worth, that calls for Israel to dismantle its apartheid wall off Palestinian lands and to compensate the Palestinians that suffered by it, and that too hasn’t resulted in anything. So the value one more or one less resolution in favour of the Palestinians wouldn’t buy anyone a cup of coffee.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 31, 2014, 5:52 am

        JustJessetr,

        It’s a bit hard to take you seriously when you can’t even get the name of the ship at the centre of the case correct.

        FYI, it’s the Mavi Marmara, not the ‘Mavi Mamri’, whatever that is.

      • seafoid
        December 31, 2014, 11:17 am

        Lissa, Walid. The reparations bill is adding up.
        No point in presenting it while Congress has the fear.

      • CigarGod
        December 31, 2014, 11:21 am

        I dont know…didnt the fabled camel go down…because of one last straw?

    • Ramzi Jaber
      December 30, 2014, 9:02 pm

      ICC/ICJ will be a positive step on balance since Palestinian grievances will trump whatever the zionists will cook since they are the aggressor. This is like the thief in your house suing you for not allowing to stay in your house. LOL.

      What will liberate Palestine is TIME, which will lead to 1S1P1V.

      If we want it sooner, then all of us must participate in a peaceful grassroot intifada, demonstrating and marching every day across all of Palestine, and also asking all supporters in the world to march towards Palestine through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and from the sea and into all zionist airports.

      I am certain that with such peaceful demonstrations and marches, the occupation will end in weeks if not days.

      All of this starts tomorrow morning with the Palestinians demanding abbas and pa to resign.

      • Walid
        December 31, 2014, 2:24 am

        “… asking all supporters in the world to march towards Palestine through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and from the sea and into all zionist airports.”

        Not that way, Ramzi, it can’t happen. It was tried on Nakba Day in 2011 and you know how many were killed or injured. Since then, Jordan and Lebanon have prevented any mass gatherings at borders with Israel and Egypt has been Egypt all along even in 2011 when it prevented any border demonstrations. Peaceful demonstrations against Israel are like peace negotiations with it, they only serve to prolong the agony.

        As to hoping for the PA to resign, this too is futile since over a quarter of those employed on WB are the security forces employed by the PA and funded by the US. So all these “security” people will not bite the hands of those that are feedng them; especialy since their prime objective is to protect Israel against infiltration from the WB, and they’re doing a great job.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 31, 2014, 10:12 am

        Walid, if we can do nothing, then it’s time to pack it up….

      • Walid
        December 31, 2014, 11:19 am

        “… if we can do nothing, then it’s time to pack it up…. ”

        Not at all, Ramzi, I’m not for any giving up anything but saying there has to be a change of direction. The way of the peaceful demonstrations will not work with the Zionist barracudas. The only way is to elect leaders that are truly for Palestine, not what you’ve been having since the Oslo sell-out. The Gandhian way was great in the movie. Last week I read somewhere that Modi (Netanyahu’s great pal) will be helping to have erected statues and busts all over India of the man responsible for the mahatma’s assassination. Therefore all this talk or questioning about a Palestinian Gandhi is bogus and serves to propagate the occupation. Just hope your next leader will not have any business interests that could be subjected to Israeli coercion.

      • CigarGod
        December 31, 2014, 11:25 am

        I agree.
        The old methods (gandhi) have already been countered. The enemy always develops counter-measures.
        New methods…keep the enemy on their heals, defensive…a
        Or at least…always a step behind.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 31, 2014, 11:28 am

        Walid, the thing is, I’ve heard my grandparents ay the same thing. Only if we have good leaders. Maybe one day. Next year will be different. My grandparents are long gone (god bless their souls), and sadly me and father kept repeating the same words.

        But enough is enough. It is not the leaders. It is the PEOPLE. And here is where I say to my Palestinian brothers and sisters: If we TRULY WANT a Palestinian state, then WE CAN make it happen. The sad reality it seems we don’t really want it. The billions flowing from international donors have sedated and drugged the national interest and dream. But soon the drug will ware off………………. So back to us, do we want it?

        If not, then 1S1P1V is the eventual outcome. I personally am TOTALLY for it as I see it to be the only just, fair, logical, feasible, achievable, and sustainable way forward. So if we all believe 1S1P1V is the answer, let’s then stop this “peace process” charade and build towards that 1S1P1V solution.

      • seafoid
        December 31, 2014, 11:44 am

        Some kind of popular march program might work, Ramzi
        Get people to walk to the checkpoints. Peaceful, dignified , fuck Zionism and colonialism

        “The Wasichus had slaughtered all the bison and shut us up in pens. It looked as though we might all starve to death. We could not eat lies’. From Black Elk speaks , p 185

      • RockyMissouri
        December 31, 2014, 1:25 pm

        TRUTH.

      • Walid
        January 1, 2015, 12:22 am

        “The billions flowing from international donors have sedated and drugged the national interest and dream. ” (Ramzi)

        Some of these vast sums were used to drug the peons. Remember the minesterial fuel monopoly in Gaza or the Israeli cement scam on the WB and other major projects at Rawabi, Reehan or Wataniya? When a quarter of the working population depend on a paycheck from the central authority, it’s hard to vote it out of office. With the siege and the occupation, most of the bllions from international donors end up in Israel’s economy, so you could say these donors are actually helping Israel more than they re helping Palestinians.

    • Walid
      December 31, 2014, 2:57 am

      JustJesstr, nobody is afraid of the ICC, not Abbas and surely not Hamas. Keep in mind that Abbas has the US in his corner and that ensures nothing would happen to him.

      • JustJessetr
        December 31, 2014, 11:10 am

        @Walid. That is an interesting view, thank you. Please explain further. And Shingo, try not to interrupt.

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 8:16 pm

        That is an interesting view, thank you. Please explain further. And Shingo, try not to interrupt.

        Not trying to interrupt. Stop posting garbage and I won’t have to correct you.

  17. CigarGod
    December 31, 2014, 10:14 am

    It always seems the palestinians get a rag tag team together and go up against a big nation olympic team. The odds are impossible.
    How can one expect them to field a competitive team? Their talent pool comes from what are basically prisons scattered around. Their funding…isnt enought to feed them. They dont get real media access. Creative chipping away is what they have. There is always luck…but one must be prepared to take advantage of an opportunity when it appears. No, i dont see they have ever seen a real opportunity.

  18. seafoid
    December 31, 2014, 10:51 am

    “Hamastan” is an insult to the people of Gaza. Against all the odds they raise their kids to believe in peace. They are so hospitable. When they get the chance to be educated they can be world beaters

    Zionism is pure nihilism.
    Gazans have more mental freedom than Zionists.

    • CigarGod
      December 31, 2014, 11:03 am

      I think so, too.
      Am always surprised by such calm, stable, well reasoned and deeply heartfelt articles from palestinian thinkers. I dont know how such things can be born in such bombed and starved soil.

  19. Walid
    December 31, 2014, 11:54 am

    “The updated draft calls for East Jerusalem as a “capital” for the “state of Palestine,”

    Palestinians are reduced to being offered table scraps and even those were rejected by US and friends.

  20. Ramzi Jaber
    December 31, 2014, 12:45 pm

    President Abbas signed the ICC and 20 other organizations. Game changer, hopefully.

    Good end to the year. Happy New Year!!

    VIVA PALESTINA!!!!!!

    • Bornajoo
      December 31, 2014, 12:50 pm

      I hope so too Ramzi but unfortunately I’m not so optimistic, especially after reading Kate’s latest updates on the I/P front page

      Happy new year to you

Leave a Reply