Trending Topics:

Jordanian-Palestinian resolution to the UN Security Council gives US and Israel wiggle room

NewsOpinion
on 44 Comments

Early this morning Jordan submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on behalf of the Palestinians calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of territory conquered in June 1967 through a negotiations process. The Palestinian government has said the text was finalized late Wednesday evening.

The principal point of the resolution is to re-affirm international resolutions and previous agreements on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state framework. The draft does not contain language about a binding timeline to complete negotiations– the 2016 deadline that has been in the news– nor does it call for immediate peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather it “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 fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine.”

The resolution goes on to define new terms of reference for solving the conflict: borders “based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps” and adding a third-party security presence. In a separate section the resolution backs UN resolution 242 and 181, but they are not in the list of new parameters for negotiations. Under the current U.S. brokered framework, resolution 181 on the status of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and heirs was excluded, as was the deployment of a third-party security force.

If the resolution passes as is, it would be the first Security Council measure calling for an end to the conflict using the parameters set forth by the UN General Assembly. It could signal to Palestinians that the issue of refugees is back on the negotiating table.

By using the language “affirms the urgent need to attain” an end to the occupation in 12 months, the Palestinians have circumvented the U.S.’s red line that it would not support any unilateral action by the Security Council. The Palestinians were careful not to state outright that Israel would have a binding deadline to remove its forces from the West Bank. Instead it employed the softer wording of a “need to attain,” more or less a recommendation, giving Israel wiggle room at the United Nations. In this wording Israel is not explicitly required to remove forces within the 12-month deadline. Of course this does open the window for another set of negotiations that can continue indefinitely. However, the resolution creates stronger momentum and pressure on Israel to complete the next round of peace talks as a Security Council measure carries more weight from the international community to resolve the conflict with urgency.

Reporting on the GroundThe Palestinians have also stated that the text of the resolution they submitted was largely taken from a version of the draft written by France. When asked about this directly, the French Foreign Ministry and International Development Spokesman said yesterday, “Our aim is to bring the international community together in support of the peace process. We therefore wish to see presented to the UN Security Council a text likely to get unanimity, ” continuing, “The Palestinians have announced the submission of a text in New York. We will examine it in light of this objective.”

At this point the Palestinians are in a critical moment of lobbying aimed at ensuring they do not get a veto from any Security Council member state and have enough votes to pass the council. They want the resolution to be voted on before the end of the year, as they think prolonging the process could weaken the momentum they have created, particularly in Europe, for an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership is currently meeting in Ramallah and will continue leadership discussions until the weekend, said Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiations Affairs Department Spokesman Ashraf Khatib.

“There’s a link to the momentum in the political process” said Khatib of the timing of the resolution, noting the wave of European governments recognizing Palestinian statehood over the recent weeks. However, with deliberations scheduled among the Palestinian leadership in process now, and discussions yet to begin at the Security Council, it is not yet clear when the resolution will be voted on, or if additional pressures against the resolution will be forthcoming. Still the Palestinians want a vote before Christmas.

“Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority] thinks he can threaten us with unilateral steps,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this evening during a state Hannuka candle-lighting ceremony. “We will not allow this to happen. We will never agree to unilateral diktat. We will always safeguard our security. This is our lesson both from the days of the Maccabees and in our day,” he continued, likening the current political strife to the biblical story of Hanukkah.

Full text of the Draft Resolution:

Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)

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,

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,

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,

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 fulfills 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 Israeli security 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);

–  Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;

–  an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;

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 center 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 neighborly 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, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;

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.

 

Allison Deger

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. Daniel Rich on December 18, 2014, 1:01 pm

    Wiggle room?

    Bibi needs another shower room.

  2. HarryLaw on December 18, 2014, 1:33 pm

    They sure are a lunatic state. The Israeli intelligence minister describes as an “act of war” a Palestinian draft submitted to the UN Security Council to end Israeli occupation by the end of 2017. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/12/18/390766/palestinian-un-bid-act-of-war-israel/

  3. Theo on December 18, 2014, 1:39 pm

    Jordan received a few million dollars from the USA and now throws smoke granades to confuse the issues. As I heard, France also decided to take a step backwards and lets the USA to issue their plans first, that means another watered down declaration without any meat to it.

    Israel is an occupier and war criminal and an oppressed nation doesn´t have to negotiate for its freedom, it can demand a withdrawal from all its territories. Israel wants to keep the choiciest real estate in exchange for worthless sand in the desert. What about the 500,000 aggressive settlers, who attack palestinians every day? They must leave, otherwise there is no chance for an independent Palestina, so when will they leave and where can they settle down? Palestina needs the return of its refugees, they must have the right to come home.
    Just a few of the many important subject.

    As long as there are no definate dates and agreements on such questions, this piece of paper has the same value as the one from Oslo and a few other ones. Israel can continue to ignore it, stay in the west bank and who can or will force them out? Israel must draw back from the west bank and other occupied areas in Syria and Lebanon in 2015, pushing this date further into the future only expands the suffering of those poor peoples.

  4. justicewillprevail on December 18, 2014, 2:23 pm

    But the Palestinians have had to ‘agree’ to universal diktats for 75 years. No hypocrisy or arrogance there then, Bibi. Such an insular egotistic folly of a sham leader.

  5. snowdrift on December 18, 2014, 2:48 pm

    The Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place: a too constraining resolution will simply be vetoed, a too open-ended one leads right back to the peace process® window-dressing. The larger point I think is that the PA is in a state of learned helplessness–the leadership repeatedly chooses a course of action that is almost guaranteed to be fruitless. They’re addicted to this charade, probably in no small part because it allows them to maintain their comfortable-by-occupied-Palestinian-standards status as local potentates. The liberation struggle is much easier to manage if it largely consists of backroom dealings at the UN, with much “help” and “advice” from “friendly” countries.

  6. TwoRedDogs on December 18, 2014, 2:50 pm

    The State Dept. just announced US won’t back the resolution.

    • lysias on December 18, 2014, 3:31 pm

      Will nine members of the Security Council vote for the resolution? If that many do, that means it would be possible to vote to take the matter to the General Assembly.

  7. jon s on December 18, 2014, 3:12 pm

    This draft resolution , and the recent decisions by European parliaments to recognize a Palestinian state, are positive developments on the road to implementing the two-state solution, the solution that so many Mondoweiss commenters have given up on. As I’ve said repeatedly, two states is the only game in town, the only solution that is both morally sound and politically possible.

    Allison is mistaken in writing: “resolution 181 on the status of the right of return for Palestinian refugees” . Resolution 181 was the UN partition plan , adopted on Nov.29, 1947.
    The resolution which addressed the refugee issue was 194, adopted on December 11, 1948, and rejected by the Arab side at the time.

    • seafoid on December 18, 2014, 3:58 pm

      jon

      Israel spent over 100bn dollars making sure there would be no Palestinian state.
      Are you going to go to Hebron to remove your fellow religionists over the dead bodies of the religious fruitcakes in the IDF? Or will you wait for apartheid to fall?

      • jon s on December 19, 2014, 1:24 am

        Seafoid,
        I didn’t say that it would be easy, only that it’s possible.
        As for the “dead bodies” , the extremist settlers threatened dead bodies- mass suicides, armed resistance- during the withdrawal for Sinai, and from Gush Katif, and , in the end, the withdrawal was implemented without any such bloodshed.

      • seafoid on December 20, 2014, 10:54 am

        Jon
        They took the settlers out of Gaza to strengthen the grip on the West Bank, the prize.
        750, 000 Jews are not going anywhere.
        Apartheid is the strategy,

    • RoHa on December 18, 2014, 7:42 pm

      “the only solution that is both morally sound and politically possible. ”

      I’m still waiting for you to explain why the continued existence of Israel as it is would be morally sound.

    • eljay on December 19, 2014, 8:33 am

      >> jon seee: As I’ve said repeatedly, two states is the only game in town, the only solution that is both morally sound and politically possible.

      And as I’ve said before: Garbage. A one-state solution is also both morally sound and politically possible. And if it is less of the latter, it is without a doubt more of the former.

  8. Abierno on December 18, 2014, 3:27 pm

    The US State Department/White House have just guaranteed
    Netanyahu’s re election. He will continue to run on the platform that he alone can manage the US – “a country which is easily led.” Had the US abstained it would have given sufficient ambiguity for other candidates – Kahlon who is allying with Lieberman and the Herzog/ Livni candidacies to assert that they can reset relations with the US, moving forward with at least a figleaf of addressing the peace process as well as approaching middle east conflicts with some, very marginal orientation toward diplomacy. Given this US response, one can expect exponential increase in settlements (Haaretz reporting Yaalon), continued ignoring of the Protective Edge peace agreements, continuing (albeit clandestine) support of ISIS with medical, intelligence, and tactical support (as well as ordnance and outright bombing of Syrian positions.)

    Palestinians will go to the ICC – which will grind on forever as Israel
    again mows the lawn in both the West Bank and Gaza (carpet bombing as suggested by Bennett and Feiglin), settlers continue to rampage, maiming and killing with impunity and the IDF/IOF continue to arrest children and minors subjecting them to “intense” interrogation techniques. Targeted assassinations will increase exponentially as well as random sniper killings by adolescent soldiers who have been strongly advised 1) “to take off the gloves” and 2) that Palestinians are subhuman (compared by Ayelet to
    snakes) and thus disabled, women and children (not matter how young) are appropriate targets. The US will, of course, continue to provide 8.5 million military funding per day, bunker busting bombs to be used on homes, hospitals and UN schools, and provide whatever political cover Netanyahu demands, on call.

    When will this end? Only when the US is bankrupt (which it is now),
    has lost significant standing as a major world power (currently rapidly eroding) and when the BRICS and their affiliates (think Turkey, Iran, SEATO) have sufficient international power to place curbs on Israel’s rapacious actions. This will be done financially.

    Netanyahu, seeing this coming, will have distanced himself from the US, and pivoted to Russia and Asia, which he already beginning to do (significant IS/weaponry contracts with China.)

  9. seafoid on December 18, 2014, 3:49 pm

    “We will always safeguard our security. This is our lesson both from the days of the Maccabees and in our day -”

    Here’s another prominent Jew who didn’t understand tail risk

    • “A necessary condition for my position is that this is a very rare event,” he says. The implosion of the debt bubble that had built up, and the extent to which it almost caused the entire financial system to stop working, was not anticipated by financial regulators.

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f81f85a2-9b61-11df-8239-00144feab49a.html

  10. seafoid on December 18, 2014, 4:06 pm

    Israel might string along the charade for another year or 2 but that’ll be it.
    Protective butchery was the end of holocaust cover for systematic human rights violations in Europe.
    Israel may have brainwashed its Jews comprehensively to believe the world owes it a living but the world doesn’t care.

    Maybe we can start joking about Israelis the way we joke about everyone else.

    • tokyobk on December 18, 2014, 10:48 pm

      Your predictions are always kind of wild like: Mubarak will never be released, ever, not in a kajillian years. If Israel goes into Gaza Hezbollah will finish them etc… etc…

      In general, I have found, if what you think is going to happen matches exactly what you want to happen its likely not happening. (And they are different things which are important to distinguish).

      The West does not support Israel out of Holocaust guilt but out of its perceived strategic interests. When those change (which is the opposite of what is happening in military leadership), yeah then you can probably start the clock but fortress Israel also has the advantage of transparently not giving a crap (now its leaders have to play various games) and with its stockpile and the momentum of being off of the hook officially (meaning the world agrees they suck) the clock starts at minimum 25 years.

      The general change in attitudes that Phil documents could certainly make for change in policy – one day. less than a kajillian years but not in two, not in twenty.

      • tokyobk on December 18, 2014, 11:00 pm

        .. and I do agree strongly with you that in addition to being a humanitarian disaster the war this summer is a step towards a world that may look further into policy.

      • seafoid on December 18, 2014, 11:44 pm

        Israel doesn’t have strategic flexibility because it has a big albatross called YESHA hanging around its neck. And no plan B.

        Europe has no strategic interest in killing kids in Gaza, regardless of whatever Jews think.

        And Israel is great and without it I wouldn’t be able to breathe but it’s not able to do anything about ISIS. So the arguments about Israel’s usefulness to the West are overdone especially in an era of declining American power. Which is what ISIS represents. Saudi isn’t playing by the rules.

        Of course the bots can plough on heedless to what everyone else is thinking but once they lose public support in Europe it’s going to be much harder for them. and that point is not a gazillion years away. Israel is an economy as well as the realization of God’s word. It’s the economy, Naftali. Systemic risk is the biggest challenge facing Israel.

        After it loses Europe it can still plough on for a while but apartheid is going to be very hard to manage coherently. And eventully it’s khalaas.

        Better to cut a deal now while it still has options. We are heading into a very unstable decade.

      • seafoid on December 18, 2014, 11:59 pm

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1987/may/28/israel-the-tragedy-of-victory/

        Now, twenty years after the heroics of June 1967, Ben-Gurion’s speech at Beit Berl, his wrathful cry that the most glorious of Israel’s victories could turn out to be even more poisonous than defeat, has become my most vivid memory of Israel in 1967, when, along with hundreds of thousands of others, I visited the West Bank for the first time, drove freely through the Sinai, and even brought home as a souvenir from the Golan Heights a plate of instructions in Russian from the wreck of a Syrian tank. I am more and more persuaded that the old man I heard that night twenty years ago was more prophet than angry octogenarian.

        “The Jewish state could not regard itself as validly in existence until it had, at least once, perceived itself to be defying the world. Unfortunately, even tragically, this new power has been used deplorably. “

      • Keith on December 19, 2014, 5:28 pm

        TOKYOBK- “The West does not support Israel out of Holocaust guilt but out of its perceived strategic interests.”

        As important as perceived strategic interests are, let us not short change domestic considerations. American Jewish Zionists have a power seeking agenda in which Israel plays a key role not subject to easy or rapid change. However, in view of the current upheaval in the global political economy as empire seeks hegemony in a new world order, the geopolitical landscape could be quite different in one or two years. The impact on Israel? Hard to predict. We are entering uncharted territory where all bets are off.

      • lysias on December 21, 2014, 3:59 pm

        What strategic interest has the U.S. had in Israel since the end of the Cold War, now some 25 years past?

  11. Blownaway on December 18, 2014, 7:25 pm

    No matter how reasonable or benign the US intends on blocking or if necessary vetoing the resolution

  12. CloakAndDagger on December 18, 2014, 8:32 pm

    ‘Tis but a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    —WS

  13. Kay24 on December 18, 2014, 8:58 pm

    How ironic Bibi calls the Draft Resolution a “GIMMICK”. This from a world know liar, artful dodger, and major builder of illegal settlements.

    A gimmick is telling the world you are so interested in peace, and doing everything possible to avoid it, and keep the status quo. Any move that favors the freedom of the Palestinians will always be called a gimmick by the occupier.

  14. mcohen. on December 18, 2014, 8:58 pm

    i think that there will be a breakthrough soon,probably by 2044 which is good because it will give the palestinian jews an opportunity to apply for citizenship in the nwely formed palestinian state called palestine

  15. JLewisDickerson on December 18, 2014, 11:44 pm

    RE: “Of course this does open the window for another set of negotiations that can continue indefinitely. However, the resolution creates stronger momentum and pressure on Israel to complete the next round of peace talks as a Security Council measure carries more weight from the international community to resolve the conflict with urgency.” ~ Deger

    IN OTHER WORDS: One more really, really, big “Ghost Dance”*! But this is absolutely the last one! Seriously!
    Stop laughing! This really is the last Ghost Dance. “Honest injun!”**

    * Ghost Dance – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance
    ** Indian giver – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver
    ** RNC Head Michael Steele’s “Honest Injun” Comment & More [VIDEO, 03:23] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZEZ0dsRwKw
    ** Freddy Cannon – Honest Injun [VIDEO] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em67PiUW1rg
    ** PHIL UPCHURCH – HONEST INJUN [VIDEO, 02:11] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnwvyNsuyjk
    ** “I’m trying to be an honest injun, slow walking down a noisysidewalk . . .”
    Steve Forbert – Jackrabbit Slim – The Sweet Love That You Give Me (Sure Goes A Long, Long Way) [VIDEO, 03:38] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMUZoIH0Ms

  16. seafoid on December 19, 2014, 12:14 am

    the bots will try to spin the conflict as a religious war all the while as they kill Palestinians with impunity in the background . They have decided that YESHA is forever. Very Prussian, really.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/israel-palestine-conflict-religious-war

    What happened to Prussia again?

  17. seafoid on December 19, 2014, 12:56 am

    Israel has decided to run a ” fuck you” policy of diplomacy but “fuck you”
    is expensive

    http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.627862

    Fitch lowers Israel’s credit rating outlook from positive to stable
    The downgrade stems from a fear that the Israeli economy is slowing down, from the government’s growing investment in security, and from the raising of the government deficit target in the 2015 budget.

    • Citizen on December 19, 2014, 1:51 pm

      Imagine what Israel’s credit rating would be without the (heavily indebted, but yet maker of oil dollars) US underwriting its debt.

  18. NickJOCW on December 19, 2014, 9:39 am

    If the US does use the veto, I understand Abbas has stated his next step will be the ICC. If he is driven to that he will appear to the world to have bent over backwards to accommodate US and other sensibilities and Netanyahu could well find himself bent over forwards.

  19. Citizen on December 19, 2014, 1:52 pm

    Why I want Obama to veto Abbas’ UN resolution on Palestine http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-i-want-obama-veto-abbas-un-resolution-palestine via @intifada

    • Walid on December 20, 2014, 1:03 am

      Until such time when Abbas & Company will ride into the sunset, Israel will continue getting exactly what it wants. Abunimah is right that this resolution being proposed will set the Palestinians much further back. According to the Palestinian Papers, Palestinians living inside Israel proper have already been sold down the river by the Company; with this resolution, those stateless ones yearning for a return are also being sold.

    • NickJOCW on December 20, 2014, 4:32 am

      Citizen, Thanks for that link. Aside from Ali Abunimah’s sound reasons, it would surely help the cause to have so much Israeli linen up there on the line for the world to see.

  20. Boomer on December 19, 2014, 1:55 pm

    Noam Sheizaf has a good summary of the situation, which rightly highlights our responsibility (I would say our culpability) for the status quo: we are “The Hand that Holds the Status Quo Together”

    http://972mag.com/the-hand-that-holds-the-status-quo-together/100270/

    • Walid on December 20, 2014, 1:11 am

      Before pointing to the Americans, one should point to the Arabs and to the Palestinian leaders themselves; Palestinian people appear to be comatose to be taking all this crap happening to them time after time. If Palestinians want their freedom, they are going to have to fight for it.

  21. Daniel Rich on December 20, 2014, 6:50 am

    The Apartheid State has become a predictable psychopath. Anything feasible for the Palestinians in the pipeline? Wham! Here’s a couple of pipe bombs for your pipedreams, ya suckers!!!

    Israel bombs Gaza militant base after rocket hits southern Israel, Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:07pm EST.

    “Hamas has this perfect timing to erh… shoot…erhmmm themselves in the foot rockets at us…” IDF sauce, not allowed to speak to the media, but couldn’t help himself anyway.

  22. Boomer on December 20, 2014, 7:37 am

    The NYT “editorial board” has a statement regarding the current situation in I/P. I understand most of what they say, though I don’t agree with all of it, but the logic of the last paragraph escapes me. That’s where they say it is wise to delay action until after Israel’s elections. My confusion about their logic may stem from my ignorance of the nuances of Israeli politics. Or it may simply be that there isn’t much logic there, beyond the desire for delay and more delay and ever-more delay, while “facts on the ground” continue to change. Can someone here who understands such matters explain?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/opinion/the-embattled-dream-of-palestine.html

  23. talknic on December 22, 2014, 2:01 am

    Times like these I wish Hostage would appear …

    My two cents … There’s a lot of people throwing the ‘veto’ word around

    A) UNSC members cannot veto or vote against pre-existing Law, UN Charter or conventions that have passed into Customary International Law. They may only abstain from voting on resolutions that emphasize or reaffirm the aforementioned.

    UNSC members can only veto resolutions that stipulate what does not pre-exist, such as actions that are to be taken.

    B) Although this draft is reaffirming and emphasizing pre-existing binding Law, the UN Charter (also binding), UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions and agreements, the words “shall” and “will” appear only in the context of what might happen ‘if’ certain conditions are met. This would make it a Chapt VI resolution.

    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 center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;

    No actions are stipulated against anyone if they fail to adhere to their obligations under the binding Laws, UN Charter Conventions, previous UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions, this also makes it an Chapt VI resolution

    A Chapt VII resolution would contain the words “shall” or “will” directly relating to the actions a party or the parties MUST take. A Chapter VII resolution might also dictate what will happen if they don’t.

Leave a Reply