Jews for UN resolution
This posting has these items:
1) Jewish Chronicle/Yachad: BoD and Yachad statements;
2) Press release: Over 400 British Jews challenge Netanyahu and BoD over UNSCR 2334;
3) Statement of Jews in Britain: We are Jews in Britain who support UN Security Council Resolution 2334, statement and signatories;
4) Jewish Chronicle: The Board of Deputies president “unequivocally condemns” Yachad for backing a UN resolution against Israeli settlements;
5) UN: Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms;
6) UN: The full text of resolution 2334;
The Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush centre, condemns the UNSC for its resolution 2334 (which he clearly hasn’t read) and condemns its own member body, Yachad, for their response to the announcement of 3000 more new housing units in West Bank settlements:
“Israel’s enemies around the world will rejoice at this news, which will make a viable two-state solution – the only way to ensure Israel’s long-term security – harder to implement.”
Over 400 British Jews challenge Netanyahu and BoD over UNSCR 2334
Press Release, Naomi Wayne for Jews for Justice for Palestinians
2nd February 2017
“End the Occupation”: Over 400 British Jews challenge Netanyahu and Board of Deputies over UN settlement vote
Three days in advance of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to London, British Jews threw down a challenge to Israel’s Prime Minister and to the British Board of Deputies, the UK ‘Jewish parliament’.
In Friday 3rd February’s Jewish Chronicle, 433 Jewish signatories affirmed their support for UN Resolution 2334, which condemns Israel settlements. They said that independent research by City University showed most Jews in Britain sharing their rejection of the occupation.
‘When leaders of the Board of Deputies declared their opposition to Resolution 2334’, the statement says, ‘they did not speak in our name’.
This year’s anniversary of fifty years of occupation represents ‘a tragic failure’, the statement adds. It appeals to Jews in Britain to ‘make our majority voice heard’ and to ‘stand up publicly on the side of international law, common sense and justice’.
Naomi Wayne, a spokesperson for Jews for Justice for Palestinians says: ‘Netanyahu needs to listen to the voices of the Jewish diaspora. And the Board of Deputies must start representing what British Jews want: an end to the settlements that can do nothing for the peace they keeping hoping for.’
The statement is sponsored by three leading Jewish organisations, together representing over two and a half thousand people: Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Socialist Group and Independent Jewish Voices.
Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Jewish Socialists’ Group
Independent Jewish Voices
Statement of Jews in Britain on UNSC 2334
Stand with the majority … and end 50 years of occupation
WE ARE JEWS IN BRITAIN who support UN Security Council Resolution 2334. This confirms that the establishment of settlements “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”. The resolution demands that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory”.
As President Trump takes over at the White House, it becomes ever more important for Jews around the world to stand up publicly on the side of international law, common sense and justice and to welcome this UN Resolution. We know that the great majority of American Jews supported former President Obama. His refusal to veto Resolution 2334 ensured that it would pass, with the unanimous supporting vote of the other fourteen Security Council members, including Britain. And we know that the great majority of American Jews oppose Donald Trump for his racism, sexism, promotion of hatred towards Muslims, and association with white supremacists and blatant antisemites.
They will also be alarmed that Trump has appointed David Friedman, a strong supporter of the settlement movement, as the next US ambassador to Israel.
Here in Britain we also know – from meticulous City University research, overseen by eminent Jewish academics – that the great majority of British Jews are opposed to the settlement project. When leaders of the Board of Deputies declared their opposition to Resolution 2334, they did not speak in our name.
Fifty years of Occupation represents a tragic failure: Israel’s denial of human and civil rights to millions of people; thousands of lives lost, most though not all Palestinian; many hundreds of thousands more, in both Palestinian and Israeli Jewish communities, traumatised by war, hatred and loss of hope.
We ask our fellow Jews in Britain to make our majority voice heard. We must welcome the opening of a door towards a better future for all Israelis and Palestinians by declaring:
• NO to continuing Occupation
• NO to settlements NO to settlement expansion
• NO to buying settlement products
YES to a just peace.
Benjamin Abeles, Tony Abramson, Fabian Acker, Erika Adler, Dr Karen Adler, Marion Adler, Mike Albu, Sam Alston, Ruth Appleton, Cany Ash, Deborah Asher, Nathan Asher, Nadav Atik,
Martha Jean Baker, Prof Anthony Bale, Pal Banda, Dr Lisa Baraitser, Lisa Barcan, Julia Bard, Sue Bard, Barbara Barnett, Tricia Barnett, Robert Bartfield, Dr Elspeth Bartlet, Graham Bash, Sue Beardon, Dr Diane Bebbington, Sandi Beecher, Teresa Belton, Liat Ben Shoshan, Bert Benham, Joan Benham, Michele Benn, Sarah Benton, Richard Berengarten, Diane Bindman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Rica Bird, Pamela Blakelock, Carla Bloom, Ellie Bloom, Emanuel Bloom, Jenny Bloom, Louise Bloom, Anna Bluston, Jennifer Bolgar, Alice Bondi, Lauren Bourque, Prof Leslie Baruch Brent, Prof Haim Bresheeth, Sarah Broadie, Babette Brown, Fiona Brown, Judy Brown, Peter Brown, Dr Raymond Brown FRCP, Cllr Barry Buitekant, Dr Alan Bullion, Lionel Burman, Veronica Butler,
Prof Jane Caplan, Prof Lionel Caplan, Caroline Catz, Brian Chinnery, Linda Clair, Ros Claxton, Alex Claxton-Mayer, Emma Clyne, Eyal Clyne, Barbara Cohen, Colin Cohen, Eran Cohen, Jeffrey Cohen, Jim Cohen, Josh T U Cohen, Mike Cohen, Peter Cohen, Robert Cohen, Ron Cohen, Ruth Cohen, Sylvia Cohen, Xavier Cohen, Roy Collins, Ruth Conlock, Margaret Conrad, Rabbi Howard Cooper, Pam Courtney, Rita Craft, Judith Cravitz, Dr Hannah Cross, Joan Curtis,
Lady Ellen Dahrendorf, Dr Renée Danziger, Prof Miriam David AcSS, Sara Davidson, Jean Davis, Prof Emanuel de Kadt, Ivor Dembina, Saz Denny, Prof Elizabeth Dore, Brian Douieb, Audrey Droisen, Marc Eady, Prof Rebecca Earle, Prof Rosalind Edwards, Aram Eisenschitz, Dr Maggie Eisner, Tom Eisner, Liz Elkind, Michael Ellman, Prof Debbie Epstein, Jerry Ezekiel,
Moris Farhi MBE, Judy Farrar, Prof Gene Feder OBE, Pia Feig, Jonathan Feldman, Dr Rayah Feldman, Rob Ferguson, Prof Stephan Feuchtwang, Dr Neil Finer, Deborah Fink, Arye Finkle, Sylvia Finzi, Frank Fisher, Erika Fox, Mel Fox, Sybil Fox, Katy Fox-Hodess, Louella Frankel Jones, Ian Fulton,
Dr Martin Gaba, Helen Gamsa, Daniel Garay, David Garfinkel, Rachel Garver, Carolyn Gelenter, Mike Gerber, Dr Henny Lee Gershuny, Murray Glickman, Dr Sarah Glynn, Peter Godfrey, Dr David Goldberg, Ruth Goldberg, Martin Golding, Arthur Goodman, John Goodman, Lionel Gordon, David Graham, Cllr Lesley Grahame, Michael Graubart, Alice Gray, Ilse Gray, Helen Green, Tony Greenstein, Miriam Greenwood, Jacky Gruhn, Heinz Grünewald,
Noel Hamel, Nicholas Hampson, Howard Harris, Judith Harrison, Alon Harshak, Abe Hayeem, Daniel Hayeem, Rosamine Hayeem, Tama Hazak, Ruth Hendrick, Dr Marion Hersh, Yoni Higgsmith, Susan Hiller, Prof Susan Himmelweit, Justin Hoffman, Gillian Holding, Gad Hollander, Sue Hughes, Mike Hull, Naomi Hull, Nechamah Inbar-Bonanos, Dr Anthony Isaacs, Deborah Isaacs, Lulu Isaacs, Claire Jackson, Dr Susie Jacobs, Joanna Jellinek, Riva Joffe, Prof Gabriel Josipovici, Ann Jungman, Naomi Junnor,
Prof Cora Kaplan, Lola Karpf, Jenny Kassman, Richard Katz, Ruth Schocken Katz, Ruth Kaufman OBE, Dr Daphne Keen, John Keidan, Dr Paul Kelemen, Samuel Kempner, Steven Kennedy, Canon Nicholas Kerr, Yehudit Keshet, Godfrey King, Brenda Kirsch, Dr Brian Klug, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Rebecca Klug, Yosh Kosminsky, Marion Kozak, Stevie Krayer, Mary Kuper, Richard Kuper,
Jacob Lagnado, Dr John Lagnado, David Lan, Prof Frank Land, Madeline Landauer, Dr Jennifer Langer, Jon Lansman, Bernice Laschinger, Eliza Lass, Gregory Lass, Ruth Lass, Pam Laurance, Sandra Lawson, Howard Leader, Dr Reuben Leberman, Anne Lee, Antony Lerman, Hemdat Lerman, Leah D Levane, Betty Levene, Jacqie Levin, Dr Peter Levin, Dr Marsha Levine, Dr Michael Levine, Prof Raymond Levy, Prof David B Lewis, Sue Lewis, Vivien Lichtenstein, Sandy Lieberson, Stuart Linke, Stephen Linton, John Lohrenz, Susan Loppert, Dr Susan Loewenthal Lourenço, Tom Lowenstein, Katherine Lubar, Ruth Lukom, John Lynes, Simon Lynn,
Deborah Maccoby, Dorothy Macedo, Daniel Machover, Prof Moshe Machover, Beryl Maizels, Julie Malkin, Kay Manasseh, Philippa Manasseh, Hilary Mandleberg, Jenny Salaman Manson, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Orna Meir-Stacey, Ed Mendelsohn, Phyll Mendelsohn, Steven Mendoza, Karen Merkel, Claudia Mernick, Dr David Metz, Martine Miel, Claire Milne, Chris Mohr, Prof Simon Mohun, Prof David Mond, Paul Morrison, Gillian Mosely, Ari Moshe, Gabriel Moshenska, Tony Moss,
Prof Mica Nava, Jeannette Nelson, Diana Neslen, Ines Newman, Prof Mike Newman, Rhiannon Nichol, Prof Richard Noss, Rachel Oelman, Miriam Osner, Dan Ozarow, Sam Paechter, Dr Kathy Panama, Prof Benita Parry, Abbie Paton, Prof Laurence Pearl FRS, Helen Pearson, Prof Helen Penn, Prof Naomi Pfeffer, Deborah Philips, Joanna Phillips, Rina Picciotto, Miranda Pinch, Merav Pinchassoff, Nico Pollen, Alison Prager, Dr Claudia Prestel,
Ros Raizada, Joe Ravetz, Susan Reed, Maya Reggev, Peter Rich, Abby Riddell, Frances Rifkin, Dan Roberts, Warren Robin, Dr Brian Robinson, Lee Robinson, Neil Rogall, Prof Ben Rogaly, Prof Edgar Rose, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, John Rose, Shirley Rose, Edward Rosen, Dr Rachel Rosen, David Rosenberg, Mike Rosenbloom, Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, Clare Roskill, Leon Rosselson, Natasha Roth, The Hon Miranda Rothschild, John Rubinstein, David Ruebain,
Barbara Saalfeld-Edwards, Michael Sackin, Caroline Salinger, Susannah Sallé, Ben Samuel, Prof Andrew Samuels, Larry Sanders, Marsha Sanders, Dr Esther Saraga, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Michael Sassen, Prof Donald Sassoon, Dr Ian Saville, Maya Schkolne, Nic Schlagman, Dr Susan Schonfield, Konrad Schwab, Dr Joseph Schwartz, Prof Judy Sebba, Amanda Sebestyen, Glyn Secker, Jenny Secretan, Natalie Sedacca, Prof David Sedley, Marian Sedley, Dr Graeme Segal FRS, Prof Lynne Segal, Peter Senker, Prof Richard Sennett, Brian Shade, Michael Shade, Diana Shelley, John Shinebourne, David Shonfield, Irene Silberstein, Dr Brian Silk, Tamar Singer, Gillian Slovo, Harry Smith, Jill Smith, Dr Gabriel Smol, Dr David Sperlinger, John Speyer, Loz Speyer, Bernard Spiegal, Fran Springfield, Godfrey Stadlen, Ruth Steele, Jeremy Stein, Dr Tamar Steinitz, Jamie Stern-Weiner, Henry Stewart, Dr Juliet Steyn, Vanessa Stilwell, Anthony Stoll, Helen Stollar, Prof Judith Suissa, Sylvia Summer, Vivien Sunlight, Dr Adam Sutcliffe, Susan Sutcliffe,
Dr David Taylor, Hedley Taylor, Lev Taylor, Ruth Teddern, Prof Norman Temple, Stephen Tiller, Michel Trainer, Prof David Turner, Dr Nadia Valman, Daniel Vulkan, Lauren Waller, Maurice Waller, Michelene Wandor, Brian Warshaw, Josie Warshaw, Carla Wartenberg, Dr Rodney Watts, Margaret Wayne, Naomi Wayne, Juliet Webster, Dr Sylvia Weir, Prof Pnina Werbner, Baroness Janet Whitaker, Charlotte Prager Williams, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Dr Simon Winner, Sharon Witton, Walter J Wolfgang, Geoffrey Wolfson, Dr Naomi Woodspring, Myra Woolfson, Charlie Wright, Miriam Yagud, Dave Yeates, Ben Young, Montague Young, Dr Gillian Yudkin, Prof John S Yudkin FRCP, Dan Zeff.
The Board of Deputies president “unequivocally condemns” Yachad for backing a UN resolution against Israeli settlements
Mr Arkush said: “I fail to understand how Yachad believes that Resolution 2334 would contribute to the prospects of peace”
By Rosa Doherty, Jewish Chronicle
January 15, 2017
The Board of Deputies president said he “unequivocally condemned” Yachad for backing a UN resolution against Israeli settlements.
In a statement delivered at its monthly meeting, the Board’s president, Jonathan Arkush said: “I fail to understand how Yachad believes that Resolution 2334 would contribute to the prospects of peace, given that leading progressive voices in Israel including Itzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni roundly condemned it.”
Speaking at the meeting on Sunday he criticised Yachad for “deciding to take their views direct to Government and other public bodies,” instead of going through the Board. The UN Security Council adopted a resolution against Israeli settlements in December, where all but one member of the 15-member council voted in favour and the US abstained.
At the time Jewish groups around the world reacted with varying degrees of disappointment. Speaking about the resolution at the meeting, Mr Arkush said: “The UN has once again chosen to demonstrate its hostility to Israel.”
“The Security Council resolution passed in December is destructive to peace because it encourages Palestinians to believe that they can maintain their refusal to come to the negotiating table.
“I note that the Security Council has been an utter failure in saving hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria. It clearly thinks of Israel as an easier target.”
Mr Arkush said he was disappointed the UK government failed to exercise its power to “veto a biased and unbalanced resolution”. He told members at the meeting the UN adopted “disproportionate focus on and stigmatisation of Israel”.
“In recent years the UN passed 233 resolutions critical of Israel and 8 on Syria, moving even outgoing Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon to deplore the body’s bias against Israel,” Mr Arkush said.
Amos Schonfield, deputy for Yachad, defended the decision to back the resolution and contact government, encouraging support for it. He said: “Yachad reaching out to government is nothing new. It is worth taking a closer look at the reading of the resolution.
“It reiterates Israel’s right to exist the right, for its citizens to live free from terror, it condemns incitement, and states the obligation of the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terror infrastructure.
“It states it will not recognise changes to the green line other than those that are agreed by parties through negotiations.”
Mr Arkush rejected calls from deputies at the meeting, to remove the group from the Board.
He said: “Those who talk about the Board’s constitution, I do not read the constitution as requiring every deputy to have a particular view or not to have a particular view. “I am not a support of the views of Yachad. I voted against the membership of Yachad, when others voted for it on the basis of inclusion.
“But I am not in favour of expelling anyone. I think if someone holds an unpopular view they have the chance to have it heard here on the floor.
“I am not going to expel them because I don’t agree with them.”
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms
UN Press release
December 23, 2016
The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.
Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. It underlined that it would not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations.
The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction. It further called for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism. The Council called on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust and confidence.
Also by the text, the Council called on all parties to continue to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final-status issues in the Middle East peace process, and within the time frame specified by the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21 September 2010. It called upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
Explaining her delegation’s abstention, the representative of the United States said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements undermined Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability. She emphasized, however, that her vote today had not been straightforward. Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she noted that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel. It was because of that bias that the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and incitement to violence.
Malaysia’s representative said effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that were threatening any possibility of a two-State solution. Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence, she said, adding that the resolution could give hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted peace and a two-State solution.
Israel’s representative said those who had voted “yes” to the resolution had voted “no” to negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, and to the possibility of peace. The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said, adding that the Council had voted to condemn the State of Israel and the Jewish people for building homes in the land of Israel, and to deny “our eternal rights” in Jerusalem. “We will continue to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he declared. “And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.”
The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine said the Council’s action, while long-overdue, was timely, necessary and important. The resolution required vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and salvage a two-State solution from relegation to history’s archives. Israel’s illegal settlements and its wall had undermined the contiguity of Palestinian land and isolated East Jerusalem. To claims of bias, he said the only bias was against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable solution.
Egypt’s representative said the text expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land. Noting that his delegation had been compelled to withdraw its own draft resolution, he emphasized that it was unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt, recalling that his country had been the first to make peace with Israel.
The full text of resolution 2334 (2016) reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),
“Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
“Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
“Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
“Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,
“Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,
“Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,
“Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
“Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
“Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,
“1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
“2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
“3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
“4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
“5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
“6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;
“7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;
“8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;
“9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;
“10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;
“11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;
“12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;
“13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”