France struggles to take lead on ending Palestine/Israel conflict
This posting has these items:
1) Washington Post: France wants bigger role in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts;
2) Electronic Intifada; France launches new UN effort to undermine Palestinian rights, Ali Abuminah’s view that the French initiative is a retrograde denial of Palestinian demands, rejecting Palestinian right of return, imposing no limits on Israeli military, and enshrining segegation ;
3) Irish Times: Israel-Palestine: The French peace initiative. Ireland, with its history of anti-colonial struggle, is a leading EU member in supporting the French initiative;
4) Al Monitor: Israel blames France for anti-Israeli approach, in the fullest of these reports, Akiva Eldar gives the history of approaches to the UNSC;
5) Gulf Times: Netanyahu rejects world ‘dictates’ in snub to Paris, unfriendly but factually accurate account;
6) RT: UK, France call for Israeli-Palestinian UN deal, resolution being drafted;
7) Notes and Links: previous resolutions presented to UNSC;
PM Netanyahu (R) and France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius deliver statements in Jerusalem, June 21, 2015. Photo by Thomas Coex / Reuters
France wants bigger role in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts
By William Booth, Washington Post
June 21, 2015
JERUSALEM — France’s top diplomat traveled to the Middle East over the weekend to take a crack at solving the seemingly unsolvable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offering a new way forward that includes a possible U.N. resolution setting out broad terms for ending the impasse and an offer of help from the Europeans and Arab nations.
Israeli leaders were hostile to the French proposal, while the Palestinians were polite but distant. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said in a joint news conference with his French counterpart that they would do what they could to support the effort, according to the Maan news agency.
U.S. diplomats have been vague. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last week, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, did not answer directly when asked whether the United States would veto a French resolution to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
On his two-day trip to Cairo, Ramallah and Jerusalem, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius sought to sell the idea of a French-led initiative to reboot the peace process with backing from an “international support group” formed by the European Union, Arab nations and U.N. Security Council members, including the United States.
“It’s been 40 years,” Fabius said, referring to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which began in 1967. “We need to adapt the method so that the Arabs, the Europeans, the Americans can accompany things,” he said in Cairo, according to Reuters.
Fabius warned that inaction could set the region “ablaze.”
Over the weekend, a Palestinian gunman shot and killed an Israeli hiking in the West Bank, and another Palestinian stabbed a Border Patrol soldier in the Old City of Jerusalem.
The French have been circulating drafts of a resolution they are considering submitting to the U.N. Security Council that calls for peace talks to start immediately and sets a deadline of two years for negotiations.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called the French initiative a “dictate” that makes “no real reference to Israel’s security needs.”
“Peace will only come from direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions,” Netanyahu said. “It will not come from U.N. resolutions that are sought to be imposed from the outside.”
The French draft resolution generally endorses the U.S. position of “two states for two peoples living beside each other in peace and security,” and it calls for negotiations on future borders based on the 1967 armistice line with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that would likely allow Israel to keep many of the Jewish settlements built in the West Bank. Details about French positions on the division of Jerusalem and what would happen to Palestinian refugees were not disclosed.
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry spoke by phone with Fabius on Thursday, before Fabius left for Israel. State Department spokesman John Kirby did not say whether they had discussed the French proposal, however, and reiterated the long-standing U.S. position.
“Both Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Fabius share a sense of importance about the Middle East peace process,” Kirby said, in a statement released Sunday. “From our perspective nothing has changed about our policy of favouring a two-state solution with agreements that are worked out between the two parties.”
The Israeli prime minister was not enthusiastic.
“They are trying to push us to borders that aren’t subject to protection while completely ignoring what will be on the other side of the border,” Netanyahu said, referring to Israel’s insistence that it cannot give up land, at least now, because the minute Israel withdraws from the West Bank, the Islamist militant movement Hamas will take control.
The last round of U.S.-led peace talks here collapsed last year with a round of bitter recriminations on all sides. At a news conference Sunday evening, Fabius said that it was not France’s intent to elbow the Americans away from the peace table. Quite the contrary: He called such a suggestion a fiction.
“The French position is that the United States has played and will play a very substantial role in the Israeli-Palestinian question,” Fabius said.
The French foreign minister said there was no reason for France to submit resolutions to the U.N. Security Council that would not pass, and his aides said Fabius was working with his counterparts to craft language that could be supported — or at least not vetoed — by the United States and that could garner Arab backing as well.
Asked how his talks with Netanyahu went, Fabius said, “Prime Minister Netanyahu told me he wants negotiations, and no, this is not a joke.”
Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.
France launches new UN effort to undermine Palestinian rights
By Ali Abuminah, Electronic Intifada
May 20, 2015
The government of French President François Hollande is renewing its efforts to fatally undermine fundamental Palestinian rights, particularly those of refugees.
France’s Le Figaro has obtained the text of a draft UN Security Council resolution that the Hollande administration plans to introduce sometime before September.
The resolution should be seen as the international counterpart to France’s increasingly fierce crackdown on Palestine solidarity at home under the guise of fighting antisemitism.
The resolution would enshrine the Zionist and segregationist principle of “two states for two peoples.”
It also calls for “compensation” for Palestinian refugees instead of the right to return to lands from which they were expelled and barred just because they are not Jewish.
According to Le Figaro, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has shared the draft text with Arab governments.
The resolution would set a limit of 18 months for negotiations to reach a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace” between Israelis and Palestinians.
If no agreement is reached by that deadline, France would grant diplomatic recognition to a nonexistent “State of Palestine.”
Pushing Israel’s agenda
The text of the resolution recycles formulas from the failed “peace process” that were carefully written to allow Israel to maximize its annexation of occupied lands and to keep the settlements it has built on them in violation of international law.
It calls for a Palestinian state to be created “based on the lines of 4 June 1967, with mutually agreed exchanges of equivalent territory,” while placing Israel’s so-called “security concerns” at the “heart of future negotiations.”
As I’ve noted previously, the term “based on” should be taken with the same seriousness as when a TV movie claims to be “based on” a true story.
Another recycled aspect of the resolution is its call for the Palestinian “state” to be “demilitarized” and for a phased Israeli withdrawal from its territory over an unspecified period that could, like the terms of the 1993 Oslo accords, stretch to infinity.
While Palestinians would be disarmed, no limitations are to be placed on the military forces that Israel has used for decades to ethnically cleanse and conquer the lands of the Palestinians and neighboring states.
No right of return
With respect to refugees, the French text calls for “a just, balanced and realistic solution to the refugee problem,” underlining that it would be based on a “compensation mechanism.”
This is of course another clear concession to Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to come home so that Israel can maintain a Jewish majority – a racist intent that contradicts the legally enshrined right of refugees, implemented in Bosnia, to go home even if the local authorities are bigoted against their ethnic or religious group.
Enshrining segregation
Regarding the text’s adoption of the “two states for two peoples” formula, Le Figaro comments:
This apparently harmless mention constitutes the beginning of a concession to the Israelis, who have for years demanded the recognition of the Jewish character of their state. This is a demand the Palestinians consider unacceptable given that a fifth of the Israeli population are Arab Muslims or Christians.
I have noted previously that this formula, promoted by Israeli politician Tzipi Livni during previous rounds of negotiation, is aimed precisely at legitimizing Israel’s demand that it be granted a right to discriminate against Palestinians, particularly Palestinian citizens of Israel and refugees.
Le Figaro also notes that the draft text uses a “vague formula” that Jerusalem would be “the capital of two future states.”
Worse than the last resolution
Last December, a similar resolution put forward by Jordan, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, failed to win a majority in the Security Council. That was a great relief.
Prior to that vote, I explained why I wanted the US to veto the resolution because of the damage it would do to Palestinian rights. I argued that, if passed, the weak resolution would effectively negate much stronger existing resolutions.
Of course I understood that any US veto would not be motivated by my concerns, but I felt that having the resolution fail due to a US veto would be better than seeing it pass.
The new French draft is apparently even worse for Palestinians than the one that failed in December.
As Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad has written, initiatives to “recognize” the “State of Palestine” are actually efforts by European states to preserve Israel as a racist state (lire l’article de Massad en français).
I hope that friends of the Palestinian cause in France will not be seduced by the Hollande administration’s promises to “recognize” an imaginary Palestinian state and therefore give misguided support to this plan.
Instead, they should stress in every possible forum that there can be no such thing as peace without the restoration of all human and political rights for all Palestinians.
Israel-Palestine: The French peace initiative
Minister Laurent Fabius insists the aim is not for foreign powers to intervene directly in negotiations, but to warn of the dangers of continued stalemate
Editorial, Irish Times
June 24, 2015
The idea that the international community could help concentrate minds in Israel/Palestine by proposing its own outline framework and timeframe for a peace settlement has been around for a while. Indeed, much of the shape of what are seen as the inevitable components of a final deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state has been widely discussed as part of a broad consensus embraced privately by key figures on both side of the conflict. The problem has been how to get from here to talking about such proposals.
With peace talks stalled for over a year, France has been sounding out the possibility of relaunching the process. Foreign minister Laurent Fabius has just returned from a weekend visit to the region in which he met all sides with his own three-part initiative: a return to negotiations, the establishment of an advisory committee of states to help both sides get over the “final metres of the negotiations”, and some kind of UN Security Council resolution to anchor the process.
Fabius insists the aim is not for foreign powers to intervene directly in negotiations, but to warn of the dangers of continued stalemate. True to form, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu retorted at their joint press conference that “Peace will only come from direct negotiations of the two parties and without conditions. It will not come from UN resolutions that are sought to be imposed from the outside . . . if they [other powers] attempt to impose terms on Israel, this attempt will fail and drive peace away”. The initiative was welcomed by the Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s problem is that few believe he is serious about pursuing bilateral talks, and even US president Barack Obama has responded to recent Netanyahu preconditions for Palestinian statehood by warning they would make it hard for Washington to continue to defend Israel at the United Nations. A US willingness even to abstain on a resolution presents a potential window of opportunity. In the absence of any progress towards direct talks Fabius should certainly insist on pressing his motion at the security council.
Israel blames France for anti-Israeli approach
While Israeli leaders tend to be open to at least discussing US peace initiatives, European proposals, most recently a French effort, are perceived as anti-Israel.
By Akiva Eldar, trans. Ruti Sinai, Al Monitor / Israel Pulse
June 23, 2015
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not wait for his afternoon meeting June 21 with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to hear what his European guest had to say and to express his reservations regarding the French peace initiative. At the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting that morning, Netanyahu attacked the French “dictate.” He claimed that the initiative does not take Israel’s security needs into account and seeks to “push us into accepting indefensible borders while completely ignoring what will be on the other side of the border.” He was referring to a proposed resolution that France wishes to submit to the UN Security Council (UNSC), based on recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and 18 months of negotiations between the sides over land swaps.
The prime minister strenuously objects to any mention of the 1967 borders and refuses to set a negotiating timetable. He also protests against the French threat that if the sides fail to reach agreement during the allotted time — including an agreed-upon solution to the Palestinian refugee problem and to the dispute over Jerusalem — France will initiate an international conference and announce its recognition of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu reiterates that he is ready and willing to return to negotiations “without preconditions,” especially without an overall freeze of construction in the settlements and in East Jerusalem during the negotiations, while emphasizing that there’s no chance of a two-state solution without Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
It stands to reason that Fabius did not expect a friendly welcome for his peace initiative. Back during the strategic dialogue discussions between Israel and France held at the beginning of May, Israel’s representatives spoke out harshly. They protested in the prime minister’s name against the new initiative France was promoting “behind Israel’s back” to move the diplomatic process from direct negotiations between the sides to an international format or to the UN.
Are we really facing a new anti-Israel European initiative — one that a Republican US president would have killed at its inception? The senior Israeli diplomats complained that France was inciting other European states to label settlement products and formulating other ideas to curb the occupation policy. Was France the one that invented the struggle against the settlements? No, they were phrased in American English and sent to the UNSC by the tenant of the White House at the time, Republican President George W. Bush. It happened 12 years ago, several months after the Quartet ratified the 2002 “Performance Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” and the Security Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the US resolution to formalize the road map into UN Resolution 1515.
Among other things, the document read that negotiations would be “based on … [UN Security Council Resolutions] 242, 338 and 1397 … and on the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah — endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit” leading to creation of a “viable, sovereign Palestinian state.” An agreement would include “a just, fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide.”
The resolution also noted that along with an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Arab states would agree to full normalization of their ties with Israel and to security for all states in the region.
Security Council Resolution 1515 of 2003 did not stop at outlining the principles of the arrangement. It presented a detailed timetable for each stage of the road map. The target date for signing a permanent arrangement and regional peace was December 2005. According to the resolution, before that deadline, already in the first stage, Israel’s government was required to freeze all settlement activity (including the natural growth of the settlements) and dismantle all the outposts set up since March 2001.
The government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, of which Netanyahu was a senior member, discussed the road map and approved it with 14 reservations (none about the section requiring Israel to freeze settlements and dismantle outposts). The Security Council resolution completely ignored Israel’s reservations (including its objection to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative). Nonetheless, no one accused Bush of harming Israel’s security. No minister suggested that the United States had become anti-Zionist or anti-Israel. “Antisemitism” was not even hinted at.
Such is not the case when Europe dares raise its head against the occupation. Here, history and hysterics have always been on Israel’s side. In 1980, several months after the nine member states of the European Community declared in Venice that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination and called for an end to the Israeli occupation, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said, “One cannot distinguish between anti-Israelness or anti-Zionism and between antisemitism, which brought about disaster and disgrace on the whole of humanity. … Jews were murdered, the world was silent and the Jews did not defend themselves. The French should be reminded of this.”
Over the past year, Israeli politicians have made use of a series of terror attacks by radical Muslims in Toulouse (2012) and Paris (2015) — against Jewish targets, among others — for an emergency campaign against a supposed wave of antisemitism/anti-Zionism/anti-Israelism. According to the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, the Jews of France did not panic, responding sparingly to the call to flee to Israel. In the first five months of this year, there was a 19% drop in the number of immigrants from France compared with the same period last year. Israeli spokespersons on the right and the centre portray the predominantly European boycott, divestment and sanctions phenomenon as antisemitism in the guise of objection to the occupation, and say the boycott on settlement products is being done to curry favour with the Muslim electorate. A series of reports by Channel 10 News correspondent Zvi Yehezkeli (“Muslims in Europe”) created the impression among many Israelis that a significant portion, if not most, of Europe’s Muslim residents are active or potential terrorists. Yet, the Israeli audience did not hear enough about dozens of Muslim families who requested the help of the French government in rescuing their young family members who had been enticed into joining the ranks of the Islamic State.
Israel expects France, like the other European states, to adopt the passive and polite approach of the Germans, whose conduct toward Israel is hobbled by the long shadow of past guilt. This approach was recently reflected in Cologne, with the cancellation (following intervention by the Israeli Embassy) of an exhibition put on by the Israeli nongovernmental organization Breaking the Silence, which displays the heavy damage inflicted by the occupation on Israeli society. It is that very society that is gradually losing the holy democratic trinity of freedom, equality and fraternity.
Laurent Fabius measures it one way, President Mahmoud Abbas another in the West Bank city of Ramallah June 21, 2015. Photo by Thomas Coex / Reuters / Pool
Netanyahu rejects world ‘dictates’ in snub to Paris
By Gulf Times / agencies
June 21, 2015
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday rejected “international dictates” as France’s top diplomat visited, with Paris advocating a UN resolution laying out parameters for peace talks.
With negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians stalled for more than a year, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu yesterday.
The separate meetings in Ramallah and Jerusalem were part of a regional tour by Fabius aimed at reviving peace talks.
France has argued in favour of a UN resolution that would guide negotiations leading to an independent Palestinian state and which could include a timeframe for talks.
Ahead of Fabius’s arrival in Jerusalem, Netanyahu hit out at international diplomatic efforts to impose proposals which he said neglected to address vital Israeli security concerns, saying his government would reject “international dictates”.
In a joint news conference with Fabius after their meeting, Netanyahu said “peace will only come from direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions”.
“It will not come from UN resolutions that are sought to be imposed from the outside,” he said.
Netanyahu said a Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state as well as “iron-clad security arrangements on the ground in which Israel can defend itself” were requirements for peace.
Fabius sought to respond to such concerns, saying negotiations would ultimately be left to the Israelis and Palestinians, but that it did not prevent international support in the process.
“We must both guarantee Israel’s security and at the same time give Palestinians the right to have a state,” Fabius told journalists earlier at a joint news conference with Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki in Ramallah.
Malki welcomed France’s efforts, but said he doubted a deal was possible with the current right-wing Israeli government, which he labelled “extremist”.
In a meeting with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, Fabius stressed that “no one can replace either side” in the bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But international involvement was needed, “especially for the last steps (toward an agreement,) which are often the most difficult”.
He said France would strive for a formulation that would be acceptable to all sides, because it had “no interest in proposing resolutions at the Security Council if they are bound to fail or vetoed”.
“Any initiative which helps them to bypass direct negotiations with us … and refer instead to international institutions is certainly a danger,” warned Rivlin.
In Cairo on Saturday, Fabius warned that continued Israeli settlement building on land the Palestinians want for a future state would damage chances of a final deal.
Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been comatose since a major US push for a final deal ended in failure in April 2014.
Israel says the process failed because the Palestinians refused to accept a US framework document outlining the way forward.
But the Palestinians blame the collapse on Israel’s settlement building and the government’s refusal to release veteran prisoners.
The relationship between the two sides remains severely strained, prompting the Palestinians to boost efforts on the international stage to seek their promised state.
Such efforts have included a push to open criminal proceedings against Israel before the International Criminal Court.
The United States has consistently defended Israel before the UN Security Council, and any French resolution must be accepted by Washington to avoid a veto.
President Barack Obama’s administration, however, has signalled that it could be swayed given Netanyahu’s recent comments regarding a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu sparked international concern when he ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state while campaigning for the March 17 general election, though he later backtracked.
UK, France call for Israeli-Palestinian UN deal, resolution being drafted
By RT
April 22, 2015
Britain and France are urging the UN Security Council to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, while New Zealand has begun drafting a resolution on the issue. This was prompted by the US saying it may “reassess” its position on the stalled talks.
France and New Zealand have stressed that it is imperative to act now, given that the Israeli elections are over and there is a current lull in the US before the presidential election campaign heats up.
Jim McLay, New Zealand’s UN ambassador
“We have been working on a text that might serve the purpose of getting negotiations started,” said New Zealand’s UN Ambassador Jim McLay, adding that the country is ready to wait and see how the French initiative for a resolution will turn out.
France announced last month that it wanted to begin talks about drafting “parameters” for ending the conflict in the Middle East, with the hopes of bringing the US onboard, which has repeatedly sided with Israel in the past.
“It’s the responsibility of this council to adopt a consensual and balanced resolution that sets the parameters of a final status and a timeline for the negotiations,” French UN Ambassador Francois Delattre said at a Security Council meeting.
The timing of the initiative is due to the US stating that it might “reassess” its Middle Eastern policies after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly said he was against Palestinian statehood during elections last month.
The Palestinians are seeking an independent state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They also want to reclaim sovereignty of the lands captured by Israel in 1967.
The UK’s UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant
The UK has expressed support for “setting out the parameters for a peaceful and negotiated solution,” according to Britain’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant. “But this will require proper consultation to achieve the full backing of the council,” he added.
The US voted “No” to a Palestinian-drafted resolution in December, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and the establishment of the Palestinian state by the end of 2017.
Even though the timing of these calls have been praised due to possible American diplomacy shift, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released at the end of March showed American support for a two-state solution in the Middle East is at a 20-year low.
Israeli and American representatives also ended up missing the UN Human Rights Council session on the Palestinian territories on Monday, which was dedicated to looking at the Gaza conflict that killed 2,200 people in 50 days in 2014.
A copy of France’s resolution to the UNSC in English is hard to find. Here is Ha’aretz’s summary of the resolution published in Le Figaro (protected by pay-wall)
According to Le Figaro, the draft resolution, which is being promoted by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and their conclusion in a permanent agreement within 18 months.
If no agreement is reached in the allotted time, France will recognize the Palestinian state, according to Le Figaro.
The draft has been circulated by the French Foreign Ministry to the Arab League and UN Security Council members such as Britain and Spain.
Fabius set the relatively short deadline due to the ongoing deterioration of conditions in the West Bank. Another reason is the desire to complete the negotiations before the end of President Francois Hollande’s term in 2017.
The proposed French resolution will only be tabled after the June 30 deadline set for the nuclear negotiations with Iran. The intention is to bring it to a vote in the Security Council during the General Assembly session in New York in September.
It calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state “based on the June 4, 1967 lines, with mutually agreed and equal land swaps.”
It also calls for the positioning of Israel’s security requirements “at the centre of the peace talks.”
According to the report, the French draft provides for the establishment a system that “guarantees the security of both Israel and the Palestinians, with effective oversight over borders, and prevents the reappearance of terror and the smuggling of munitions.”
The draft resolution also requires that security arrangements respect “the sovereignty of the demilitarized Palestinian state, including the complete, though phased, withdrawal of the Israeli army during a transitional stage, the length of which will be agreed between the parties.”
The French text includes a call for “a just solution, that is balanced and realistic regarding the Palestinian refugees,” emphasizing that it will have to be based on a mechanism to compensate the refugees.
It also establishes that Jerusalem will be the capital of both states, according to the report, In reference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, it says that the agreement will embody “the principle of two states for two nations.”
Resolution from Jordan to UNSC
UN Press release, December 30th, 2014
Resolution in Security Council to Impose 12-Month Deadline on Negotiated Solution to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Unable to Secure Nine Votes Needed for Adoption
7354th Meeting (PM)SECURITY COUNCIL
The Security Council today failed to adopt a draft resolution calling for Israel, within three years, to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 and, within one year, for the parties to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict.
The long-anticipated draft drew the support of just eight countries —Argentina, Chad, Chile, China, France, Jordan, Luxembourg, Russian Federation — shy of the 9 required for its adoption. It outlined a solution which fulfilled 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 in mutually and internationally recognized borders.
The text also envisaged a “just solution” to the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States and to the question of Palestinian refugees as well as to all other outstanding issues, including control of water resources and the fate of prisoners in Israeli jails. Security arrangements for the transition would have required a “third-party presence”.
Five Council members had abstained in the vote — United Kingdom, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Rwanda and Lithuania, while two opposed it — the United States and Australia.
Explaining her vote, the delegate from the United States called the text a unilateral action that would not help to bring about resumed direct negotiations, a goal her country had made strenuous efforts to achieve. The text sought to impose a solution put forward by one party alone and set the stage for more division, not compromise. She agreed the status quo was unsustainable and pledged her country’s continued support to the parties, while opposing actions that were detrimental to peace, whether settlement activities or unilateral resolutions.
Jordan’s representative, on the other hand, said that all elements of the resolution were based on previous texts supported by the Council and were acceptable to the international community as a whole. She had submitted the draft on behalf of the Arab Group because it was critical that the Council act on legitimate Palestinian aspirations that had been made less attainable by Israeli practices. Stressing that the status quo was unacceptable, she pledged her country’s continued efforts to help bring about a just and lasting solution.
Following those explanations, the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine asked why it was so impossible for the Council to act, given the worldwide consensus on the need to bring about self-determination for Palestinians through peaceful means. Given the rejection, the Palestinian leadership would now have to consider its next steps to make peace a reality. He reiterated the need, as part of that effort, to bring Israel to account for its illegal practices.
The representative of Israel said the Palestinians had found every opportunity to avoid direct negotiations with his country, including the “preposterous” unilateral resolution. He said it was time for the Palestinians to end their “folly”.
Also explaining their votes were the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, as well as representatives of Luxembourg, United Kingdom, France, Russian Federation, Australia, Chile, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, China, Rwanda, Lithuania, Argentina and Chad.
From FCO, April 21st, 2015
EXTRACT
Mr President, Let me turn to the Middle East Peace Process. We all know that the only way to resolve this sixty year old conflict is through a negotiated two state solution. We must have renewed international efforts to support progress and to start serious negotiations towards a deal. The parties themselves must also resume negotiations to reach a durable ceasefire in Gaza and tackle the underlying causes of the conflict. The Palestinians need to take concrete steps towards moving the Palestinian Authority back to Gaza, starting with border crossings. Israel must support Gaza with exports, energy and water. Egypt needs to resume its mediation role and show flexibility in opening Rafah. And donors need to deliver on their pledges as soon as possible. The regional turmoil we are witnessing only reinforces the importance of resolving the Israel Palestine conflict. Both parties must think seriously about how they can work together to improve the reality on the ground. It is clear that compromises by both parties are needed. Israel must stop its illegal, and totally unnecessary, settlement building, which seems designed to undermine a two state solution. Instead they should be easing economic conditions on the ground and removing barriers to Palestinian development. Furthermore, while the Palestinians seek legal international routes to statehood, they must realise that there can be no substitute for negotiations with Israel. The United Kingdom sees merit in this Council adopting a clear resolution setting out the parameters for a peaceful and negotiated solution. But this will require proper consultation to achieve the full backing of the Council.
UN press release, November 19th, 2003