Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Monday, 16 January 2017

David Singer: Paris Buries Palestine and UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

72 States and Organizations meeting in Paris on 15 January have repudiated Security Council Resolution 2334 (“UNSCR 2334”)  just – three weeks after it was passed on 23 December 2016.

UNSCR 2334 had reiterated the Security Council’s
“vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”
The final Paris communique dumped this “two democratic states solution” by reaffirming:
“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace”.
The word “democratic” was in fact omitted in the Paris communique in nine places – signalling that Paris did not accept the definitive terms of the “two-state solution” proposed by the Security Council.

The Paris communique deliberately sought to mislead and deceive what UNSCR 2334 had actually stated – declaring the participants:
“welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which … called on both sides to take steps to advance the two state solution on the ground;"
– blatantly failing to identify that it was the “two democratic states solution” that was envisioned in UNSCR 2334.

Paris went even further in attempting to gloss over the obligation for any Palestinian State to be democratic – the communique noting:
“the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation”.
No mention about addressing the absence of democracy in Gaza – where Hamas has denied the Arab population any elections for the last 10 years.

Paris omitted any reference to the only framework within which Israel and the PLO have been negotiating during the last 13 years – the 2003 Bush Roadmap – which clearly states:
“A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”
The Paris communique:
“called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016”.
However one Quartet recommendation states:
“Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.”
Kerry mentioned “two-state solution” 29 times but never once uttered the word “democratic”.

Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future.

Paris has managed to bury the “two democratic states solution” in just 24 hours.

The Roadmap and UNSCR 2334 have received the last rites.

Perhaps the Security Council and the Paris participants should now consider the “two-state solution” first envisaged in 1922:
One Jewish State – Israel – and one Arab State – Jordan – in the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.
This territorial subdivision has already happened in 95 per cent of the Mandate territory. It can happen very quickly in the remaining 5 per cent.

In fact it only involves redrawing the existing international boundary between Israel and Jordan – two states already living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.

Simple and achievable.

37 comments:

  1. David,

    I don't understand your hang-up with the word 'Democratic' being included in the Paris Communique or in any document regarding an Arab "Palestinian" state.

    Firstly, based on its Declaration of Independence ("DOI"), Israel is NOT a Democracy and the word 'Democracy' is never mentioned in the DOI. It is defined as and is a "Jewish State in the Land of Israel". Even if not in a Halachic sense (it should be), it still is a Jewish State.

    Further, the two Basic Laws which call Israel a "Jewish & Democratic" state are ambiguous at best. In fact, tere is no way to call Israel a purely democratic state (whatever that is) given the Jewish right of return, the Flag, the Anthem, etc.

    Nor should it be a Democracy. Instead, it must be a Jewish state, which gives preeminence to Jewish Civil Law from the Torah. Both Jabotinsky and Begin, neither of whom were 'religious', would have agreed with this point of view.

    Secondly, a democracy technically is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly. In effect, it is a tyranny of the majority. In fact, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

    3. Finally, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey (to name a few Arab states) officially are democracies. However, in practice they are far from it or anything close.

    To me the inclusion or exclusion of the term 'democracy' in regard to a potential Arab "Palestinian" state is irrelevant.

    What matters is where the lines are drawn and on whose terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noah
      To you the inclusion or exclusion of the term "democracy" in regard to a potential "Palestinian" state may be irrelevant.

      Your view is not shared by the Bush Roadmap,the Quartet and by the Security Council.

      In my humble assessment it is your view that is irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. David.

      Let me rephrase.

      Frankly, the Bush Roadmap, the Quartet (especially the UN & EU) and the UN itself are dead.

      They have had no relevance for many years.

      If a "Palestine" is created, it will be at the behest of Israel which will not commit suicide no matter how many products the EU boycotts nor how liberal a new PM may be (luckily, the populace has been moving right anyway).

      So, let me rephrase my question.

      What will calling a future Arab "Palestine" 'Democratic' do to help Israel?

      Delete
    3. At the end of the day, international law, roadmaps, Quartets are fine and dandy, but might makes right.

      Delete
    4. You must suffer from an inability to comprehend what I write.

      I repeat for your information:
      "Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future."

      Negotiating with such an entity might or might not resolve the conflict.

      But that is the end result that must occur as laid down by the Roadmap, the Quartet and the UN Security Council - "two democratic states living side by side"

      In the light of Resolution 2334 and the decisions at the Paris Conference it is in my view important for Israel to now not continue any negotiations to create a second Arab state in the Mandate territory in addition to Jordan - other than with an entity that is democratically elected and actually functioning in Areas "A" and "B" and Gaza.

      "Might not right" will not resolve the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

      Negotiations if successfully concluded can achieve that objective.

      My view is that Jordan and Israel in direct negotiations can achieve that objective in a matter of months.

      What have the Jews and Arabs and the the world got to lose if I am wrong? The current status quo remains unaltered. Back to where we are today.

      What have the Jews and the Arabs and the world got to gain if I am right? An end to a conflict which has defied resolution for 100 years.

      Delete
    5. David.

      In response to various parts of your reply:

      1. "What have the Jews and Arabs and the the world got to lose if I am wrong?"

      WE have a lot to lose!

      We had 2 major Intifada, hundreds of terrorist attacks, daily rock throwing, etc. as a result of Oslo, and numerous Gaza wars as a result of our concession, both of which were a failed attempts to negotiate with people who will NEVER accept our presence in Israel, at least not unless we are dhimmy's to them.


      2. "Negotiating with such an entity might or might not resolve the conflict."

      It will NOT. It has been long enough to understand that they will never end the conflict through negotiations. It will only be ended through strength, not conceding land.

      How much longer should we try? How many more concessions should we make?

      3. "Israel should now not fall into the trap of negotiating with any entity less than one already democratically elected and functioning in Areas “A” and “B” of the West Bank and Gaza – nor rely on any promises of democracy emerging there in the future."

      AND

      "My view is that Jordan and Israel in direct negotiations can achieve that objective in a matter of months".

      On the one hand, you say no negotiation with non-democratic entity regarding Areas A&B (I assume you are referring to the Pali), but then you say we should negotiate A&B w/ Jordan, which is a Kingdom and is NOT democratic.

      Israel should determine its borders as it deems necessary for security andother considerations. However, we must keep most of our ancestral homeland in J&S.

      We should give Jordan minimally enough to get it to agree to keep these terrorists.

      Delete
    6. * In my fist response above, I left out other things we have to lose from more failed negotiations, including international de-legitimization, BDS, etc....

      Delete
    7. In response to your comments - using your numbered paragraphs:

      1. Israel has a lot more to lose if it does not grab any opportunity to negotiate with Jordan and try to end the conflict - precisely the same things as enumerated by you and more.

      2. Maybe those negotiations will fail. If the opportunity ever arose then it would be folly for Israel to reject it.

      3. There is a big difference negotiating with a non-democratic Jordan and a non-democratic PLO. Israel has had a signed peace treaty with Jordan since 1994 and an internationally recognised border separating them.

      The PLO is an organisation whose Charter calls for the elimination of Israel and further declares that everything done since the Balfour Declaration (including the creation of Jordan) is deemed null and void.

      The PLO has been negotiating with Israel over a period of 23 years and has blown its opportunity to come to some negotiated agreement.

      Because of recent developments including Security Council Resolution 2334 and the Paris Conference any further negotiations with the PLO are dead in the water.

      That means Israel needs a new Arab negotiating partner - either a democratic entity functioning in Araes "A" and "B" and Gaza or Jordan.

      How much of our ancestral homeland is retained in any negotiations with Jordan will be determined by the negotiating teams - not you or I.

      Delete
    8. David,

      Your points 1 & 3.

      1. "Israel has a lot more to lose if it does not grab any opportunity to negotiate with Jordan and try to end the conflict - precisely the same things as enumerated by you and more".

      My point 1, refers to negotiations that have occurred with the Palestinian "Arabs" not Jordan.

      As I said, we should negotiate with Jordan for it to take the terrorists who call themselves Palestinians.

      However, negotiating with the Arab "Palestinians" has resulted only in Jewish bloodshed and international isolation.

      3. "There is a big difference in negotiating with a non-democratic Jordan and a non-democratic PLO. Israel has had a signed peace treaty with Jordan since 1994 and an internationally recognised border separating them.

      The PLO is an organization whose Charter calls for the elimination of Israel and further declares that everything done since the Balfour Declaration (including the creation of Jordan) is deemed null and void".

      I don't understand your point here.

      Jordan attacked us 3 times before we made peace and it desecrated Jewish Jerusalem. However, we made peace with it. Prior to making peace with Jordan, it too did not accept our existence.

      So, I don't understand your comparison of Jordan to the Arab "Palestinians", who today do not accept our existence as Jordan did not prior to the treaty.

      Your reply actually supports my point, which is that whether or not we negotiate with a "Democracy" or not is irrelevant.

      What matters is our counterparties willingness to make peace with us.

      We destroyed Jordan by force, so it had no choice but to make peace.

      On the other hand, we have failed to inspire the Arab "Palestinians" to make peace b/c we have continued to make too many concessions instead of using force as we did with Jordan.

      Delete
    9. Sorry - but if you cannot understand the difference between negotiating with someone you already have a signed peace agreement with and someone you do not have a signed peace agreement with - then there is no point in continuing any further dialogue with you.

      Delete
    10. I am advocating NO negotiations. Instead, unilateral action.

      However, WE negotiated with Jordan after 3 wars in which they aimed to destroy us and it was not a democracy both then as it isn't now .

      If we were to negotiate with the PA, how would that be any different than previous negotiations with Jordan which at the time was not a democracy?

      Delete
    11. ** You would suggest Israel only deal with democracies?

      So, you would have been against the following previous negotiations which led to peace because they were with non-democracies?

      1. Treaty with Egypt
      2. Treaty with Jordan

      You seem to be tied up in circles....

      Delete
    12. Are you really incapable of working out the answer to your inane question?

      I repeat my answer again:

      Sorry - but if you cannot understand the difference between negotiating with someone you already have a signed peace agreement with and someone you do not have a signed peace agreement with - then there is no point in continuing any further dialogue with you.

      Delete
    13. We negotiated with Jordan and Egypt before we had a Peace Treaty and both were not democracies......

      Delete
    14. There is a big difference negotiating with a non-democratic Jordan and a non-democratic PLO. Israel has had a signed peace treaty with Jordan since 1994 and an internationally recognised border separating them.

      The PLO is an organisation whose Charter calls for the elimination of Israel and further declares that everything done since the Balfour Declaration (including the creation of Jordan) is deemed null and void.

      The PLO has been negotiating with Israel over a period of 23 years and has blown its opportunity to come to some negotiated agreement.

      Because of recent developments including Security Council Resolution 2334 and the Paris Conference any further negotiations with the PLO are dead in the water.

      That means Israel needs a new Arab negotiating partner - either a democratic entity functioning in Areas "A" and "B" and Gaza or Jordan.

      Delete
    15. However, I suggest no negotiations or minimal negotiations.

      I suggest unilateral action.

      Any negotiations with Jordan, etc. are to be ultimatums (e.g. accept this or not).

      Delete
    16. David,

      The difference between negotiating with Jordan and Egypt and the PLO is that we brought the former 2 parties to the negotiating table by force.

      That's why there is a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt / Jordan.

      Delete
    17. David,

      As a lawyer, surely you understand that to compromise is to admit guilt.

      That is why the PLO will not compromise. It is why negotiations have always been doomed to fail and it is why only force will end the conflict.

      Delete
    18. As Caroline Glick said (and with which I fully agree):

      Under trump, "Israel is now obliged to take the lead and abandon the PLO-friendly two-state policy, which blames Israel for Palestinian terrorism, and adopt a strategy that works in its place".

      Delete
    19. You agree with Caroline Glick - excellent.

      Why don't you agree with me when I state:
      "Because of recent developments including Security Council Resolution 2334 and the Paris Conference any further negotiations with the PLO are dead in the water.

      That means Israel needs a new Arab negotiating partner - either a democratic entity functioning in Areas "A" and "B" and Gaza or Jordan."

      Why charge in with your "might is right" approach without giving Israel-Jordan negotiations a try? In my assessment those negotiations could be completed in three months.

      Drawing a new line in the sand doesn't take too much imagination.

      Delete
    20. Because Glick says the 2-state solution is dead.

      She doesn't say what you state, which is that Israel should find a "new Arab negotiating partner - either a democratic entity functioning in Areas "A" and "B" and Gaza or Jordan" to create an Arab "Palestinian" terrorist strate on our land.

      Having read her book, I know she advocates for full annexation and Israeli uniulateral action.

      Delete
    21. I agree with her. We should not create a new PLO terrorist state, no matter if its calls itself a 'Democracy' or not.

      As I have been saying, I believe Israel should annex what it wants and give Jordan control of the left over land which would be home to the Arab "Palestinian" terrorists currently living in J&S.

      Delete
    22. Your proposal will only exacerbate the conflict - not end it.

      All efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict - must be made before the drastic action you suggest is taken as a last resort.

      Negotiations between Jordan and Israel remains unexplored and first need to be proposed and attempted.

      Delete
    23. David,

      With all do respect, 40 years of the 2-state solution (from Oslo to the Roadmap to Obama & Kerry, etc.) have only led to:

      1. Israeli bloodshed
      2. International condemnation (e.g. most recently UNSC Res. 2334 & John Kerry)
      3. Anti-Jewish indoctrination of "Arab" Pali
      4. Decline in Arab "Palestinian" quality of life, education, wealth, infant mortality, etc.

      By giving more and more concessions and demonstrating our willingness to surrender what is ours (e.g. Gaza, settlement freeze under Obama/Clinton, etc.), we indicate a lack of resolve or give the impression Israel is not our. After all, what other country would surrender its land to which it is rightful owner (and no other people on the planet have as legitimate a claim to their territory do we)?

      In fact, it is us who perpetuates the conflict. By constantly conceding, WE give the Arabs hope that eventually we will concede all of it.

      I agree with you and have stated above, that I would like a final settlement (no pun intended) of the conflict to involve Jordan.

      However, like Caroline Glick, I strongly oppose another independent Iranian sponsored, terrorist state for the PLO, Hamas and whoever else may take over after its creation (e.g. ISIS).

      Also, we must dictate borders with Jordan (or without it if necessary)as required for our security.

      Finally, I would ask you how much longer do we negotiate with people whose ultimate objective is not peace but our elimination?

      How much more of OUR land do you recommend WE concede?

      Delete
    24. *Correction to #1 above.
      JEWISH bloodshed

      Delete
    25. David,

      Ehud Olmert in 2008, made a ridiculously generous and dangerous offer to the PLO and it was rejected.

      What more can we offer?

      Delete
  2. All this is trying to do is uninvent Israel by erasing the past 70 years of actual history. There are no 'do-overs', sorry. Partition happened. Wars happened. And this is what happens over the long course of history. The idea that some French officials in some cartography room can wave a pointer over a map to re-de-colonialize the Levant is either retarded or insane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironic indeed since it was French officials in some cartography room in 1922 that created the right for the Jewish people to reconsitute the Jewish National Home in 22% of Palestine.

      Today they are trying to undo that decision.

      You wouldn't want to bank on France keeping its promises after its gross betrayal of that 1922 cartographic subdivision at the 2017 Paris Conference.

      Delete
  3. David, Good post, thank you. If only the world would remember the obligations it made to the Jewish people in 1922. That IS the two-state solution.

    Noah, David Singer correct. The point you are trying to make (if there is one) is being lost by your churlish pedantry.

    Israel is democratic by any common understanding of what "democratic" means. In keeping with the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the Declaration of Independence, Israel guarantees equal *civil* and *religious* (freedom to practice, or not, as one chooses) to all its citizens.

    By contrast, as Singer points out, the Palestinian Authority is not democratic (Abbas is now in his 13th year of a 4-year term; the last parliamentary elections took place 11 years ago)---rather, it is a thuggish kleptocracy, like much of the rest of the Arab world. Hamas is also not democratic---rather, it is a kleptocratic, brutal, religious dictatorship.

    Singer's point---and it is an important one, in my view---is that the vaunted international community support for a "democratic" two-state is evanescent. It's like the Cheshire Cat's smile.

    We would all get one step closer to peace if the international community would be brutally, publicly honest about what the PA and Hamas actually *are*, and tell them and the rest of the world that they are not going to get a state for themselves until and unless they both change their (non-democratic) ways and recognize the right of the *Jewish* State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Splendid comment Borhani.

      How come you see it so clearly whilst Noah F struggles to comprehend?

      Delete
    2. I think it depends on your viewpoint. Like you (I gather from your many posts), I see significant value is Israel trying to do this the "right" ("righteous") way—but not at the cost of self-destruction as a State or as a people.

      Noah F, I think, doesn't appreciate the point of all this bother—just push the Arabs out with all Uzis blazing!!

      Where you and I may differ, David, is on Judea & Samaria. I think it is now (long past) time for Israel to exert its full legal (and historical) sovereignty over all those lands. (But not Gaza; that would be pointless.) The Arabs of Palestine have (had) Jordan for 95 years now. It IS their piece of Palestine. Some Arabs in Judea & Samaria may want to move to Jordan (or Gaza); some may want to stay as (peaceful, else they're deported!) non-citizen residents; and some (few, I would venture, at least at first) may seek Israeli citizenship.

      Delete
    3. I appreciate your viewpoint but that was not the viewpoint of Israeli Governments in 2000/2001 and 2008 when more than 90% of Judea and Samaria was offered to the PLO for a second Arab State in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - and rejected by the PLO.

      Given what has transpired since in the region that kind of territorial subdivision between Jordan and Israel would not probably occur.

      However - you need to be realistic. Israel annexing all of Judea and Samaria will not resolve the conflict - only ensure its continuance.

      Delete
    4. Borhani,

      I am very familiar with Israel's founding documents that you so easily regurgitate to attempt to make a point that doesn't exist.

      You are conflating the protection of minority rights with Democracy or majority rule.

      For example, a constitutional monarchy can protect minority rights through a constitution in the same manner as does the USA, which is a modern republic.

      Specifically, a Jewish state does not negatively affect the rights of its minority citizens to participate in the democratic process.

      Expressions of Jewish national identity that are essential to a Jewish state, such as the flag, national anthem, holidays, right of return etc., do not affect the ability of minorities to participate in the political process nor does it affect their minority rights.

      It is you who is losing sight of the point. It doesn't matter if the PA is 'Democratic', however you may define it.

      What is important is our security and thus where Israel draws its borders, irrespective of the international community.

      Delete
    5. [RE-POST / UPDATE]

      Borthani,

      I am very familiar with Israel's founding documents which you so easily regurgitate while conflating the protection of minority rights with Democracy or majority rule.

      For example, a constitutional monarchy can via a constitution protect minority rights in the same manner as does the USA, which is a modern Republic.

      I am advocating for a state whose essence is to be an expression of Jewish nationhood on its land, which has chosen to accomplish this through some form of democracy (e.g. parliamentary).

      As such, the expressions of national identity that are essential to a Jewish state, such as the flag, national anthem, holidays, right of return for Jews, etc. do not affect the participation of minorities in the democratic process nor do they violate any basic human rights.

      However, you ignore my main point. Whatever the form of government, it must subordinate the universalist tenancies which have become part of the Jewish DNA for particularism (recently a good article on this in Israpunditl). Israel must seek to protect itself, its Jewish character and its Jewish population above all else.

      That implies maintaining secure and defensible borders which have been unobtainable via negotiation for nearly 100 years.

      Thus, the time has come to act unilaterally to ensure our survival.

      Delete
  4. Unilateral action, ensure our survival: Yes, I agree, Israel should take a bit more initiative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David,

    On a separate note, if Abbas refused the insanely generous and dangerous Ehud Olmerts offer in 2008, is there any offer the Arabs would accept?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Offering something to Jordan rather than the PLO could see such offer being accepted by Jordan. If not accepted by Jordan - the Arabs will have missed yet another opportunity that will probably not come round again.

      Delete