Security Council supports two-state solution – blasts settlements, not Israel

0

Given the importance of recent developments, the next six reports and analyses re UNSCR 2334, Kerry’s speech and Russia have been added to this post on 29.12.16

Further re UNSCR 2334,  Kerry’s speech and Russia

Actually, this UN resolution is much better than 71 others the US allowed to pass – J. J. Goldberg – The Forward 28.12.16
For the most part, UNSCR 2334 simply restates positions the Council adopted years ago. [But] as near as I can find, it is the first hostile resolution in which virtually every one of Israel’s major objections is a half-truth, distortion or demonstrably false

Why did Obama let the UN criticise Israel? Because it was the last chance to act sane – Jay Michaelson – The Daily Beast 28.12.16
The big winners in the Trump administration will be Israel’s far right and the BDS movement. The UN vote is the last gasp of consensus reality.

The last act of Obama’s Israel drama may be his best – David Rothkopf – Foreign Policy 28.12.16
Despite their momentary ascendancy, Bibi, Trump and Putin are yesterday’s men.

Is Netanyahu sacrificing Israel on his crusade against Obama? – Ben Caspit – Al-Monitor 27.12.16
Netanyahu knows that Israel will pay, diplomatically and politically, for its over-the-top response to the anti-settlement UN Security Council resolution, but it seems he doesn’t care.

Kerry’s peace principles: Jerusalem would be capital of two states – Barak Ravid – Haaretz 28.12.16
In speech strongly critical of Israeli government, Kerry warns against a one-state reality and lays out principles of future peace agreement. Includes video [1:14:04] of full speech and link to transcript. Netanyahu’s office: speech biased against Israel.

Russia reportedly rejects Kerry request to adopt his Mideast peace framework -Raoul Wootliff – The Times of Israel 28.12.16
Lavrov urges direct talks, warns outgoing administration against ‘bringing US domestic agenda into work of Quartet’

US Ambassador to the UN: ‘One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.’

Analysis – understanding the resolution

On 23 December 2016, the 15-member Security Council reaffirmed the international consensus on settlements by passing resolution 2334 by 14 votes in favour, none against, and with the US abstaining for these reasons. The resolution also condemns terrorism and incitement, recognises that the final border will be determined through bilateral negotiations and will not be imposed, and reiterates the ‘vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders’. Netanyahu, Trump and some Jewish organisations actively tried to prevent the resolution coming to a vote and urged a US veto if it did. Many others regard it as a step in the long-term best interests of Israel and a two-state solution.

What’s new and what’s not in the UN resolution on Israeli settlements – Natan Sachs – The Brookings Institution 26.12.16
The US abstention wasn’t new, but two things about the resolution were.

It’s the settlements, stupid: Security Council failure is entirely Netanyahu’s – Barak Ravid – Haaretz 25.12.16
The US warned Netanyahu for eight years that his policy would have a price, but he preferred pacifying the settler lobby instead of making a plan of action. He has only himself to blame.

UNSC resolution: World placing price tag on settlements – Dr Avner Inbar – Molad: the Center for Renewal of Israeli Democracy Dec 2016
The UN Security Council’s resolution is a direct response to right-wing policies in the Occupied Territories, which have placed Israel on a collision course with the world. We need responsible leaders who understand that the military occupation and settlements cannot continue without repercussions. Netanyahu can try all he might to spin the resolution as ‘anti-Israeli’ – an effort in which he is sadly being aided by the opposition – but the fact is that not a single word in the resolution undermines the legitimacy of the State of Israel. In fact, as public opinion polls from recent years show, most Israelis would sign off on most, if not all, sections of it.

Understanding the UN Resolution on Israeli settlements: what are the immediate ramifications?
– Barak Ravid – Haaretz 24.12.16
In the medium-to-long-term the resolution may have serious ramifications for Israel in general and specifically for the settlement enterprise.

That ‘shameful’ UN resolution actually blasts the settlements – not Israel
– J.J. Goldberg – The Forward 23.12.16

Re reactions of the Netanyahu government and Israeli right

Netanyahu goes to war with the world – David Horovitz – The Times of Israel 26.12.16
Netanyahu’s tactics were a mess, and he now seems to be deepening the damage.

UN punctures Netanyahu’s theory that settlements are a non-issue
– Ralph Ahren – The Times of Israel 25.12.16
As Netanyahu continues to hail Israel’s improving foreign relations, the crushing defeat at the Security Council reveals a less-rosy picture.

UNSCR 2334: A disservice to the cause of peace
– Col. (res.) Dr Eran Lerman – Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies 26.12.16
‘In four respects, UNSCR 2334 undermines the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace and threatens what little regional stability is left.’

In wake of UN measure, hundreds of East Jerusalem homes set to be okayed
– The Times of Israel 26.12.16
618 housing units in capital reportedly expected to be green-lighted for construction, while another 5,600 will be considered.

What next?

Israel fears diplomatic whirlwind in Obama¹s final days – Barak Ravid – The Forward 26.12.16
Israel fears that the United States and France want to advance another move on the Israeli-Palestinian issue before President Obama leaves office on January 20.

 

Share.

About Author

Panel Picks

Comments are closed.