By Daphne Anson
Here’s the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.
Seventy countries flocking to Paris on January 15 seem set to challenge Security Council Resolution 2334 before the ink has hardly dried.
America’s House of Representatives voting 342:80 has already declared that it:
“opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and will work to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship, and calls for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that –
(A) it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel; and
(B) it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.”
Now the Paris Conference seems set to blindside the Security Council’s vision expressed in the preamble to Resolution 2334:
“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”
Four indicators point to this Security Council “two democratic states solution” being deliberately abandoned at the Paris Conference:
1. A statement by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on 28 December 2016 welcomed:
“.. John Kerry’s clear, courageous, and engaged speech in support of peace in the Middle East and the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security.
France shares the US Secretary of State’s conviction that it is necessary and urgent to implement the two-state solution.”
Kerry’s speech mentioned “two states” 29 times without stipulating they must be “democratic”.
The Foreign Minister’s above statement does likewise twice.
2. An updated draft of the Paris Conference’s summary statement obtained in advance by Haaretz – indicates that the conference decisions are already a done deal before one glass of champagne or a canape have been enjoyed by the delegates and their entourages.
This summary statement mentions the term “two-state solution” eight times without highlighting they be “democratic” once.
3. The summary statement (Paragraph III) says that looking ahead the conference participants:
“expect both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and to disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”
This statement is the very antithesis of democracy – seeking to shame duly elected politicians from freely expressing their ideas and thoughts.
Paul Waldman asks what is the point of the “disavowal ritual” and answers as follows:
“its real purpose is to define the boundaries of the acceptable, both within each party and in politics as a whole. When someone gets disavowed, we all know that to be associated with them will lead to shame and reproach. That person and what they represent, it has been made clear, is out of bounds.”
Disavowal might appeal to those seven UN Security Council member-States that are not democracies and repress free speech – China, Russia, Angola, Egypt, Malaysia, Ukraine and Venezuela.
However the other eight democratic member-states on the Security Council – France, United Kingdom, America, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain and Uruguay should be appalled.
Demanding two democratic States envisioned by Security Council Resolution 2334 – and the disavowal of official voices on both sides that reject the Security Council’s solution – will not be embraced at this Conference.
4. Not one word in the summary statement says how and when democracy will be achieved and maintained in the “State of Palestine”.
The “two-state solution” does not necessarily require:
a) Mahmoud Abbas to terminate the thirteenth year of his four-year presidential term,
b) Gazan and West Bank Arabs being given the vote for the first time since 2006 and
c) two non-elected governing authorities making way for one elected Government.
Paris promises the sudden death of Resolution 2334 with the burial of the Security Council’s “two democratic states solution”.