January 4, 2017
How U.N. Resolution 2334 represents a sharp break in U.S.-Israel policy—despite John Kerry’s empty protestations
Dear Friend of FLAME:
Welcome to 2017—and one of the most tumultuous and unsettling times in a decade for Israel supporters.
First, let me thank the thousands of FLAME members who stepped forward over the last several weeks to make donations toward the support of Israel—in the world and in the media. FLAME’s hasbarah initiatives to defend and serve Israel will be stronger in the coming months because of you.
As you know, Israel can use the help, especially given the Obama administration’s untimely attacks, starting with its refusal to veto the outrageously anti-Israel U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 (thus allowing it to pass), followed by Secretary of State John Kerry’s passionate, but ultimately lame attempt to represent U.S. policy toward Israel as unchanged—and rather, simply, the kind of support friends give to friends.
Well, the resolution and the Kerry speech do represent a radical departure from established U.S. policy—though not a departure from the ideological obsession Team Obama has nurtured since their first day in office in 2009. What’s more, as Prime Minister Netanyahu noted, “friends don’t take friends to the U.N. Security Council.”
While previous administrations have always opposed Israeli settlements and never recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, never has the U.S. allowed the territory Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War—including the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall and other holy sites in eastern Jerusalem—to be termed illegal.
This is huge, as it supports all manner of anti-Israel—and anti-Semitic—efforts, starting with noxious BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, as well as attempts to prosecute Israeli officials in the International Criminal Court and the Palestinians’ constant drive to delegitimize Israel in the court of world opinion.
No wonder scores of prominent Democrats and Republicans, as well as Middle East diplomats, have condemned the Obama-Kerry shenanigans. No wonder Representatives Ed Royce (R) and Eliot Engel (D) have just issued a new, bipartisan House resolution (H.Res. 11) opposing U.N. Resolution 2334, encouraging the U.S. to oppose any future one-sided U.N. resolutions and emphasizing that a true peace can only be achieved through bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Above all, we should emphasize for the record that Israel’s settlements are not illegal under international law—especially the Geneva Convention—no matter what the U.N. Security Council and Mr. Kerry say. (We will prove this for you in upcoming FLAME Hotline dispatches.)
In the meantime, this week’s FLAME Hotline-featured article, by Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and currently Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center, Alan Baker, provides a concise, sober outline of the key elements of U.N. Resolution 2334, as well as the reasons Israelis and pro-Israel Americans are so distressed by it.
Most importantly, this article will prepare you to explain to others why this move was a travesty on the part of President Obama and why it’s critical that Congress and President Trump countermand it as quickly as possible.
Finally, I hope you’ll also quickly review the P.S. immediately below, which describes FLAME’s current hasbarah campaign to expose the Palestinians’ funding of Islamic terrorists using U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Best regards,
Jim Sinkinson
President, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME)
P.S. |
Did you know: By subsidizing the corrupt Palestinian Authority (P.A.) with aid of some $400 million taxpayer dollars a year, the U.S. is also funding the P.A.’s program of paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists who have killed innocent Americans and Israelis? In order to make Americans—especially college and university students—aware of this Palestinian practice of rewarding jihadi assailants and murderers with U.S. funds, FLAME has just begun publishing a new position paper: “U.S. Funds Palestinian Terrorism” This paid editorial is appearing in magazines and newspapers, including college newspapers, with a combined readership of some 10 million people. In addition, it is being sent to every member of the U.S. Congress and President Obama and President-elect Trump. If you agree that this kind of public relations effort on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion—and U.S. support of Israel—comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able—with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to donate now. Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that the American people and the U.S. Congress end our support of blatantly anti-Semitic, global jihadist organizations.
As of today, more than 15,000 Israel supporters receive the FLAME Hotline at no charge every week. If you’re not yet a subscriber, won’t you join us in receiving these timely updates, so you can more effectively tell the truth about Israel? Just go to free subscription. |
The Dangers of UN Security Council Resolution 2334
By Amb. Alan Baker, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, December 26, 2016
The December 23, 2016, resolution adopted by the UN Security Council regarding Israel’s settlement policy has been received with mixed and even extreme reactions. [Click to read the text of UN Security Council Resolution 2334]
The Palestinian leadership, having initiated the resolution, is celebrating its adoption as an affirmation by the international community, including the United States, of its claims against Israel.
Israel sees this resolution as a major impediment to continued peace negotiations in light of the fact that it by-passes the negotiation process in an attempt to prejudge central issues that are on the negotiating table. As such, it seriously prejudices any possible return to the negotiating process.
Israel considers that the resolution provides political incentives to those in the international community hostile to Israel. It advances boycotts and sanctions and could even be used to support possible litigation against Israeli leaders.
Summary of Implications
Following is a brief summary of the legal and quasi-legal implications of the resolution:
• The resolution (as all previous resolutions regarding Israel) was adopted under the sixth chapter of the UN Charter (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and as such is not mandatory. It contains a series of political determinations and recommendations to the international community. The resolution does not make law, and as such, the determinations as to the lack of legal validity of Israel’s settlements are no more than declaratory.
• Much of the terminology repeats UN terminology and language used in previous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions (“inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force,” “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem,” “secure and recognized borders,” “violation (serious or flagrant) under international law,” the references to the lack of legal validity of settlements, and their being an “obstacle” or “major obstacle” to achieving a two-state solution).
• References in the tenth preambular paragraph to the fact that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “entrenching a one-state reality” are new and would appear to be inspired by, or even direct quotes from statements by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Vice President Biden.
• Similarly, expressions not previously included in major Security Council resolutions regarding the peace process, such as “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” (operative paragraph seven), as well as the references in the ninth paragraph to the “Arab Peace Initiative” and the “principle of land for peace” as additional bases for peace, clearly are intended to instill concepts that have never been agreed-upon elements in the negotiating process.
• The call upon states in the fifth operative paragraph to distinguish between dealings between Israel-proper and the territories will also be used by BDS activists and states to buttress their boycott campaigns.
• The reference in the third operative paragraph to the “4 June 1967 lines” as a basis for negotiations would appear to be a new element, echoing statements by Obama and Kerry, and running counter to the 1967 Security Council resolution 242, which is the basis for all of the Arab-Israeli peace process, which calls for negotiation of “secure and recognized boundaries.” The Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords make no specific reference to the 1967 lines. As such this reference would appear to be an attempt to prejudge or unduly influence the negotiating issue of borders.
• Despite the declaratory and recommendatory determinations in the resolution attempting to prejudge the status of the territories, east Jerusalem, borders, and settlements, the resolution nevertheless would appear to contradict itself in that it goes on to reaffirm the call for negotiations on “all final status issues” (operative paragraph eight) and for “a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
Analysis
• While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction.
• The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.
• The United States, through its decision not to veto the resolution, enabled acceptance of a Security Council resolution referring to “occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.” This indicates U.S. acceptance of the fact that the territories and east Jerusalem belong to the Palestinians. This despite the claim that the United States has consistently agreed with Israel that there has never been any legal determination, agreement, treaty, or other binding source determining that.
• This represents a serious, and even irresponsible departure from U.S. policy which has consistently advocated negotiated settlement of the issues of permanent status, Jerusalem, and borders.
• This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated.
• While the United States and Israel have entertained basic disagreements on settlement policy, the United States has consistently rejected, as a matter of basic policy, any attempt by the international community to prejudge this or the other permanent status negotiating issues.
• The outrage voiced by Israel with both the resolution itself and the Obama administration’s enabling it to pass stems from five basic components:
• The text of the resolution, which is unprecedented in the extent of the condemnatory language used.
• Israel’s frustration at the irresponsible behavior by the Obama administration.
• The evident irreversibility of the resolution and the potential for future damage.
• The imbalance between accusations of Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinians’ blatant violations of international law in their incitement and payment to terrorists.
• The issue of settlements is not the core of the conflict. It remains the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish State and its right to any part of the land west of the Jordan River.
|
