In the final days of the Obama administration, after eight years of unproductive “nation-building”, a very surprising series of events unfolded over the Christmas/New Year holidays: First, on December 23rd, a UN resolution on Palestine (number 2334) was passed, which criticised recent Israeli policies, but which the US did not veto.
In particular, this Solution:
“1. Reaffirms that the construction of settlements by Israel in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal legitimacy, is a flagrant violation of international law and represents a major obstacle to the achievement of a two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and fully respects all its legal obligations in this regard;
“3. Underscores that it will not recognize any changes to the borders of 4 June 1967, including with regard to Jerusalem, except as agreed between the parties through negotiations;
4. Underscores that an end to all Israeli settlement activity is essential to saving the two-State solution, and calls for positive steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are endangering the two-State solution;
5. Calls upon all States to bear in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution and to distinguish in their relevant actions between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
Reaction in Israel was largely one of shock, but there were also cries of betrayal.
Soon, in the Security Council chambers, this From Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon:
Today is a dark day for this Council. The resolution you just voted for is the height of hypocrisy. While thousands of people are being slaughtered in Syria, this Council has wasted precious time and energy condemning the democratic nation of Israel for building houses in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.
Reaction from the Israeli press and political establishment: rage:
Obama's betrayal and his knife-wielding sycophants
Beneath the shock, horror and disgust of the US assassination of Israel on the eve of Hanukkah at the UN Security Council, there was an ominous inevitability to Barack Obama’s betrayal, for the signs were clear from the first day of his term in the White House. Surrounded by a cabal of vocal black radicals, including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan, who harbored a fierce hostility towards Jews in general and Israel in particular, anyone who could put two and two together to make four should have long ago realized that the 44th US president had little love for the Jewish state. Of course, he was hypocritically courting gullible Jewish liberals programmed to vote Democrat by default, but his words were usually laced with subtle vitriol whenever Israel came on his radar, as it always was.
there was anxiety:
How will the UN Security Council resolution declaring Israeli settlements and buildings in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal affect International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda's decision on whether to delve further into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
there was Retaliation:
Israel will suspend most of its annual contributions to the United Nations for 2017. Security Council Resolution 2334 Israel's mission to the United Nations notified the international body on Friday that it condemns Israel's settlement activities.
Amid this frenzy, US Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a lengthy (73 minutes) speech on December 28th that is worth watching in its entirety.
Complete Transcript is also available.
In his speech, Secretary of State Kerry outlined the nature of the current situation and its impact on ongoing reconciliation efforts toward a two-state solution. He outlined six principles for an eventual settlement. He further explained six principles that the State Department believes will be the foundation for any eventual peace. Haaretz We have looked into these in detail and here is what we found:
Principle 1: Provide a secure and recognized international border between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated in mutually agreed upon exchanges of equals based on the 1967 borders.
Principle 2: Realize the vision of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two States for two peoples, Jewish and Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.
Principle 3: Provide, with international assistance, a just, agreed, equitable and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, including compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent housing, recognition of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive solution consistent with two states and two peoples.
Principle 4: Provide an agreed solution to establish Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of both countries, protecting and guaranteeing free access to the Holy Sites in line with the established status quo.
Principle 5: Meeting Israel’s security needs and ultimately ending the occupation completely while enabling Israel to effectively defend itself and provide security for its people as a sovereign, demilitarized Palestinian state.
Principle 6: End the conflict and outstanding claims, leading to the normalization of relations and enhanced regional security for all, as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative. It is essential for both sides that a final status agreement resolve all outstanding issues, bring this conflict to a final end, and allow all to move forward into a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, this must lead to broader peace with all its Arab neighbors.
Reaction in Israel was mixed and confusing.
it is positive But it's slow:
Kerry's speech was spectacularly pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, and three years too late
Secretary of State Kerry's outline in 2014 might have led Israel and the Palestinians to an agreement, but the hypocritical response of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Abbas makes clear why Secretary of State Kerry's peace efforts failed.
it is, times:
The two-state solution is over
Supporters of a two-state solution react aggressively to anyone who tries to undermine their magical faith in the miracle of the dead somehow coming back to life.
It was seen as the final caveat:
In historic speech, Secretary of State Kerry says Israelis are committing suicide
A typical Anglo-Saxon speech always has a villain, and in John Kerry's speech it was Netanyahu's evil kingdom.
From the moment John Kerry began speaking, it was clear that this was going to be a historic speech. He explained, in simple terms and clear logic, the systematic way in which Israel was turning into an apartheid binational state. He presented the data and explained the reality: in the West Bank, Israeli occupation has stripped Palestinians of their basic human rights, confiscated their land, and forced them into a life of misery and poverty.
This last comment is perhaps the clearest summary of John Kerry's message. After all, he was very clear.
Today, there are roughly equal numbers of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice: coexist in one state, or split into two. But the fundamental reality is that if they choose one state, Israel will either be a Jewish state or a democratic state, but not both, and there will never be true peace.
He makes this point and opines that the viability of a Palestinian state is diminishing day by day due to the gradual advance of Jewish settlements. The conclusion is inevitable and logical: we are moving towards a one-state solution. He further correctly states that such a state cannot resemble Israel in its recent history since 1949: it cannot be both a Jewish and democratic state. His message is that the ongoing land grab means that the Israel he knows is signing its own death warrant.
This is an example of the Jewish lack of long-term thinking and lack of strategic ideas. This problem is addressed by Gilad Atzmon in his book,Who are the Wanderers?“
During a recent insight session, Gilad discussed with me the issue of intertemporality, a uniquely Jewish blind spot to the connections between past, present and future events, and the impact of present actions on future prospects. VoxA peculiar blind spot in contemporary Jewish culture and politics is the inability to see the future impact of current policies that serve the short-term national interest.
John Kerry got this right, but of course there were many issues he avoided as too difficult, too divisive, or too unsolvable. Let us remember that the 1967 borders were the lines that had been exhausted at the end of the 1947-1949 war. This was a civil war, and like all civil wars, it was brutal, vile, and aimed at the weak rather than the strong. These borders had no long-term significance, no geographical existence, they cut across cities and towns, and had limited (and artificial) ethnic specificity. In the case of Jerusalem, the holy city of the three great religions that first arose in the Middle East, the problem is most pressing. From 1947 to 1967, Jerusalem was a divided city. Remnants of barbed wire can still be seen along the old dividing line. But half a century of infrastructure and housing development has been orchestrated to erase that dividing line and make it impossible to re-establish it by force. Today in Silwan (the City of David), Judaization is slowly progressing house by house. Throughout the town, ownership is not merely personal but strategic and national: real estate is politics, buying and selling is advancement and retreat, victory and surrender.
The larger settlement subdivisions have some of the best two-lane roads in the country, connecting the settlements to the coast and to Tel Aviv. There is a sense of permanence there, of assertiveness. It is definitely real.
The 1967 borders can be seen as artificial when looking at maps, road networks, and other critical infrastructure. Palestine was administered as a British Mandate and has had one road network, one water network, and one electricity network ever since. Palestine is effectively one country in many ways. It is also home to two peoples who cannot or will not coexist. This is Palestine's great tragedy.
It is also worth noting that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded before 1967. What Palestine was it that they were trying to liberate? It could not have been the land beyond the 1967 borders. No, it was the land lost in the ethnic cleansing of 1948, when 700,000 Arabs were expelled through violence or the threat of violence. and Lands occupied by the Jewish state. The 1967 Green Line being the basis of the agreement is an example of the magnitude of the problem and the low expectations. It seems to aim for a balance of inequities as the basis for a lasting peace. This is a fading hope. Perhaps John Kerry's speech, despite its eloquence, will soon be seen as the end of this chapter. There is chaos ahead.
