Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
25 décembre 2016 7 25 /12 /décembre /2016 22:33
Résolution 2334
 
- Israel's political ranks unite against UN resolution (JP) - "Prominent Israeli opposition members criticized the resolution too, but claimed that Netanyahu was to blame just as much as the US administration. Opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union) said he strongly opposed the White House's decision and that America should have vetoed the resolution, but that if Israel had a different government that was more balanced and responsible, the outcome could have been prevented".
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Israels-political-ranks-unite-against-UN-resolution-476458

- Responsable palestinien : "La résolution de l'ONU montre l'isolement d'Israël" (i24)
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/moyen-orient/133460-161224-la-resolution-de-l-onu-montre-l-isolement-d-israel-responsable-palestinien
   ""L'adoption par l'ONU, vendredi, d'une résolution contre les implantations israéliennes montre l'isolement croissant de l'Etat juif", a déclaré samedi soir un haut responsable palestinien à I24news. Mustafa Barghouti, un proche du président de l'Autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas, a ajouté qu'"Israël s'imagine toujours qu'il n'est pas lié par le droit international et les résolutions internationales". [...]
    Barghouti a ajouté que la rhétorique de Netanyahou déforme la véritable image du conflit israélo-palestinien puisque "c'est Israël qui sabote les perspectives d'une résolution pacifique, c'est Netanyahou qui a refusé de se réunir à Paris et à Moscou". "Depuis les Accords d'Oslo", Barghouti estime que "tout ce qui a changé en 23 ans a été la prolifération des colonies", avant d'ajouter que le monde "est malade et fatigué de la politique d'Israël et la Palestine est à présent une question mondiale". [...]"

- Trump : la résolution va rendre « beaucoup plus difficiles » les négociations de paix (AFP) - "Pour lui, l’adoption constitue « une grande défaite (…) pour Israël », qui va rendre « beaucoup plus difficiles » les pourparlers pour parvenir à une paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/trump-la-resolution-va-rendre-beaucoup-plus-difficiles-les-negociations-de-paix/

***************************************
Analyses politiques

- The United States just made Middle East peace harder, Elliott Abrams (senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations) & Michael Singh (senior fellow and managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) - "the resolution fails to distinguish between construction in the so-called blocs — that is, settlements west of Israel’s security barrier in which about 80 percent of settlers live — and construction east of the barrier"; "This regression is enshrined in the resolution, which “underlines that it will not recognize any changes” to the armistice lines, and demands the cessation of all settlement activities everywhere. This is unnecessary and unrealistic — Israelis will not bring life to a halt in towns that no one disputes they will keep — and is more likely to obstruct than facilitate the revival of peace talks".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-states-just-made-middle-east-peace-harder/2016/12/23/d0ecc3ea-c923-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html
   "Sizing up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict upon assuming office, President Obama decided Israeli settlements were the problem, and he insisted on a total freeze on construction. What followed were eight years of deadlock, the deterioration of U.S. relations with Israelis and Palestinians alike, and widespread disillusionment with the two-state solution.
    Despite this track record, Obama is leaving off where he began: I n a departure from Washington’s typical role as Israel’s defender at the United Nations, the United States refused to use its veto and allowed the adoption of a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.
    For his part, President-elect Donald Trump had urged that the United States veto the resolution. Trump’s argument wasn’t merely that Obama should defer to his successor’s views or that the resolution was anti-Israel. It was that the measure would impede rather than advance Israeli-Palestinian peace — and he was right.
    First, the resolution fails to distinguish between construction in the so-called blocs — that is, settlements west of Israel’s security barrier in which about 80 percent of settlers live — and construction east of the barrier. Building in the major blocs is relatively uncontroversial in Israel and rarely the subject of Palestinian protests.
    President George W. Bush sought to move peace talks forward in 2004 by asserting what all sides had already tacitly acknowledged — that there could be no return to the 1967 lines in light of the blocs’ existence, and that any negotiated border would have to reflect this reality. By refusing to confirm Bush’s position, Obama dragged the process backward and harmfully reopened old debates.
    This regression is enshrined in the resolution, which “underlines that it will not recognize any changes” to the armistice lines, and demands the cessation of all settlement activities everywhere. This is unnecessary and unrealistic — Israelis will not bring life to a halt in towns that no one disputes they will keep — and is more likely to obstruct than facilitate the revival of peace talks.
    Second, the resolution rewards those who argue for “internationalization” of the conflict — that is, for using international forums such as the U.N., European Union or International Criminal Court to impose terms on Israel, rather than resorting to negotiations.
    For the resolution does indeed dictate terms to Israel, not merely condemn settlement activity. It adopts, as noted above, the position that the 1967 lines, rather than today’s realities, should form the basis of talks — despite the fact that many Israeli communities east of those lines are decades old and that Jews have had a near-continuous presence in the West Bank for thousands of years.
    It implicitly prejudges the disposition of East Jerusalem — one of most contentious issues dividing the parties — by characterizing Israeli construction as settlement activity, a stance Israelis reject. The resolution would demand an absolute halt to construction in East Jerusalem, even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, something no Israeli government ever would agree to do.
    Yet the resolution is conspicuously silent on Israeli concerns. There is no call for other states to recognize Israel’s existence — much less its status as a Jewish state — and end the conflict against it. On incitement and terrorism, it strikes a false balance by calling on “both parties” to refrain from them, despite the fact that Israel prosecutes its citizens who resort to terrorism while the Palestinian Authority lionizes them.
    Ironically, though from an Israeli perspective this language may favor the Palestinians, reasonable Palestinians may suffer from it. Because the resolution, untethered as it is to any prospective diplomatic initiative or opening, will fail to yield improvements on the ground, it will further discredit the very notion of diplomacy and compromise as paths to peace and weaken those who champion them.
    Finally, U.S support for the resolution lends legitimacy and encouragement to the U.N.’s disproportionate and one-sided focus on Israel. The United States has historically criticized this bias, which borders on the absurd: For example, Israel was the only country criticized by a special U.N. commission on the status of women, despite being the only state in its region where women enjoy equal rights.
    Decades of such discrimination have not made Israel more accommodating to its critics, and this resolution won’t either. Instead it will reinforce Israelis’ mistrust of the U.N., thus eroding the Security Council’s capacity to contribute to the peace it professes to advance.
    A U.S. veto of the resolution would not have been an endorsement of settlements. Rather, it would have been an affirmation that this is an issue that can only effectively be addressed through negotiations. The best way to encourage those negotiations is not to prejudge their outcome or set timetables, but to create the right regional conditions for them by countering spoilers such as Iran and the Islamic State who oppose peaceful coexistence, as well as the right local conditions for them by reinvigorating programs aimed at building confidence through economic and security cooperation.
    Peace in the Middle East will not be accomplished through a U.N. vote. Rather, it will require renewed U.S. leadership in the region and the rebuilding of relationships of trust with all of our partners there. This is where the next administration should start."

- President Obama has been against Israel settlements since taking office, Dennis Ross (counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) - "Making the concept of blocs and swaps harder to implement is probably not the legacy President Obama wants, and yet it may be one he has just made more likely".
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-israel-settlements-office-article-1.2921989?cid=bitly
   "The Obama Administration's abstention on the UN Security Council resolution probably should not come as a surprise.
    If there is one issue on which the President has been consistent vis-à-vis Israel, it has been settlement construction in the territories that Israel occupied after the 1967 war. From the outset of his administration, he called for a freeze on the building of Israeli settlements to include natural growth. Even when he vetoed a settlements resolution in 2011, he had his then UN ambassador, Susan Rice, make a tough statement about our opposition to settlements even as she explained that the one-sided nature of the resolution left us little choice but to veto.
    Perhaps, President Obama felt this resolution was more balanced. Truth be told, resolutions in international forum about Israel are rarely, if ever, balanced.
    This one creates the veneer of balance by referring to the need to stop terror and incitement, but of course it never names the Palestinians so this effectively refers to stopping all such actions by both sides. Moreover, the resolution is criticizing only Israel and calling on it to cease all its activity beyond the June 4, 1967, lines — which is defined as a violation of international law. Nothing is asked of the Palestinians.
    While the Israelis clearly opposed the resolution and hoped it would be vetoed by the U.S., one can ask: Does this resolution create a precedent? It is hard to see how. President-elect Trump was clear about his opposition to it and has already tweeted in response to the resolution that things will be different in his administration.
    Even in UN terms, the fact that the resolution was considered under Title 6 and not Title 7 means it cannot serve as a predicate for imposing sanctions later on — clearly a path the Palestinians would like to go down.
    If there is one area in the resolution that may be potentially problematic for the future, it is the reference to the settlements being illegal. That could create problems for the one possible formula for resolving the border at some point: settlement blocs and territorial swaps. One way to absorb a significant number of settlers is to permit settlement blocs which are on a small part of the West Bank to become part of Israel; in return the Israelis would swap territory as compensation to the Palestinians. Will that not be more difficult if all settlements are deemed illegal?
    Making the concept of blocs and swaps harder to implement is probably not the legacy President Obama wants, and yet it may be one he has just made more likely."

- Peace-hindering UN resolution that U.S. failed to veto leads Palestine to think it can bypass talks with Israel, Alan M. Dershowitz (professor emeritus at Harvard Law School) - "The resolution neglects to mention that Israel offered the Palestinians a state, an end to the occupation and settlements, and peace in 2000 - 2001 as well as in 2008, but the Palestinian leadership did not accept either of these offers. They will continue in this rejectionist mode, fortified by this one sided resolution".
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/resolution-lets-palestine-bypass-israel-talks-article-1.2921964
   "It is now illegal for Jews to pray at the Western Wall, live in certain Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem or attend Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus.
    All of these actions require Israelis to enter areas that were captured from Jordan during Israel's defensive war of 1967. According to the Security Council resolution that the U.S. did not veto, any area that was not part of Israel before June of 1967 is now illegally occupied.
    This is only one of the absurd results of this benighted resolution, which also encourages boycotts of Israeli products manufactured beyond the so-called Green Line, and pressures the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli officials. In addition, the resolution makes illegal Israel's security barrier, which has saved numerous lives.
    But the most dangerous consequence of this resolution is that it makes peace much more difficult to achieve because it sends a false message to the Palestinians that they can achieve a state through the United Nations rather than through direct negotiations with Israel.
    The Palestinian leadership has refused to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu's offer to negotiate without preconditions, and this refusal has now been rewarded. The resolution neglects to mention that Israel offered the Palestinians a state, an end to the occupation and settlements, and peace in 2000 - 2001 as well as in 2008, but the Palestinian leadership did not accept either of these offers. They will continue in this rejectionist mode, fortified by this one sided resolution.
     Why then did President Obama, in his parting days, tie the hands of his successor? He was certainly not reflecting the will of the people or of congress. Both the Senate and the House are strongly opposed to this resolution, as are many people within the Obama administration.
    Nor is this an issue on which Israelis are divided. There is no Israeli leader who supports this resolution.
    President Obama would never have allowed it to go forward before the recent presidential election, but now that he has nothing at stake he can place his personal interests above those of the country, his party and peace. [...]
    There are many who believe that he allowed this resolution to be enacted as a way of getting even with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but a president should never act on personal pique or on a desire to get even with those who he believes have crossed him. [...]
    Israel will survive this resolution as it has survived many other biased attacks. The real question is: Can the peace process survive? There is little doubt that this resolution has not contributed to peace, to the status of the U.N., to the reputation of President Obama or to basic decency."

- Obama’s parting shot (Jerusalem Post editorial) - "After eight years of experience with Palestinian intransigence, the outgoing US president and his advisers must know that resolutions such as Friday’s 2334 only serve to bolster Palestinian refusal to negotiate. This was precisely Obama’s mistake at the very beginning of his presidential career when he demanded that Israel implement a total settlement freeze. That move served only to harden the Palestinian stance"; "What’s more, Resolution 2334 is absurd in that it makes no differentiation between places such as the Old City and the Kotel or consensus Jerusalem neighborhoods like Ramat Eshkol, and isolated settlements with a handful of residents in Judea and Samaria".
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Obamas-parting-shot-476512
   "In defending America’s decision to abstain in a UN Security Council vote that castigates Israel for settlement building, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said the vote was perfectly in line with longstanding US policy.
    Technically, this is true. Since 1967, consecutive US administrations starting with Lyndon Johnson’s and continuing through George W. Bush’s have made clear their opposition to settlements. Nor are US abstentions on anti-Israel votes unheard of. Looking back over previous administrations, the largest number of abstentions on anti-Israel resolutions took place when Republican presidents considered friendly to Israel were in power.
    Still, what makes these abstentions different from the vote Power tried to defend was that they were nearly all in response to specific incidents or actions such as Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem; the 1981 air attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor; Israel’s policy of house demolitions; calls for cease-fire during the second intifada or during IDF operations in Gaza or Lebanon; or Ariel Sharon’s much-publicized visit to the Temple Mount.
    One must go back to the Carter administration to find a similar abstention – on Resolution 452 – which condemned Israel’s settlement activity and declared settlements to be an obstacle to peace.
    But even if we grant Power and the Obama administration their claim that the abstention on the anti-settlement resolution was in keeping with longstanding US policy, why now and why in the Security Council?
    After eight years of experience with Palestinian intransigence, the outgoing US president and his advisers must know that resolutions such as Friday’s 2334 only serve to bolster Palestinian refusal to negotiate. This was precisely Obama’s mistake at the very beginning of his presidential career when he demanded that Israel implement a total settlement freeze. That move served only to harden the Palestinian stance: How could the Palestinian leadership demand any less than a complete settlement freeze from Israel as a precondition for negotiating after Obama had?
    Far from encouraging Palestinians to negotiate with Israel, the resolution will strengthen the belief that direct talks are useless and that the most effective way to put pressure on Israel is through internationalization of the conflict.
    Obama decided to make the outgoing administration’s position known in the UN, an institution notorious for its obsession with Israel. The US president could have made a major policy speech on Israel in the Rose Garden. He could have addressed Congress. But he chose the UN.
    Just this year the UN General Assembly adopted 18 resolutions against Israel and the Security Council adopted 12 Israel-specific resolutions, “more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran and South Sudan put together...,” as Power noted in her speech in an attempt to explain the US’s inexplicable abstention.
    What’s more, Resolution 2334 is absurd in that it makes no differentiation between places such as the Old City and the Kotel or consensus Jerusalem neighborhoods like Ramat Eshkol, and isolated settlements with a handful of residents in Judea and Samaria.
    More pernicious, however, will be the ramifications of Resolution 2334. It will give new life to boycott, divestment and sanctions efforts, particularly article 5 of the resolution which calls upon the nations of the world “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territories of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” The distance is short from delegitimization of Jewish settlements, neighborhoods, towns, cities and institutions located beyond the 1967 armistice line to delegitimization of everything Israeli.
    Even terrorist attacks directed against residents of the “territories” will be in some sense understandable, according to UN morality and legal principles, since every Jew living in these areas is considered, according to the Security Council, not only a criminal but an obstacle to peace.
    We can only lament Obama's decision, made in the twilight of his term. It hurts chances for direct negotiations, strengthen BDS and sullies Israel’s name. For all the strengthening of Israel’s defense deterrence and unprecedented financial aid that his administration heaped on Israel, this is Obama’s legacy; this is his parting shot."

- Obama et Israël : règlements de comptes à O.K. Maison Blanche, Benoît Rayski (historien, écrivain et journaliste) - "Des journaux français, émus sans doute par cette heureuse nouvelle, ont titré, bien hâtivement : "Les États-Unis lâchent Israël !" Non, pas les États-Unis ! Juste Obama ! Ce qui n'est pas du tout pareil".
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/obama-et-israel-reglements-comptes-ok-maison-blanche-benoit-rayski-2918417.html
   "Pour la première fois depuis très longtemps, le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies a voté une résolution condamnant Israël et ses implantations. Une "décision historique", se sont réjouis l'Autorité Palestinienne et le Hamas. "Une décision honteuse", selon le gouvernement hébreu suivi en cela par une grande partie de la presse américaine.
    Ce vote a été acquis grâce aux États-Unis qui – c'est une première – n'ont pas usé de leur droit de veto pour faire capoter la résolution présentée par des pays arabes. Des journaux français, émus sans doute par cette heureuse nouvelle, ont titré, bien hâtivement : "Les États-Unis lâchent Israël !" Non, pas les États-Unis ! Juste Obama ! Ce qui n'est pas du tout pareil.
    Le président des États-Unis – appelons-le comme cela encore pour quelques jours – est actuellement occupé à faire ses bagages. Mais comme il a du monde pour l'aider à faire ses valises, ça lui laisse quelques loisirs. Il en profite pour régler ses comptes. C'est un homme pressé. Et tout lui est bon.
    Contrairement aux apparences, ce n'est pas avec Israël qu'il règle ses comptes (il avait quand même deux mandats pour le faire). Mais avec Donald Trump. Ce dernier s'annonce en effet comme le plus pro-israélien des présidents américains qu'on ait jamais connus. Il l'a d'ailleurs prouvé en téléphonant au numéro un égyptien, le maréchal al-Sissi, qui était initialement à l'origine de la fameuse résolution, pour lui demander d'abandonner l'affaire. Et le président égyptien a obtempéré.
    On ne sait si Obama a téléphoné au Caire pour tenter de faire revenir Sissi sur sa volte-face. Mais on peut être certain que, si tel a été le cas, le président égyptien n'a pas pris l'appel. Car Obama compte pour du beurre. Pour l’Égypte et pour tous les autres pays. [...]"

- Obama’s Betrayal, Jonathan S. Tobin (Commentary)
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/barack-obama-betrayal-israel-united-nations/
   "[...] Today’s resolution brands the Jewish presence in any part of the West Bank or in parts of Jerusalem that were occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 as illegal. And it makes the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in those parts of the ancient Jewish homeland international outlaws.
    The excuse given by the U.S. was that increased building in the territories and Jerusalem is endangering the chances of a two-state solution. But, as I noted yesterday when the vote on the resolution was postponed, this is a canard. The reason why a two-state solution has not been implemented to date is because the Palestinians have repeatedly refused offers of statehood even when such offers would put them in possession of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem. The building of more homes in places even Obama admitted that Israel would keep in the event of a peace treaty is no obstacle to peace if the Palestinians wanted a state.
    Rather than encourage peace, this vote will merely encourage more Palestinian intransigence and their continued refusal to negotiate directly with Israel. It will also accelerate support for efforts to wage economic war on Israel via the BDS movement. [...]"

***************************************
Analyses juridiques

- Res. 2334: Game Changer or Not?, Alex Safian (PhD, CAMERA) - "Res. 2334 does not add very much to Res. 465 in this regard, and does not change the legal landscape".
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=9999&x_article=3520
   "The United Nations Security Council on Dec. 23 passed Resolution 2334, asserting that Israeli settlements have "no legal validity" and are a "flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution ..." The resolution also advised all states "to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."
    The decision by President Obama to allow the resolution to pass is likely to be the mirror image of his ill-fated demand soon after his inauguration in 2009 that Israel impose a settlement freeze, something which even the Palestinians had not demanded as a condition to resuming negotiations. Rather than advancing prospects for peace, the 10-month settlement freeze, which PM Netanyahu reluctantly accepted, actually hardened Palestinian positions, as they could not accept being seen as demanding less from Israel than the United States. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas made this clear in an interview with Newsweek : "It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze. I said OK, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump."
    While the freeze was in effect Abbas ignored it as meaningless and refused to negotiate till the last month, then demanded the freeze be extended as it was about to expire, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained in 2012: "When Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month settlement freeze I flew to Jerusalem .. it wasn't perfect. It didn't cover East Jerusalem, but it covered much of the contested area in the West Bank. And I stood on a stage with him ... I said it was unprecedented for any Israeli prime minister to have done that. I got so criticized. I got criticized from the right, the left, the center, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Christian, you name it. Everybody criticized me. But the fact was it was a 10-month settlement freeze. And he was good to his word. And we couldn't get the Palestinians into the conversation until the tenth month."
    To put it simply, President Obama's plan backfired, making peace more difficult to achieve. Resolution 2334 is likely to be just as counterproductive and in a similar way, but it's important not to overstate the probable impact. First, the new resolution is not really new – it is in many ways a repeat of Resolution 465 (1980), in which the Security Council:
   "5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
    6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;
    7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories"

    The Carter administration voted for the resolution, though a few days later President Carter claimed that this was due to a communications error, and that he had wanted his ambassador to abstain (meaning the resolution would have still passed). See also here for Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's explanation.
    Some have expressed the view that Res. 2334 may turn Israeli "settlers and ... officials into criminals in some countries, subject to prosecution there or in the International Criminal Court." But Res. 2334 does not add very much to Res. 465 in this regard, and does not change the legal landscape. In other words, if a country wants to indict Israeli settlers or officials based on a Security Council Resolution, Res. 2334 was not necessary – Res. 465, which has not been amended or superceded by the Security Council, would have sufficed. In any event, both resolutions were passed under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, and so are advisory and do not create binding obligations or international law.
    Politically the impact will also likely be muted, considering that President Obama has only one month left in office, and that President-elect Trump denounced the resolution, urged Obama to veto it, and according to his senior advisers on Israel supports Israel's building of settlements, and plans to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
    Finally, and despite the above, it's worth pointing out that the new resolution incorporates and blatantly misstates Israel's obligations under President Bush's "Roadmap" peace plan by claiming there is an: "... obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including "natural growth", and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001 ..."
    The facts do not support the Security Council's claim. The Roadmap was "performance-based and goal-driven ... with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks." Accordingly, "in each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated." And in Phase 1 the plan did say that Israel "freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." But this call was not repeated in the following phases, and so could well be viewed as applying only to the initial phase, that is, as a temporary rather than a permanent freeze, with the ultimate fate of Israeli settlements to be decided as a final status issue.
    Moreover, the plan also included many demands of the Palestinians in Phase 1, including that "all official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel," and calling for "confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption."
    While the Israeli cabinet approved the Roadmap with reservations, the Palestinians never went beyond verbal support – the document was never placed before the PA cabinet or legislature for the required approvals. For this reason alone the Roadmap can't be seen as establishing Israeli obligations.
    But beyond failing to officially and legally accept the Roadmap, the Palestinians also never met their requirements under the document, and so according to the Roadmap itself, any Israeli obligations, including on settlements, would not be operative. It is a further blatant dishonesty for Res. 2334's sponsors and supporters to invent an alleged Israeli obligation where none in fact exists."

- The legal Significance of the Resolution, Elena Chachko (SJD candidate at Harvard Law School) - "while the resolution’s immediate practical significance is limited, it revitalizes the legal case against settlements under international law and provides a basis for states and organizations to act against Israeli settlements in the future—with or without U.S. participation".
https://www.lawfareblog.com/unscr-2334-israeli-settlements
   "This post is not the place to address the political implications of the resolution and what had preceded it. From a purely legal perspective, it seems that the resolution adds little to previous Security Council resolutions on settlements. There are, however, nuances worth paying attention to.
    First, the resolution adds yet more weight to the legal case against West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements under international law. (On the international law issues, see this recent debate here and here at Just Security). It unequivocally states that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have “no legal validity” under international law. It also demands an immediate cessation of all settlement activity.
    To be sure, all of this is not new. The Security Council had previously used similar language regarding settlements, and had called on Israel to stop their expansion. For example, op. para 1 of Security Council resolution 446 (1979) similarly “Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity […].” Nevertheless, this is the first Security Council resolution since 1980 (resolution 465) that focuses on settlements. The fact that it reiterates the same old legal conclusions despite the major changes on the ground in light of the vast expansion of settlements over the past four decades is significant. The resolution makes clear once again the Security Council’s view that any deviation from the 1967 lines can only be agreed upon in final status negotiations between the parties. The Council permits no presumptions about the future of the large settlement blocs, which Israel has argued should remain under its control in any future agreement.
    That said, the resolution provides a legal basis for possible concrete action on settlements in the future. Op. para. 5 calls on all States to distinguish between Israel proper and the territories. This new provision might legitimize and intensify existing efforts to promote sanctions against Israeli products originating in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or boycott companies and institutions operating in those areas. But the extent to which op. para. 5 would translate into actual measures against Israel depends on political will. In addition, op. para. 12 of the resolution requests the U.N. Secretary General to periodically report on its implementation, creating a mechanism for keeping the issue alive at the Council, which might lead to further action. Finally, the resolution might encourage the ICC prosecutor, currently conducting a preliminary examination of Israel’s actions in the territories that encompasses settlements, to open a full fledged investigation (see here and here). The resolution does not provide the prosecutor with new legal arguments, but it might affect her decision-making.
    In sum, while the resolution’s immediate practical significance is limited, it revitalizes the legal case against settlements under international law and provides a basis for states and organizations to act against Israeli settlements in the future—with or without U.S. participation. President-elect Trump’s objections to the resolution and threats by members of congress to defund the U.N. not withstanding, chances are that the resolution is here to stay. To reverse it, the Trump administration would need to push through a new resolution, which requires the support of the other members of the Security Council. That is not going to be easy."

- The 1994 Israel-Jordan peace agreement shows that the UN resolution is based on fantasy, not law (Elder of Ziyon) - "The only legally binding definition of the border - not "lines," but border - between Israel and Jordan came in 1994 with the Israel -Jordan peace agreement"; "Even if you believe that the 1949 armistice agreement was not abrogated by Jordan in 1967, this 1994 agreement completely supersedes the 1949 armistice agreement (and the concept of "1967 lines") in every legal sense".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-1994-israel-jordan-peace-agreement.html
   "[...] What is the legal status of the so-called "1967 lines"? Those lines are defined in the 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan, UN document S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949. The agreement includes these provisions:
   "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.
    No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted from territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Party.
    The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.
    The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

    The lines were never meant to be political boundaries, they were meant to be temporary until a final peace agreement, and anyone who violated the cease fire would be violating and possibly abrogating this armistice agreement. In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel across these armistice lines, and therefore abrogated the armistice agreement. Thereafter, the border between Israel and Jordan was legally unclear. Israel didn't annex the territory, but it did control it. Jordan still claimed it (until 1988, as will be seen.)
    The only legally binding definition of the border - not "lines," but border - between Israel and Jordan came in 1994 with the Israel -Jordan peace agreement. Here's what it says:
   "The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967."

    While the agreement leaves open the possibility of a Palestinian state or entity on the Israeli side of the border, it says explicitly that the border between Israel and Jordan is essentially the border between the areas Israel controls in Judea and Samaria and Jordan - the Jordan River, the Dead Sea and so on. It is not the border between "Palestine" and Jordan. In fact, the agreement between Israel and Jordan doesn't mention "Palestinian territory" at all.
    Even if you believe that the 1949 armistice agreement was not abrogated by Jordan in 1967, this 1994 agreement completely supersedes the 1949 armistice agreement (and the concept of "1967 lines") in every legal sense. It is exactly what the 1949 agreement means when it refers to the "ultimate political settlement between the Parties." So by any definition, the "1967 lines" has no legal validity.
    What about the legal issues behind calling the territories "Palestinian territories"? There is no legal basis for that as well, except for the areas that Israel agreed to cede as part of the Oslo process.
    While Jordan claimed the territory of the west bank of the river for itself until 1988, it was basing that claim on territory that was never accepted by the world as Jordanian to begin with. The 1988 decision to eliminate all legal ties from those territories was ostensibly "to enhance Palestinian national orientation and highlight Palestinian identity" but it did not transfer any legal rights whatsoever to the Palestinians.  In no way could these areas be considered "Palestinian territory" since that was a legally meaningless term in 1988 - there was no "Palestine" and the area called "Palestine" before 1948 was completely superseded by the legal claims of Israel and Jordan (and Egypt.) The PLO had no legal validity as a state in 1988 as well; even though it declared "independence" that year, it was simply an organization, not a state in any legal sense.
    Israel, by signing the Oslo accords, gave the Palestinians their first legal standing in international law, and the subsequent agreements giving territory to the PLO are the only legal instruments that can give a portion of the area - specifically, Area A and to an extent, Area B - to the Palestinians.
    The phrase "1967 lines" has zero legal validity. The phrase "Palestinian territories" only has validity in the portions of Judea and Samaria that Israel gave away for peace. This UN resolution, like many others, is based on terms that are literally nonsense from a legal and semantic perspective. Referring to "1967 lines" in this resolution holds as much legal meaning as referring to the route that Santa Claus flies."

Partager cet article

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article

commentaires

Présentation

  • : La Boucle d'Occam
  • La Boucle d'Occam
  • : Chaque jour, une Boucle reprend l'actualité de France et du Moyen-Orient autour des thèmes d'Israël et de l'antisémitisme.
  • Contact

Recherche

Pages