Paris Peace Summit – responding to the draft summary

UNSC.jpg-337x225

INTRODUCTION: This coming Sunday, January 15 2017 representatives from 70 Nations will gather in Paris, France for the ironically named Paris Peace Summit – with the sole purpose of implementing their vision for a “two-state solution”.  Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will be present at the meeting. Haaretz news, a left-wing news outlet obtained and published (Barak Ravid Jan 09, 2017 7:40 PM) a draft summary statement for this conference and the full text appears below this article.

[Special acknowledgement to israellycool.com for highlighting Haaretz’s publication of the draft summary.]

Paris Peace Summit – highlights from the draft summary

Here are some key highlights from that summary;

1. a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security

2. a negotiated two-state outcome should end the occupation that began in 1967

3. call on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renew their commitment to the two state solution

4. call on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to disavow official voices on their side that reject the two state solution

5. the 70 nations gathered in Paris will not recognize any future changes to the 4 June 1967 lines other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations

6. welcome the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 of the 23 December 2016, which condemned ‘settlement activity’, and which declared that all of Jerusalem is ‘occupied territory’ (i.e. the Western Wall (Kotel), the Temple Mount do not belong to Israel)

7. welcome the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 of the 23 December 2016, which declared that the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) is ‘occupied territory’

8. for both sides to comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law

Text and Terms – a closer examination

Let’s look at each of the above terms individually; 

RE: 1. “a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”

Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace. The problem, however, is that Palestinians and many other Muslim and Arab nations do not recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.

To have two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security” will require;

(a) the Palestinians, Arab and Muslim nations to formally recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist, which they have refused to do up until this point.

(b) the Palestinians and Arab states to renounced the three “No’s” of the Kartoum conference of 1967 — no recognition, no peace and no negotiations.


Re: 2. a negotiated two-state outcome should end the occupation that began in 1967

There is no “Israeli occupation”.

During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel re-took control of its own land (East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria on the “west bank” of the Jordan River) that Jordan had taken by force in 1948 after the creation of the state of Israel, later illegally annexing it in 1950.

Since 1967, the international community has referred to this land as “disputed territory” and Israelis as ‘occupiers’ and ‘settlers’ of their own land.

The only “occupation” that took place was from 1948 until 1967 when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem.


Re: 3. call on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renew their commitment to the two state solution

‘Palestinian’ leaders can’t “renew” their commitment to a two state solution as they and many other Muslim and Arab nations do not even recognize the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist.

The concept of a two-state solution is often proposed as a means to resolve the ongoing tensions between Israel and the ‘Palestinians’, however few people are aware that there have already been two “two-state solutions“.

The first two-state solution was when the Arab-Palestinian state of Transjordan (later renamed Jordan) allocated 75% of the land that was to be part of the reconstituted homeland for the Jewish people to the Arabs, and excluded it from Jewish settlement – leaving only 25% for a Jewish homeland.  Jordan is Arab Palestine.

The second two-state solution was created under UN Resolution 181 in November 1947 – where the remaining 25% of the land of the former British Mandate for Palestine was partitioned into two states (again) — with 43% of the land set aside by the British for the Jewish homeland being given to this second Arab state under the Partition Plan – which Israel accepted in exchange for peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs rejected.


Re: 4. call on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to disavow official voices on their side that reject the two state solution

If ‘Palestinian’ leaders renounce their officials that do not support a two-state solution, they would have no leadership.

The Arabs that live in this area have never wanted to live in peace with the Jews – but rather to live in peace without Jews.

When Trans Jordan (renamed Jordan) was created from 3/4 of the land under the British Mandate for Palestine, it was excluded from Jewish settlement.

When the State of Israel was created from the remaining 1/4 of the land, the very next day the armies of all of the neighboring Arab states of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) and Egypt attacked the newly-created State of Israel, in an attempt to destroy it.


Re: 5. the 70 nations gathered in Paris will not recognize any future changes to the 4 June 1967 lines other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations

Just to be clear, there is no such thing as “pre-1967 borders”. The Green Line running through the “West Bank” is the 1949 Armistice Line, and this line was never intended to be a border;

(a) According to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, the Armistice Line “did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties” since it had been “dictated by exclusively by military considerations.

(b) UN Security Council’s Resolution 242 which was passed 5 months after the Six-Day War recognizes that the 1949 Armistice line was not supposed to designate final Israeli borders.

Both the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2334 of December 23, 2016 (which called for Israel to stop building communities outside the 1949 Armistice Lines) and the text of the upcoming Paris Conference, contradict UN Security Council Resolution 242 as well as the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement. 


Re: 6. welcome the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 of the 23 December 2016, which condemned ‘settlement activity’, and which declared that all of Jerusalem is ‘occupied territory’ (i.e. the Western Wall, the Temple Mount do not belong to Israel)

Re: Jerusalem being “occupied territory”:

The only time Jerusalem was “occupied territory” was from the end of the War of Independence in 1948 until 1967, when Jordan occupied it – after having seized it by force.

Jordan’s decision to join the Arab allegiance with Egypt and Syria to destroy Israel, despite a request from Israel that they do not, ended by Israel taking control of its own land that Jordan had occupied in 1948 and illegally annexed in 1950— specifically East Jerusalem and the land on the “west bank” of the Jordan River, Judea and Samaria — freeing it from illegal occupation by Jordan.

Re: The Temple Mount belonging to the Jews and the Jewish state of Israel:

Under the Temple Mount are the remains of two Jewish Temples;

Solomon’s Temple stood on the Temple Mount from 827 BCE until it was destroyed by the Babylonians 470 years later.

The Second Temple stood on the Temple Mount from 349 BCE until it was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans. The Western Wall (the Kotel) is the remains of the wall of the Second Temple.

Throughout history, different people including the Arabs, Persians and Christians captured Jerusalem – just as Jordan did in 1967, but Jerusalem from its foundation is Jewish, as is the Temple Mount.

Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people since ~1000 BCE.

Archaeologists at the summit of the City of David have unearthed what is believed to be the palace of King David (who ruled from ~1005 to 965 BCE).

More information on the ancient and modern history of Jerusalem:  

http://www.morehasbara.com/2016/12/27/jerusalem-modern-and-historic-capital-of-the-jewish-people/

Re: 7. welcome the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 of the 23 December 2016, which declared that the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) is ‘occupied territory’

The very term “Jew” is derived from the region from which they originated, Judea – on the “west bank” of the Jordan River.

Hebron, on the “west bank” of the Jordan River is where the Jewish Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried and where the Jewish Matriarchs, the wives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – Sarah, Rebecca and Leah are buried. Hebron is where David was first crowned King of Israel.

Christians should be outraged the UN seeks to declare Bethlehem, the birthplace of the one they call “King of the Jews” as not being from the land of the Jews.


Re: 8. for both sides to comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law

Israel has been accused by the UN of not adhering to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 — a statute which outlines the obligations of an “occupying power” in times of war.

The Fourth Geneva Convention cannot be applied to Israel as it cannot be an “occupying power” in its own land — land it reclaimed from illegal annexation by Jordan.

The only “occupying power” in East Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria was Jordan, from the years 1948 – 1967.

Final thoughts…

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 23, 2016 declared, among other things that the Kotel, the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple and all of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel are “illegally occupied Palestinian territory”.  This did not make it so. Neither will the Paris Conference.

If the 70 Nations gathering on January 15 2017 in Paris were to declare that the Great Wall of China wasn’t Chinese, would that make it so? Neither will their declarations concerning Jerusalem, the Temple Mount or Judea and Samaria.


Draft Summary Statement –  Paris Peace Summit 

[credit: Haaretz news | Barak Ravid | Jan 09, 2017 7:40 PM]

I) Following the Ministerial meeting held in Paris on 3 June 2016, the Participants met in Paris on 15 January 2017 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.

They emphasized the importance for the parties to restate their commitment to this solution, to take urgent steps in order to reverse the current negative trends on the ground and to start meaningful direct negotiations.

They reiterated that a negotiated two-state outcome should [meet Israeli security needs and the rights of Palestinians to statehood and sovereignty, end the occupation that began in 1967], and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1850 (2008), the Madrid principles (1991) and the Quartet Roadmap (2003). They also underscored the Arab Peace Initiative as a vision for a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security. They welcomed the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016, which clearly condemned settlement activity, incitement and violence, and called both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground.

They took note of the report of the Quartet of 1 July 2016 and its recommendations for both sides to take concrete steps to preserve the two-state solution and to create the conditions for final status negotiations.

They noted with particular interest United States Secretary of State’s remarks on 28 December 2016, in which he stressed that no solution could be imposed and outlined his vision of principles for a final status agreement.

They further emphasized the importance for both sides of complying with international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including accountability.

II) The Participants highlighted the potential for security, stability and prosperity for both parties that could result from a peace agreement. They expressed their readiness to exert necessary efforts toward the achievement of the two-state solution and to contribute substantially to arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a negotiated peace agreement, in particular in the areas of economic incentives, the consolidation of Palestinian state capacities, and civil society dialogue. Those could include, inter alia:

  • a European special privileged partnership; other economic incentives and increased private sector involvement; support to further efforts by the parties to streamline economic cooperation;
  • concrete support to the implementation of the Palestinian Statehood Strategy, including further meetings between international partners and the Palestinian side to that effect;
  • convening Israeli and Palestinian civil society fora, and rekindling the public debate.

They called for these different strands of work to be pursued diligently.

III) Looking ahead, the 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;
  • call on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations, in order to rebuild trust and create a path back to meaningful direct negotiations, in line with the recommendations of the Quartet report of 1 July 2016;
  • restate the validity of the Arab Peace Initiative and highlight its potential for stability in the region;
  • reaffirm that they will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations; also reaffirm that they will distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
  • welcome the prospect of closer cooperation between the Quartet and Arab League members to further the objectives of this Declaration and enhance, if necessary, existing mechanisms;
  • welcome the readiness of interested Participants to review progress and further the set of incentives; their findings could be conveyed to the United Nations for the reporting under 0P12 of UNSCR 2334.

France will inform the parties about the international community’s collective support and concrete contribution to the two-State solution contained in this joint declaration.