DECEMBER 30 — Last week, just before Christmas, Malaysia played a significant role in a historic undertaking by the United Nations Security Council. This country, joined fellow non-permanent members New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela in becoming co-sponsors for a resolution demanding the halt of settlement activity by Israel.
The resolution demanded that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, which also included East Jerusalem.” It further states that Israeli settlements located in those territories “had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security” and are “dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution”.
When put forward for a vote, fourteen members of the Security Council, including the four of the five permanent members United Kingdom, China, Russia and France, voted in favour of the resolution. The US, shocking many, abstained.
The resolution itself was in danger of being stillborn as its initial primary sponsor, Egypt was forced to withdraw a day earlier as a result of combined pressure from Israel and US president-elect Trump. Both had unsuccessfully called on the US to exercise its veto.
This is arguably the first UN Security Council resolution which was successfully passed in more than 36 years to condemn Israel over its settlement policy. It is also the first resolution adopted on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians in nearly eight years.
To evaluate the significance of the vote, it is telling to note that Israel has immediately recalled its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal, two of the four co-sponsors. Israel has no diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Malaysia. It has also suspended working relationships with the embassies of countries who voted in favour. Their ambassadors were also summoned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a personal telling off.
Netanyahu has also announced that Israel would reject and refuse to recognise the resolution and refuse to abide its terms. He also declared that the measure was also anti-Israel, an accusation directed mainly at President Obama, who, despite abstaining, is accused of orchestrating this censure.
This is an irony considering that the latter has approved more military assistance to Israel that any previous president and under the eight years of his presidency, no single resolution critical of Israel had made it through the Security Council.
Israel’s histrionics aside, why is 2334 important and what makes it any different to the ones before which have been adopted and even ignored?
2334 formally captures international disapproval of Israeli settlement building on territories it has occupied since 1967. It provides a contemporary framework to push back against Israel on this issue.
Arguably, 2334 is significant as it joins the other UNSC resolutions which guide, influence and determine the behaviour and actions of UN member states on Israel and Palestinian issues.
These include General Assembly Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine and led to the formal formation and proclamation of the state of Israel; Resolution 194 on the issue of the right of refugees of the 1948 war; and SC Resolution 242 which underlines the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by armed conflict.
So 2334 is pretty damned important.
However, it is necessary to point out that the language of the resolution regarding settlements in territories occupied since 1967 was nothing new. The final text was based on similar, or near-identical, language to resolutions dating to the 1970s. Language based on the articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories, which the US had previously approved and was even acknowledged by the Israel legal counsel during previous deliberations.
What 2334 was intended to do was to reaffirm and keep alive the “two-state” solution. It is important to note that the resolution does not question Israel’s right to exist. It also reaffirms the need to establish and proclaim a viable Palestinian state within this context. The resolution envisages two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, co-existing side by side within secure and recognised borders,
However, the reality on the ground does not match the nobility of the words contained within the document.
With more than 430,000 Israeli settlers currently living in the West Bank and an estimated 200,000 Israelis living in occupied East Jerusalem, the dream of a two-state solution is fast dying. More settlements are being built with no end or limitation in sight. One look at the map of the West Bank tells you why.
Today, more Israelis and Palestinians than ever before believe that they will not see the two-state solution come to pass in their lifetime. Nearly two-thirds of Palestinians in the occupied territories believe that a viable separate Palestinian state is no longer possible due to the expansion of Israeli settlements.
It is important to take a look at outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent speech in response to Israel’s fury over the resolution.
Kerry made it clear that with the settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation, peace remains elusive for both sides with one reality becoming ever more certain: a one state.
Kerry suggested six goals to guide future negotiations: secure and recognised international borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps; two states for two peoples with mutual recognition and full equal rights for minority citizens; a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue (referring to the right of return question); Jerusalem as the capital of both states; an end to the occupation; and renunciation of all claims by both sides.
Nothing new really but the reality is that very few, if any of these recommendations will be adopted by the incoming Trump administration.
As a result, partial if not full annexation of the West Bank is likely to be the future of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. Resolution 2334 has probably just signposted this moment in time.
With Trump in support, the fondest dream of Israel’s hard-right could become reality, but it could also end up their worst nightmare.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
