You are here

Israel ‘gearing towards the extreme right’

Jan 17,2017 - Last updated at Jan 17,2017

The Middle East Paris peace conference aimed at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, convened in Paris this week, has been condemned by Israel as a hostile move orchestrated by the Palestinians and the French.

Although this is entirely untrue, it is customary for Israel to oppose any such initiative even if their outcome is very mindful of its interests.

Israel’s concerns, indeed fears, are not based on genuine suspicion that friendly countries, in particular France, would side with the Palestinians; Israeli leaders are well aware that such a possibility does not exist and they often receive repeated assurances to that effect.

It has rarely been the case that Israel was not informed well ahead of time or taken by surprise regarding the intervention of foreign statesmen in presenting proposals or advancing ideas, or even making a statement relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict in any shape or form.

Israel would always be consulted well in advance of any such moves, and the resulting objections are taken seriously into consideration.

Such has been the case regarding the French initiative whereby Israel has been fully and regularly informed over the past year of every step being contemplated by the French government towards saving the so-called peace process from definite collapse.

It is a well-known fact that Israeli leaders have opposed the French move all along, as they would have reacted to any similar motion. 

But while taking all Israeli concerns into account, the French authorities proceeded with the peace-making effort, not without introducing all adaptations deemed appropriate to address Israel’s concerns, though.

Traditionally Israel considers any intervention, no matter how objective and noble, in this historic conflict, as a great threat to its interests and policies, simply because of the risks involved.

Realising that the law, international law for that matter, would never be on their side, Israeli leaders, right from the early days of the creation of the state have always been cautious of due UN involvement, or in fact of any intervention.

One of Israel’s primary goals, therefore, was the neutralisation of the United Nations, knowing that any UN resolution with respect to the question of Palestine would constantly censure its behaviour and demand compliance.

With help and support from influential UN member states, mainly the US, Israel successfully managed to achieve its objective, at least in the Security Council, where the veto-powered five permanent members could block any resolution at will.

Indeed, the US blocked most resolutions considered unfavourable to Israel.

Because the veto system does not apply in the UN General Assembly, which has passed dozens of resolutions condemning Israel during the last seven decades, Israel’s sustained effort to undermine the authority of the UN body, representing the willpower of 193 member states nowadays, has managed with time to consolidate the controversial principle that UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding: an absurdity that was later extended to cover Security Council resolutions not taken under Chapter 7 of the Charter.

This fake notion was specifically devised to annul the effect of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which demands Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab lands Israel occupied in June 1967. 

Accordingly, this same resolution determines the illegality of all Israeli unilateral measures in those lands, the settlements and Jerusalem in particular.

The French peace conference this week has not introduced any new ideas that could cause alarm to the Israelis. 

It only sought to sparsely restate what has long been established as an internationally acceptable basis for a possible settlement of the century-old conflict.

The aim was to bring the sides together in order to engage in fresh rounds of negotiations in the hope of reaching an agreement and to have them reaffirm their commitment to the two-state solution principle.

Although it was meant to declare that the international community will not recognise changes to the Israel pre-1967 lines without agreement by both sides, this particular clause did not appear in the final statement which was repeatedly watered down to appease the Israelis.

According to a BBC report “there was deep alarm among participants at the conference that if President Trump does break with decades of US policy and moves the embassy to Jerusalem, the conditions will be set for another upsurge of violence in the region”. 

But this also was not reflected in the conference’s concluding communiqué.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault did nevertheless inform France 3 TV on Sunday that he thought Trump would not be able to make the move, but if he did, it would have “extremely serious consequences”.

There are no startling revelations, let alone anything extreme here; the little that was cautiously said in Paris, has been heard many times before.

However, what sounds reasonable, good intentioned, lawful and very much in Israel’s interests, is ironically, not viewed that way by Israel.

Similarly, Israel was enraged by the December Security Council Resolution 2334, despite the fact that it also emphasised the same old ideas, reaffirmed previous council resolutions, including Resolution 242, and stated nothing out of the ordinary.

The true source of Israel’s alarm and outrage, therefore, is simply the fact that the convenient silence and inaction of the international community on its continuous violations and its intransigent defiance of international law seems to be coming to an end.

Last month, a condemning Security Council resolution was passed without American veto: Resolution 2334.

Less than three weeks later, the French move arrived implicitly, though very mildly and without even referring to the December Security Council substance, reaffirming that the status quo is not going to be indefinitely tolerated.

Israel was indeed concerned that other Security Council resolutions along the same line, or to consolidate the Paris conclusions, may follow. It was finally assured that no such action will be pursued.

 

Although such international moves are being precipitated by Israel’s excesses and irresponsible behaviour, mindless of the disastrous consequences destabilising the entire region, creating suitable grounds for radicalisation and perpetual violence, Israeli governments are still gearing towards the extreme right.

up
24 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF