Two-State Solution Only Viable Way to Resolve Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Secretary-General Tells International Meeting as It Opens in Moscow

During Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza, entire Palestinian families were decimated, while more than 140 lost three or four family members, he said. Israel targeted civilian infrastructure, including schools of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) where families had sought shelter, depriving Palestinians of any safe haven. Jerusalem had been the primary target of the forcible transfer of Palestinians out of, and Israelis into, the territory.


“Both are war crimes under the Rome Statute. The settlement regime is ever growing, thus shrinking by the hour the prospects for peace,” he said, adding that escalating attacks against holy sites aimed to transform a political conflict into a religious one, driving the region further down a frightening path.


Amid such formidable obstacles, he said, the Palestinian people were determined to achieve their inalienable rights, live in freedom and dignity, and take their rightful place among the world’s free nations. It was time for the world to recognize the State of Palestine, hold Israel accountable for its offenses and set up an international mechanism to monitor both sides’ compliance with a final peace agreement.


“It is either a two-State solution on the 1967 borders or an apartheid reality the world cannot tolerate,” he said, adding that “for those who call on us to be patient and continue to reject international intervention, in violation of their own obligations under international law, we say: if they are waiting for the right time to intervene, our freedom and independence are long overdue.”


The State of Palestine was charting a new peace offensive, he went on. Granted observer State status in the United Nations in November 2012, and recognized by the Vatican last week, it was now seeking the recognition of more States. It also was pushing for a new framework for peace and the establishment of clear terms of reference, a timetable for a final status agreement and an international monitoring mechanism to ensure accountability. He welcomed France’s initiative for a Council resolution calling for those parameters. Impunity was a tremendous obstacle to peace. The State of Palestine had chosen justice rather than vengeance, and, as such, it was also seeking accountability through the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council and the Conference of the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions.


He also implored European Union members to uphold the commitments they had made in 1999, following the signing of the Oslo peace agreements, when they affirmed their intention to recognize the State of Palestine in due time. How then, 15 years later, had a majority of European Union member States, including all those that adopted the Berlin Declaration, with the important exception of Sweden, decided not to recognize State of Palestine? he asked. “If they are conditioning recognition on the results of negotiations, we assure them that our right to self-determination and freedom is not negotiable and that support for a sovereign State of Palestine on the 1967 borders is the best antidote to settlement activities.”


Mr. Elaraby, Secretary-General of the Arab League, said the real way to end the conflict was to end the occupation and conclude a final status agreement and not simply manage the conflict — a process that had enabled Israel to continue to delay peace talks while grabbing more land. “Israel is the only country in the world that thinks that time is a strategic objective,” he said, stressing that the international community must actively apply pressure on that nation and adopt serious positions to combat Israeli violations and policies, rather than just issuing condemnations.


Israel, which believed it was above the law, was sponsoring the “last outpost of apartheid in the twenty-first century”, he said. But instead of putting an end to Israel’s arrogance, the international community had turned a blind eye, causing the conflict to fester and risk going beyond the Middle East to shake the foundations of the current world order, while encouraging the illegal use of force. Israel could become a law-abiding State and comply with Security Council resolution 1397 (2002), which affirmed the two-State solution. But Israel’s flippant disregard had rendered the resolution impotent. Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu had said the two-State solution was now behind him, affirming that Israel only wanted to continue occupying Palestinian land and to have futile negotiations.


He said the Security Council must take the necessary measures to make the two-State solution a reality, by implementing its resolutions, including 242 (1967), which called for Israel’s full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, and 338 (1973), which reaffirmed resolution 242 (1967) and called for a ceasefire agreement. Furthermore, it must adopt a binding resolution, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and States must implement it. In that regard, he urged full support for the text tabled by France for a Council resolution setting well-known terms of reference, a mechanism for implementation and a complete halt of settlement activity.


Also needed was a serious, effective and urgent review of the role of the Quartet, which, despite the hopes attached to it, had not accomplished a single thing on the ground in 10 years, he said. The Security Council had not given it a clear mandate, leaving it to focus on conflict management. Resorting to the International Court of Justice, which had issued a landmark advisory opinion, and now the International Criminal Court were important options. In addition, the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement, known as BDS, had indeed started to affect the Israeli economy, as had the European Union’s guidelines that it label products made in the settlements. Those movements should be expanded.


Read more at the source...