On
Israel Paying
For Oil Slick
Off Lebanon,
NZ Votes Yes,
Aussies No
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 18
-- Fully
170 UN member
states in the
General
Assembly voted
on December 19
for Israel to
compensate Lebanon
for the oil
slick off its
shores caused
in 2006.
A predictable
six voted "no"
-- United
States,
Israel,
Canada,
Australia,
Micronesia and
the Marshall
Islands.
But
as with the
Palestine self-determination
vote on December
18, the
abstentions
were
noteworthy:
Cameroon,
Tonga and
Papua New
Guinea.
(Cameroon
abstained on
Palestine self-determination
too).
Also noteworthy:
Australia,
which is
leaving the
Security
Council in 11
days, voted
"No" on
compensation
by Israel,
while New
Zealand, which
is coming onto
the Council in
its place
voted "yes."
Along with
Malaysia
replacing
South Korea,
does this
portent
another
vote-gain for
the
Palestinian
UNSC resolution?
Amid
reports that
if the Palestine
resolution
fails this
month in the
UN Security
Council,
Palestine will
immediately
join the
International
Criminal
Court, Inner
City Press on
December 11
asked the
State of
Palestine's
Permanent
Observer to
the UN Riyad
Mansour
about it. Video here.
On
December 18 in
the UN General
Assembly, a
resolution on
the "Right of
the
Palestinian
People to Self
Determination"
was adopted
with 180 votes
in favor,
seven against
and four
abstentions.
The seven
against were
predictable:
Israel, the
US, Canada and
four islands:
Nauru, Palau,
Micronesia and
the Marshall
Islands.
The
four
abstentions,
however, were
more
surprising,
including the
country most
recently
accepted by
the UN as a
new member
state, South
Sudan.
Also
abstaining
were Cameroon,
Tonga and
Paraguay.
(Palau,
it should be
noted, joined
with previous
nay-sayers US,
Ukraine and
Canada in
voting no an a
resolution
opposing the
glorification
of Nazism.
And so it goes
at the UN.)
On December
17, after an
afternoon
meeting of the
Arab Group in
the UN,
Mansour spoke
again. He
announced that
a modified
draft
resolution
would be "put
in blue" -
that is,
prepared for a
vote in as
little as 24
hours. But he
did not say
when a vote
would be
called: in
2015, or in
January when
the
composition of
the Security
Council
changes in
Palestine's
favor, for
example with
Malaysia
replacing
South Korea.
The text of
the draft put
"in blue" is
below:
Draft
Resolution (17
December 2014)
Reaffirming
its previous
resolutions,
in particular
resolutions
242 (1967);
338 (1973),
1397 (2002),
1515 (2003),
1544 (2004),
1850 (2008),
1860 (2009)
and the Madrid
Principles,
Reiterating
its vision of
a region where
two democratic
states, Israel
and Palestine,
live side by
side in peace
within secure
and recognized
borders,
Reaffirming
the right of
the
Palestinian
people to
self-determination,
Recalling
General
Assembly
resolution 181
(II) of 29
November 1947,
Reaffirming
the principle
of the
inadmissibility
of the
acquisition of
territory by
force and
recalling its
resolutions
446 (1979),
452 (1979) and
465 (1980),
determining,
inter alia,
that the
policies and
practices of
Israel in
establishing
settlements in
the
territories
occupied since
1967,
including East
Jerusalem,
have no legal
validity and
constitute a
serious
obstruction to
achieving a
comprehensive,
just and
lasting peace
in the Middle
East,
Affirming the
imperative of
resolving the
problem of the
Palestine
refugees on
the basis of
international
law and
relevant
resolutions,
including
resolution 194
(III), as
stipulated in
the Arab Peace
Initiative,
Underlining
that the Gaza
Strip
constitutes an
integral part
of the
Palestinian
territory
occupied in
1967, and
calling for a
sustainable
solution to
the situation
in the Gaza
Strip,
including the
sustained and
regular
opening of its
border
crossings for
normal flow of
persons and
goods, in
accordance
with
international
humanitarian
law,
Welcoming
the important
progress in
Palestinian
state-building
efforts
recognised by
the World Bank
and the IMF in
2012 and
reiterating
its call to
all States and
international
organizations
to contribute
to the
Palestinian
institution
building
programme in
preparation
for
independence,
Reaffirming
that a just,
lasting and
peaceful
settlement of
the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict can
only be
achieved by
peaceful
means, based
on an enduring
commitment to
mutual
recognition,
freedom from
violence,
incitement and
terror, and
the two-State
solution,
building on
previous
agreements and
obligations
and stressing
that the only
viable
solution to
the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is an
agreement that
ends the
occupation
that began in
1967, resolves
all permanent
status issues
as previously
defined by the
parties, and
fulfills the
legitimate
aspirations of
both parties,
Condemning all
violence and
hostilities
directed
against
civilians and
all acts of
terrorism, and
reminding all
States of
their
obligations
under
resolution
1373 (2001),
Recalling
the obligation
to ensure the
safety and
well-being of
civilians and
ensure their
protection in
situations of
armed
conflict,
Reaffirming
the right of
all States in
the region to
live in peace
within secure
and
internationally
recognized
borders,
Noting with
appreciation
the efforts of
the United
States in
2013/14 to
facilitate and
advance
negotiations
between the
parties aimed
at achieving a
final peace
settlement,
Aware
of its
responsibilities
to help secure
a long-term
solution to
the conflict,
1.
Affirms the
urgent need to
attain, no
later than 12
months after
the adoption
of this
resolution, a
just, lasting
and
comprehensive
peaceful
solution that
brings an end
to the Israeli
occupation
since 1967 and
fulfills the
vision of two
independent,
democratic and
prosperous
states, Israel
and a
sovereign,
contiguous and
viable State
of Palestine
living side by
side in peace
and security
within
mutually and
internationally
recognized
borders;
2.
Decides that
the negotiated
solution will
be based on
the following
parameters:
-
borders based
on 4 June 1967
lines with
mutually
agreed,
limited,
equivalent
land swaps;
-
security
arrangements,
including
through a
third-party
presence, that
guarantee and
respect the
sovereignty of
a State of
Palestine,
including
through a full
and phased
withdrawal of
Israeli
security
forces which
will end the
occupation
that began in
1967 over an
agreed
transition
period in a
reasonable
timeframe, not
to exceed the
end of 2017,
and that
ensure the
security of
both Israel
and Palestine
through
effective
border
security and
by preventing
the resurgence
of terrorism
and
effectively
addressing
security
threats,
including
emerging and
vital threats
in the region.
- A
just and
agreed
solution to
the Palestine
refugee
question on
the basis of
Arab Peace
Initiative,
international
law and
relevant
United Nations
resolutions,
including
resolution 194
(III);
-
Jerusalem as
the shared
capital of the
two States
which fulfills
the legitimate
aspirations
of both
parties and
protects
freedom of
worship;
- an
agreed
settlement of
other
outstanding
issues,
including
water;
3.
Recognizes
that the final
status
agreement
shall put an
end to the
occupation and
an end to all
claims and
lead to
immediate
mutual
recognition;
4.
Affirms that
the definition
of a plan and
schedule for
implementing
the security
arrangements
shall be
placed at the
center of the
negotiations
within the
framework
established by
this
resolution;
5.
Looks forward
to welcoming
Palestine as a
full Member
State of the
United Nations
within the
timeframe
defined in the
present
resolution;
6.
Urges both
parties to
engage
seriously in
the work of
building trust
and to act
together in
the pursuit of
peace by
negotiating in
good faith and
refraining
from all acts
of incitement
andprovocative
acts or
statements,
and also calls
upon all
States and
international
organizations
to support the
parties in
confidence-building
measures and
to contribute
to an
atmosphere
conducive to
negotiations;
7.
Calls upon all
parties to
abide by their
obligations
under
international
humanitarian
law, including
the Geneva
Convention
relative to
the Protection
of Civilian
Persons in
Time of War of
12 August
1949;
8.
Encourages
concurrent
efforts to
achieve a
comprehensive
peace in the
region, which
would unlock
the full
potential of
neighborly
relations in
the Middle
East and
reaffirms in
this regard
the importance
of the full
implementation
of the Arab
Peace
Initiative;
9.
Calls for a
renewed
negotiation
framework that
ensures the
close
involvement,
alongside the
parties, of
major
stakeholders
to help the
parties reach
an agreement
within the
established
timeframe and
implement all
aspects of the
final status,
including
through the
provision of
political
support as
well as
tangible
support for
post-conflict
and
peace-building
arrangements,
and welcomes
the
proposition to
hold an
international
conference
that would
launch the
negotiations;
10.
Calls upon
both parties
to abstain
from any
unilateral and
illegal
actions,
including
settlement
activities,
that could
undermine the
viability of a
two-State
solution on
the basis of
the parameters
defined in
this
resolution;
11.
Calls for
immediate
efforts to
redress the
unsustainable
situation in
the Gaza
Strip,
including
through the
provision of
expanded
humanitarian
assistance to
the
Palestinian
civilian
population via
the United
Nations Relief
and Works
Agency for
Palestine
Refugees in
the Near East
and other
United Nations
agencies and
through
serious
efforts to
address the
underlying
issues of the
crisis,
including
consolidation
of the
ceasefire
between the
parties;
12.
Requests the
Secretary-General
to report on
the
implementation
of this
resolution
every three
months;
13.
Decides to
remain seized
of the matter.
On December
16, a Senior
State
Department
official said:
"Today,
Secretary
Kerry met in
London
separately
with
Palestinian
chief
negotiator
Saeb Erekat,
and with Arab
League
Secretary
General Nabil
El Araby and
members of the
Arab League
Special
Committee. In
both meetings,
the Secretary
exchanged
thoughts about
the situation
in the region,
ongoing
deliberations
related to
possible UN
Security
Council
action, and
the United
States'
interest in
finding a path
forward to
reduce
tensions and
de-escalate
the situation
on the ground.
All the
parties agreed
to continue
their
consultations
going
forward."
So what does
this mean, on
the
resolution(s)?
Inner City
Press on
December 11
asked
Palestine's
Observer Riyad
Mansour if the
US was engaged
in any
negotiations
on the
resolutions
proffered by
Jordan or
France. He
said no, then
added "you are
a smart
journalist,"
asking if
France would
do this work
without
coordination
with or
against the
interests of
the US.
Afterward
another
journalist
joked this
meant, "French
puppet." So
what's up?
Back on
December 11,
Inner City
Press asked
Mansour about
the relation
between the
resolution(s)
and Palestine
joining the
International
Criminal
Court.
Mansour said
the two are
not
conditional,
and that
Palestine
wants to join
the ICC, as is
being urged at
the current
session of the
ICC Assembly
of State
Parties at
which
Palestine is
now a
non-member
state. Video
here.
Meanwhile the
US Continuing
Resolution /
Omnibus on
Capital Hill
has this to
say:
"None
of the funds
appropriated
under the
heading
‘‘Economic
Support Fund’’
in this Act
may be made
available for
assistance for
the
Palestinian
Authority, if
after the date
of enactment
of this Act—
"(I)
the
Palestinians
obtain the
same standing
as member
states or full
membership as
a state in the
United Nations
or any
specialized
agency thereof
outside an
agreement
negotiated
between Israel
and the
Palestinians;
or
"(II)
the
Palestinians
initiate an
International
Criminal Court
judicially
authorized
investigation,
or actively
support such
an
investigation,
that subjects
Israeli
nationals to
an
investigation
for alleged
crimes against
Palestinians."
Earlier this
week,
Palestine's
Riyad Mansour
was in UN
Conference
Room 1, with
Palestine a
non-member
state, which
no one opposed
when proposed.
Now this.
Earlier this
month
Palestine and
the Arab
League said
Jordan would
be pushing in
the UN
Security
Council for a
vote in
December on a
draft
resolution
which would
set a timeline
to end
Israel's
occupation,
now January is
being
mentioned.
At first the
commitment was
to have a vote
in November,
when Australia
was president
of the
Security
Council. It
didn't happen.
On December 2,
Inner City
Press asked
the Council
president for
December,
Chadian
Ambassador
Mahamat Zene
Cherif, why
only a "Middle
East debate"
and not a vote
on a Palestine
resolution is
on the Program
of Work for
December.
Ambassador
Cherif said
he is not yet
seized of any
Palestine
resolution.
Amid talk of a
French
resolution --
French foreign
ministry
spokesman
Romain Nadal
said on
December 2
there is "no
rush" on a
resolution --
now Jordan's
Ambassador
Dina Kawar
says "We're
going to try
to make it
before
Christmas. If
not, it will
be in
January."
As Inner City
Press exclusively
reported,
based on
Security
Council
communications,
Chad was
pressured to
not schedule
any meetings
after December
19. It pushed
back, and
scheduled one
for December
22. But that's
it.
Already, the
delay has been
long. It was
cold, for
example, at
the UNRWA
event held
just outside
the UN on
December 2,
photographed
by the Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
here.
In one month's
time,
Venezuela and
Spain join the
Security
Council, along
with Angola,
Malaysia and
New Zealand.
Wouldn't the
draft get more
"yes" votes in
January 2015
than in
December 2014?
Rather than
analyze this,
Reuters for
example again
vaguely
reports that
"some
diplomats have
described the
Palestinian-drafted
text as
'unbalanced.'"
For whom? Now
Reuters adds,
"some Western
Council
diplomats." So
helpful.
Back
on October 21
as the
Palestine
debate of the
UN Security
Council went
on in the
Council
chamber,
Inner City
Press
conferred with
a range of
Council
sources about
the pending
draft
resolution to
set a time
frame to end
Israel's
occupation.
Negotiations
were
held on the
draft last
week but only
at the
“expert”
level, not of
Permanent
Representatives
of the
Council's 15
members.
Supporters of
the current
draft,
according to
Inner City
Press'
sources,
include China
and Russia,
Argentina and
Chile, Chad
and it was
assumed
Nigeria,
although
sources say
Nigeria in
consultations
said they
didn't yet
have
instructions.
France
was described
as more
excited by the
draft than
either the US
or the UK, as
not have a
problem with a
time frame to
end the
Occupation but
wanting
unstated
changes to the
draft. France
did not put
forth
amendments, a
source told
Inner City
Press,
guessing that
France didn't
want to
“embarrass”
the US
Administration
before the
November
mid-term
elections.
The UK
was described
as less
enthusiastic,
but as somehow
“softened” by
the recent
vote in
Parliament
favoring
recognizing
Palestine as a
state.
Talk
turned to the
new members of
the Security
Council coming
in on January
1, with
Malaysia
instead of
South Korea
seen as a
shift in favor
of Palestine
as a state.
(This
reporter's Security
Council
elections
coverage is
collected here.)
Angola and
Venezuela are
seen as
supportive and
“even Spain,”
as one source
put it to
Inner City
Press. But
what about New
Zealand? We'll
have more on
this. Watch
this site.
, 
