Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
I sometimes wonder if Pakistanis are aware of just how much information is available to them over the Internet. The following transcript is from the United Nations Security Council's archives from early 2013.
Mr. Prosor (Israel): As we begin a new year, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the five new members of the Security Council. I wish each and every one of them a lot of luck and success in navigating the sometimes stormy waters of the Chamber.
Yesterday the people of Israel went to the polls. Millions of men and women cast their ballots. Israeli democracy continues to flourish. Elections are just one component of Israels vibrant democracy. Our Government guarantees the protection of minorities, women and gays. Our courts ensure that everyone is accountable under the law. Our education system teaches tolerance and peace, not violence and hate.
We long for the day when the scenes of real elections built on the foundations of real democracy
will spread to all corners of a safe, stable and secure Middle East. Such a day would mark a great turning point in the history of our region. My question to the Chamber is: How long must we wait?
Today we see a far bleaker picture in much of the Middle East. Repression, instability and horrific violence continue to plague the region. More than 60,000 have been killed in Syria in just the past two years. Al-Assads victims include hundreds of Palestinians. Since we have heard so much
about the Palestinian cause this morning, let me take this opportunity to remind the Council that Al-Assad has used fighter jets to bomb the refugee camps where Palestinians live in Syria and that Palestinians are fleeing the country by the thousands. In Lebanon more than 1 million live under the brutal oppression of Hizbullah, which has transformed the entire south of the country into an Iranian terror base.
The worlds most dangerous weapons are moving within reach of our regions most dangerous actors. We face the frightening possibility that Al-Assads vast stockpiles of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Hizbullah or Al-Qaida. The Ayatollah regime in Iran threatens to combine its extremist ideology and advanced missile technology with nuclear weapons.
The lives of millions hang in the balance. Those are just a few of the great challenges that
hang over the Middle East. Once again, none of them were prioritized for discussion this morning. Instead, the Security Council continues to use the monthly Middle East debate to single out, scrutinize and criticize Israel an island of democracy in the worlds greatest hotbed of tyranny.
I have a novel idea. Perhaps this discussion could occasionally spend some time examining why the situation in the Middle East remains unstable, undemocratic and violent. I will give the Council a hint: it has nothing to do with Israel.
There are many threats to security in our region. But the presence of Jewish homes in Jerusalem the eternal capital of the Jewish people has never been one of them. Jews have been building homes in Jerusalem since the time of King David, 3,000 years ago. Jewish communities witnessed the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. They lived in Jerusalem throughout crusades and pogroms. Some here say that the preliminary building plans announced last month prevent a two State solution, even though it is clear that all of those neighbourhoods will remain part of Israel in any final peace agreement.
I cannot understand how people can conclude that a Palestinian State cannot exist if there is contiguity between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem, which are seven kilometres apart. Those who make that claim are the same people who stand up and speak about a contiguous State between Gaza and the West Bank areas divided by more than 70 kilometres. Connecting Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel into two. Yet, Israeli contiguity never seems to be a concern for some in the Chamber.
The briefing that we heard this morning was particularly selective in the facts it chose to present. For instance, it does not take a Sherlock Holmes or New York City Police Department detective to see that the fingerprints of senior Palestinian Authority officials were all over the recent provocations staged in the area known as E-1. Conveniently, the involvement of those Palestinian leaders in those activities was omitted, miraculously, from the briefing of this morning. Since selective perception is one of the greatest hallmarks of this debate, I would like to take a moment to set straight a few facts about the past two months.
In November 2012, President Abbas stood in the General Assembly Hall and submitted a unilateral resolution to that body (General Assembly resolution 67/19). He claimed it was an act of peace. He insisted that it was the last chance to save the two-State solution (A/67/PV.44, p. 3). The Palestinian delegation promised that they would immediately return to the negotiating table after the voting, without preconditions. I know that some in the Chamber voted for resolution 67/19 on that basis. Today, those nations who supported Abbas bid have a duty to ask themselves: What, exactly, did we vote for?
Suffice it to say that the Palestinians have not lifted one finger to restart negotiations. We have seen neither a single gesture, nor a single statement, nor a single indication that they want to return to negotiations. Just 10 days after President Abbas spoke to the entire world about his commitment to a two-State solution, his political party Fatah released a new logo thatcompletely erased the State of Israel from the map. Make no mistake, the major obstacle to a two-State solution is the Palestinian refusal to speak to their own people about the true parametres of a two-State solution to speak a lexicon of peace, not a litany of war.
One will never hear President Abbas or any other Palestinian leader use the phrase two States for two peoples. One will not hear them say it because they have called for an independent Palestinian State but want millions of their people to flood the Jewish State. That would mean the destruction of Israel. Let me be clear: that is not a solution for peace, and no one who truly believes in peace could ever accept it.
Some in the Chamber may say that the Palestinians know that they will have to give up the claim of return at the negotiating table. Some Palestinian leaders might even whisper it quietly behind closed doors. But they have never, ever, said it publicly. The Palestinian people have no idea that they will one day have to give up that claim of return. Since the Palestinian leadership refuses to tell the Palestinian people the truth, the international community has the responsibility to tell them the truth. Those truly interested in peace will begin by speaking out forcefully and publicly and unequivocally against that claim. We cannot abide by the voices of the selectively principled.
Last December, a few days after President Abbas appeared at the United Nations, we heard a very public statement from Khaled Mashaal, the political chief of Hamas. At a rally for hundreds of thousands in Gaza, he called for Israels complete and total destruction. He said, Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north; there will be no concession on one inch of land.
One would think that the call for Israels destruction might merit a joint statement of concern from some prominent and some permanent members of the Council. I was told that some of the prominent and permanent members said something about that casual call for Israels destruction. Israel is known for having amazing listening devices. The members must have whispered something so quietly that even our most sensitive equipment was not able to pick it up. Apparently, Mashaals speech was not only of concern to President Abbas. Instead of seeking peace with Israel through negotiations, he has devoted all his energy to seeking unity with Hamas.
Hamas is the same terrorist organization that fired thousands of rockets into the heart of Israeli cities last November. It is the same terrorist organization that commits a double war crime as a matter of policy, using Palestinian schools to fire rockets at Israeli schools. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews. It has turned Gaza into a destination of choice; I would say a Club Med for global Jihadists. Some in the Chamber have the audacity to suggest that Israel should also welcome Hamas with open arms.
I ask, would they say the same if Islamic militants were firing rockets into their backyards? Would they say the same to France, which is now working with the Government of Mali to fight Al-Qaida in the Sahel? Frances Foreign Minister said this month that his country was fighting to prevent the creation of an Islamist terrorist enclave at the doorstep of France and Europe. If Mali is on Frances doorstep, Gaza is in Israels living room.
Let me be perfectly clear. Frances principled stand should be commended. We only ask that France and all the countries that are supporting its principled stand today support Israel tomorrow when we fight Islamic terrorism on our borders.The Palestinian representative speaks in the Chamber as if he represents a Jeffersonian democracy. Yet, no amount of rhetoric, spin or bluster can change one simple fact: the Palestinians clearly fail to meet the most basic criteria for statehood.
The only Palestinian State in the Chamber is the Palestinian state of denial. Last months resolution did not confer Palestinian statehood. It did not constitute recognition of a Palestinian State. Many Member States made that clear on 29 November and in the days that followed. Israel has placed its view on record in connection with the adoption of General Assembly resolution 67/19. That position remains unchanged. The recent resolution does not entitle the Palestinians to participate in United Nations meetings and international conferences, join treaties or seek membership in international organizations as a State. The change in terminology and titles risks creating a false impression of Palestinian statehood, when no such State exists. That is clearly not mandated by resolution 67/19. In the real world statehood comes with control of territory. Yet, the resolution did not change the fact that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza. That is 40 per cent of the territory that President Abbas claims to represent.
Any efforts to alter the Palestinian status outside the agreed negotiating framework directly violate the agreements between the parties. Those agreements include specific limitations on the Palestinian capacity in the sphere of foreign relations. They contain express obligations to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations, and to refrain from any step that seeks to alter the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of negotiations. Acting to facilitate violations of those agreements undermines the credibility of the Organization, which has repeatedly affirmed that a Palestinian State can only emerge as a result of bilateral negotiations.
Moreover, resolution 67/19 cannot serve as acceptable terms of reference for future negotiations. The resolution not only contradicts agreed terms of reference, it also seeks to predetermine some issues explicitly reserved for negotiation, while ignoring others such as security and the end of claims, which are core components of any future agreement. The campaign that the Palestinian leadership has waged at the United Nations is a false idol for the Palestinian people. There is only one route to statehood. It does not travel through this Chamber in New York. It runs through direct negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah. There are no shortcuts, no quick fixes, no instant solutions. Peace must be negotiated; it cannot be imposed.
Exactly 67 years ago this week, on 17 January 1946, the Security Council held its first meeting at Westminster in London. On that day, the Council clearly defined its mission, namely, to advance global peace and security, to oppose tyranny and to safeguard the rights of all people.
It would be a true understatement to say that the monthly debate on the Middle East falls far short of that standard. Most of the millions in our regions who live under oppression, fear and violence are completely ignored in the debate. They are cast aside to make way for a litany of half-truths, myths and outright lies about Israel. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Repeating a constant flood of falsehoods does not and cannot change the facts.
The simple fact remains that Israel is not what is wrong in the Middle East. Israel is what is right in the Middle East. Make no mistake: cynical politics do no favours for the Arab world. The silence of the Council in the face of terror does no favours for those seeking a brighter future. It is time to do some soul-searching in the Chamber. The Council needs a Global Positioning System to find its moral centre in the debate on the Middle East.
Just weeks after the Councils founding, Sir Winston Churchill outlined the challenges facing us today. He said the following about the newly formed United Nations: We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, ... that it is a true temple of peace...and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.
Mr. Prosor (Israel): As we begin a new year, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the five new members of the Security Council. I wish each and every one of them a lot of luck and success in navigating the sometimes stormy waters of the Chamber.
Yesterday the people of Israel went to the polls. Millions of men and women cast their ballots. Israeli democracy continues to flourish. Elections are just one component of Israels vibrant democracy. Our Government guarantees the protection of minorities, women and gays. Our courts ensure that everyone is accountable under the law. Our education system teaches tolerance and peace, not violence and hate.
We long for the day when the scenes of real elections built on the foundations of real democracy
will spread to all corners of a safe, stable and secure Middle East. Such a day would mark a great turning point in the history of our region. My question to the Chamber is: How long must we wait?
Today we see a far bleaker picture in much of the Middle East. Repression, instability and horrific violence continue to plague the region. More than 60,000 have been killed in Syria in just the past two years. Al-Assads victims include hundreds of Palestinians. Since we have heard so much
about the Palestinian cause this morning, let me take this opportunity to remind the Council that Al-Assad has used fighter jets to bomb the refugee camps where Palestinians live in Syria and that Palestinians are fleeing the country by the thousands. In Lebanon more than 1 million live under the brutal oppression of Hizbullah, which has transformed the entire south of the country into an Iranian terror base.
The worlds most dangerous weapons are moving within reach of our regions most dangerous actors. We face the frightening possibility that Al-Assads vast stockpiles of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Hizbullah or Al-Qaida. The Ayatollah regime in Iran threatens to combine its extremist ideology and advanced missile technology with nuclear weapons.
The lives of millions hang in the balance. Those are just a few of the great challenges that
hang over the Middle East. Once again, none of them were prioritized for discussion this morning. Instead, the Security Council continues to use the monthly Middle East debate to single out, scrutinize and criticize Israel an island of democracy in the worlds greatest hotbed of tyranny.
I have a novel idea. Perhaps this discussion could occasionally spend some time examining why the situation in the Middle East remains unstable, undemocratic and violent. I will give the Council a hint: it has nothing to do with Israel.
There are many threats to security in our region. But the presence of Jewish homes in Jerusalem the eternal capital of the Jewish people has never been one of them. Jews have been building homes in Jerusalem since the time of King David, 3,000 years ago. Jewish communities witnessed the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. They lived in Jerusalem throughout crusades and pogroms. Some here say that the preliminary building plans announced last month prevent a two State solution, even though it is clear that all of those neighbourhoods will remain part of Israel in any final peace agreement.
I cannot understand how people can conclude that a Palestinian State cannot exist if there is contiguity between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem, which are seven kilometres apart. Those who make that claim are the same people who stand up and speak about a contiguous State between Gaza and the West Bank areas divided by more than 70 kilometres. Connecting Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel into two. Yet, Israeli contiguity never seems to be a concern for some in the Chamber.
The briefing that we heard this morning was particularly selective in the facts it chose to present. For instance, it does not take a Sherlock Holmes or New York City Police Department detective to see that the fingerprints of senior Palestinian Authority officials were all over the recent provocations staged in the area known as E-1. Conveniently, the involvement of those Palestinian leaders in those activities was omitted, miraculously, from the briefing of this morning. Since selective perception is one of the greatest hallmarks of this debate, I would like to take a moment to set straight a few facts about the past two months.
In November 2012, President Abbas stood in the General Assembly Hall and submitted a unilateral resolution to that body (General Assembly resolution 67/19). He claimed it was an act of peace. He insisted that it was the last chance to save the two-State solution (A/67/PV.44, p. 3). The Palestinian delegation promised that they would immediately return to the negotiating table after the voting, without preconditions. I know that some in the Chamber voted for resolution 67/19 on that basis. Today, those nations who supported Abbas bid have a duty to ask themselves: What, exactly, did we vote for?
Suffice it to say that the Palestinians have not lifted one finger to restart negotiations. We have seen neither a single gesture, nor a single statement, nor a single indication that they want to return to negotiations. Just 10 days after President Abbas spoke to the entire world about his commitment to a two-State solution, his political party Fatah released a new logo thatcompletely erased the State of Israel from the map. Make no mistake, the major obstacle to a two-State solution is the Palestinian refusal to speak to their own people about the true parametres of a two-State solution to speak a lexicon of peace, not a litany of war.
One will never hear President Abbas or any other Palestinian leader use the phrase two States for two peoples. One will not hear them say it because they have called for an independent Palestinian State but want millions of their people to flood the Jewish State. That would mean the destruction of Israel. Let me be clear: that is not a solution for peace, and no one who truly believes in peace could ever accept it.
Some in the Chamber may say that the Palestinians know that they will have to give up the claim of return at the negotiating table. Some Palestinian leaders might even whisper it quietly behind closed doors. But they have never, ever, said it publicly. The Palestinian people have no idea that they will one day have to give up that claim of return. Since the Palestinian leadership refuses to tell the Palestinian people the truth, the international community has the responsibility to tell them the truth. Those truly interested in peace will begin by speaking out forcefully and publicly and unequivocally against that claim. We cannot abide by the voices of the selectively principled.
Last December, a few days after President Abbas appeared at the United Nations, we heard a very public statement from Khaled Mashaal, the political chief of Hamas. At a rally for hundreds of thousands in Gaza, he called for Israels complete and total destruction. He said, Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north; there will be no concession on one inch of land.
One would think that the call for Israels destruction might merit a joint statement of concern from some prominent and some permanent members of the Council. I was told that some of the prominent and permanent members said something about that casual call for Israels destruction. Israel is known for having amazing listening devices. The members must have whispered something so quietly that even our most sensitive equipment was not able to pick it up. Apparently, Mashaals speech was not only of concern to President Abbas. Instead of seeking peace with Israel through negotiations, he has devoted all his energy to seeking unity with Hamas.
Hamas is the same terrorist organization that fired thousands of rockets into the heart of Israeli cities last November. It is the same terrorist organization that commits a double war crime as a matter of policy, using Palestinian schools to fire rockets at Israeli schools. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews. It has turned Gaza into a destination of choice; I would say a Club Med for global Jihadists. Some in the Chamber have the audacity to suggest that Israel should also welcome Hamas with open arms.
I ask, would they say the same if Islamic militants were firing rockets into their backyards? Would they say the same to France, which is now working with the Government of Mali to fight Al-Qaida in the Sahel? Frances Foreign Minister said this month that his country was fighting to prevent the creation of an Islamist terrorist enclave at the doorstep of France and Europe. If Mali is on Frances doorstep, Gaza is in Israels living room.
Let me be perfectly clear. Frances principled stand should be commended. We only ask that France and all the countries that are supporting its principled stand today support Israel tomorrow when we fight Islamic terrorism on our borders.The Palestinian representative speaks in the Chamber as if he represents a Jeffersonian democracy. Yet, no amount of rhetoric, spin or bluster can change one simple fact: the Palestinians clearly fail to meet the most basic criteria for statehood.
The only Palestinian State in the Chamber is the Palestinian state of denial. Last months resolution did not confer Palestinian statehood. It did not constitute recognition of a Palestinian State. Many Member States made that clear on 29 November and in the days that followed. Israel has placed its view on record in connection with the adoption of General Assembly resolution 67/19. That position remains unchanged. The recent resolution does not entitle the Palestinians to participate in United Nations meetings and international conferences, join treaties or seek membership in international organizations as a State. The change in terminology and titles risks creating a false impression of Palestinian statehood, when no such State exists. That is clearly not mandated by resolution 67/19. In the real world statehood comes with control of territory. Yet, the resolution did not change the fact that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza. That is 40 per cent of the territory that President Abbas claims to represent.
Any efforts to alter the Palestinian status outside the agreed negotiating framework directly violate the agreements between the parties. Those agreements include specific limitations on the Palestinian capacity in the sphere of foreign relations. They contain express obligations to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations, and to refrain from any step that seeks to alter the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of negotiations. Acting to facilitate violations of those agreements undermines the credibility of the Organization, which has repeatedly affirmed that a Palestinian State can only emerge as a result of bilateral negotiations.
Moreover, resolution 67/19 cannot serve as acceptable terms of reference for future negotiations. The resolution not only contradicts agreed terms of reference, it also seeks to predetermine some issues explicitly reserved for negotiation, while ignoring others such as security and the end of claims, which are core components of any future agreement. The campaign that the Palestinian leadership has waged at the United Nations is a false idol for the Palestinian people. There is only one route to statehood. It does not travel through this Chamber in New York. It runs through direct negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah. There are no shortcuts, no quick fixes, no instant solutions. Peace must be negotiated; it cannot be imposed.
Exactly 67 years ago this week, on 17 January 1946, the Security Council held its first meeting at Westminster in London. On that day, the Council clearly defined its mission, namely, to advance global peace and security, to oppose tyranny and to safeguard the rights of all people.
It would be a true understatement to say that the monthly debate on the Middle East falls far short of that standard. Most of the millions in our regions who live under oppression, fear and violence are completely ignored in the debate. They are cast aside to make way for a litany of half-truths, myths and outright lies about Israel. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Repeating a constant flood of falsehoods does not and cannot change the facts.
The simple fact remains that Israel is not what is wrong in the Middle East. Israel is what is right in the Middle East. Make no mistake: cynical politics do no favours for the Arab world. The silence of the Council in the face of terror does no favours for those seeking a brighter future. It is time to do some soul-searching in the Chamber. The Council needs a Global Positioning System to find its moral centre in the debate on the Middle East.
Just weeks after the Councils founding, Sir Winston Churchill outlined the challenges facing us today. He said the following about the newly formed United Nations: We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, ... that it is a true temple of peace...and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.
.
