UN-Truth

Daniel Levy is really, really good. He is the extremely impressive, gifted and talented person from the Israeli side who did the drafting for the Geneva Initiative, under the direction of Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister and leader of the sort of leftist Meretz-Yahad party. The Israeli “Geneva” team was packed with serious and committed Israelis from a small range of political views but with considerable mainstream political experience.

While one might not agree with all the planks in the platform of this “Geneva Initiative”, formally launched in Geneva on 1 December 2003, with strong if somewhat confused Swiss backing, it is still very much on the table — despite the derisive dismissiveness from the peanut gallery that this was just a crass effort at self-promotion from a bunch of political has-beens and wanna-bes.

Anyway, during a post-Israeli-Disengagement-from-Gaza lull in activity, Daniel has gone off to America, and is now working energetically at a Washington think-tank.

Here is his instructive view, posted on 13 September on his blog, Prospects for Peace, about the not-at-all-impressive positions taken by the leading U.S. Democratic candidates on the very important issue of the status of Jerusalem:

“To coincide with the Jewish New Year, fresh statements are coming out of some presidential campaigns reaffirming the candidates’ ‘pro-Israel’ credentials. It’s the kind of thing that stretches the thread between domestic political posturing and smart policy prescriptions to a snapping point. It is almost redundant to note that the content of these declarations have precious little to do with advancing what is good for Israel, or, for that matter, US interests. But one sentence from the Hillary Clinton press release of September 10 stands out. (Curiously, the the statement is not up on Clinton’s campaign website.) In staking out her position on ‘Standing with Israel against terrorism’, Hillary Clinton defends Israel’s right to exist with ‘… an undivided Jerusalem as its capital’.

Oddly enough, this places her in direct contradiction with the plan put forward by a certain President Bill Clinton in December 2000. He proposed dividing Jerusalem: ‘The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides’.

The plan became known as the Clinton Parameters, and it is widely accepted as the outline for any future deal. These issues are on the agenda again as Israeli Prime Minister Olmert meets with Palestinian President Abbas to outline areas of agreement in advance of a proposed November peace summit.

Israel’s highest-circulation Daily, Yediot Ahronoth, ran a piece last weekend about the progress in these talks. According to two highly respected journalists (Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer), Israel’s Deputy PM, Haim Ramon, who is leading exploratory talks on behalf of Olmert, has proposed, well, …. dividing Jerusalem.

From Shiffer and Barnea in Yediot (Sept 14th, my translation from the Hebrew): ‘On Jerusalem Ramon, in the talks (with Palestinians - DL), adopts the principles outlined by Clinton in 2001: … Jerusalem should be divided between the two states. The area populated by Jews would remain under Jewish sovereignty; the area populated by Arabs would come under Palestine’s sovereignty. In the holy basin, i.e., the Old City and its environs, each religion would be responsible for its holy places’.

So, candidate Hillary Clinton is running to the right, not only of former President Bill Clinton, but also of the centrist Israeli Government. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s press release says nothing at all about a two-state solution, about a Palestinian state, or even a peace process. (Palestinians do, though, exist as terrorists and/or as promoters of incitement).

Barack Obama’s new press release also gives an emphatic nod to the standard fair of the strong and enduring US-Israel partnership. He does so at least in the more constructive and inoffensive context of referring to the peace process and a two-state solution, which is far more in keeping with the sentiments of most American Jews. None of this, admittedly, comes close to the unreconstructed neocon venom coming from Rudy Giuliani and his camp of advisers that include (among others) Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, and, as of last month, Daniel Pipes. But the interesting point emerging among the leading Dem contenders is that Barack Obama, so far, represents continuity with the Bill Clinton legacy of active engagement in Arab-Israeli peace making, while Hillary, so far, does not. It would be fascinating to know whether candidate Hillary Clinton supports the parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace that carry her family name.”

Daniel Levy’s blog is located here.

Before the Clinton Parameters, there was the U.S. position staked out in the UN Security Council in 1980 by then U.S.-Ambassador Arthur Goldberg (one of his successors, then-U.S. Ambassador Donald McHenry, kindly provided me with a copy of Goldberg’s statement, in the pre-internet era, in response to a question I had asked about Jerusalem), but this has since been eroded — or, as the Americans like to say, it has become “ancient history”.  (But a vestige of it remains: despite constant assaults by the U.S. Congress, the President still has not fully backed off from the Goldberg statement’s refusal to accept the Israeli unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980.)

Before that, there was the UN Partition Resolution 181 adopted in November 1947, and the subsequent UN “Right to Return” Resolution adopted in December 1948 [o.k., I have now come to take issue with that nickname, after a more careful reading of the long text of the resolution, because its provision for the return, but not the right of return, of those Palestinian refugees "wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours" etc., is only a very small part of this resolution, while what it says about Jerusalem is somewhat more substantial]. However, in terms of “international legitimacy”, a term used mostly by Palestinians, neither of these resolutions are “ancient history” at all …

On the refugees, the full text of Resolution 194’s provision reads as follows: “[The General Assembly] Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible…” Well, you can see that there are several loopholes here big enough to drive a car through. But, it is clear that the General Assembly called for both return and compensation.

Specifically on Jerusalem, Resolution 194 says the following:

“”[The General Assembly] … 8. Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most Eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most Southern, Bethlehem; the most Western,Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most Northern, Shu’fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;

Requests the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to present to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area which will provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area;

The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a United Nations representative who shall cooperate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area;

9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to report immediately to the Security Council, for appropriate action by that organ, any attempt by any party to impede such access … ”

By the way, it was easier to find the text of this resolution from a Google search rather than from a search of the UN official website.

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Middle East Peace Process, Palestine & Palestinians, Quartet, Register of damages due to The Wall