Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(National Post-Canada) Irwin Cotler - The Palestinian initiative, bypassing direct negotiations, may well undermine rather than advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, while constituting a standing affront to the UN, international agreements and international law. First, such a unilateral Palestinian resolution would undermine existing and accepted international frameworks for peace, such as UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, and 1850; the Roadmap for Peace; and various statements by the Quartet which reject unilateralism. Second, it violates existing Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreements, most notably the Oslo II agreements of September 28, 1995, which state that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations" (Article 31). Third, the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral Interim Agreement was witnessed by the UN itself together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt and Norway. Accordingly, it would be highly inappropriate for such witnesses to now authorize a UN measure that would effectively violate this agreement. Fourth, the Palestinian resolution and UN General Assembly vote might well unravel the institutionalized legal and administrative framework that underpins existing Israeli-Palestinian relations. Fifth, if UN General Assembly recognition takes place while Hamas is the ongoing authority in Gaza, it would effectively amount to recognition of Hamas itself. Yet Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by Canada, the U.S. and European countries. Sixth, the Palestinian resolution purports to presuppose, and prejudge, the outcome of negotiations on such critical issues as borders and the status of Jerusalem, which were to be decided in direct negotiations between the parties. The writer is a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. 2012-12-03 00:00:00Full Article
Palestinian Search for UN Status Will Undermine Hopes of Statehood
(National Post-Canada) Irwin Cotler - The Palestinian initiative, bypassing direct negotiations, may well undermine rather than advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, while constituting a standing affront to the UN, international agreements and international law. First, such a unilateral Palestinian resolution would undermine existing and accepted international frameworks for peace, such as UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, and 1850; the Roadmap for Peace; and various statements by the Quartet which reject unilateralism. Second, it violates existing Israeli-Palestinian bilateral agreements, most notably the Oslo II agreements of September 28, 1995, which state that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations" (Article 31). Third, the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral Interim Agreement was witnessed by the UN itself together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt and Norway. Accordingly, it would be highly inappropriate for such witnesses to now authorize a UN measure that would effectively violate this agreement. Fourth, the Palestinian resolution and UN General Assembly vote might well unravel the institutionalized legal and administrative framework that underpins existing Israeli-Palestinian relations. Fifth, if UN General Assembly recognition takes place while Hamas is the ongoing authority in Gaza, it would effectively amount to recognition of Hamas itself. Yet Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by Canada, the U.S. and European countries. Sixth, the Palestinian resolution purports to presuppose, and prejudge, the outcome of negotiations on such critical issues as borders and the status of Jerusalem, which were to be decided in direct negotiations between the parties. The writer is a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. 2012-12-03 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|