I re-post my earlier contribution, for I feel it has been studiously undiscussed:
A UNSC 'recognition' does not a state make.
A territory managed by the winner in a regional war cannot be ridden-over, roughshod, by non-interested parties who would wish the realities of the region were otherwise.
No,
there should be, and there will not be, any change in the situation on the ground without the explicit, documented, recognition of:
(i) the leaders and warlords of both 'Palestine' Territories ,
(ii) the political leaders AND the religious leaders of all Arab and non-Arab middle east countries, and
(iii) each and every member nation of the UNSC.
What do they need to recognise and document before any recognition of new states in and around greater Israel?
(i) The right of Israel to exist,
(ii) The right of Israel to exist where it is, and
(iii) The right of Israel to exist without being threatened or attacked by neighbouring or regional states or their proxies.
Only then should the boundary and township issues be negotiated through to permanent, documented and signed agreement.
This set of Rights must be underwritten by the UNSC, and ratified by the UNGA on behalf of the world community,
committing unanimously, explicity and automatically to
(i) condemn AND
(ii) bring counter-action by the world community as represented by the nations of the UN General Assembly, using the full resources of the *armed forces* of the nations of the UNSC,
if and when any subsequent attack or incursion on Israel by countries, proxy organisations or disaffected individuals takes place, and when called upon to do so by Israel itself, and acting in co-ordinated response with the Israeli armed forces..
This is a high-priced deal for the nations of the UN, and particularly the UNSC.
They would have a powerful vested interest to ensure that NO outbreak of violence in the region EVER took place again.
Comments?
PS. Velez is Unasur, not Colombia - as you know.
↧