“At the Boiling Point With Israel” editorial NY Times piece calls for UNSC to lay guidelines for peace solution, specifically addressing Israel’s security, settlement growth, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders
The New York Times released an editorial calling on the United Nations Security Council to set up guidelines for a resolution for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is the first time the newspaper has made such a suggestion.
The piece comes just a week ahead of the scheduled meeting on October 14th for the Council to discuss Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank, as well as Jewish growth in Jerusalem. The meeting will take place as part of the “Arria Formula”, which are meetings held for Security Council members to provide a “opportunity to engage in a direct dialogue with high representatives of Governments and international organizations- often at the latter’s request- as well as non-State parties, on matters with which they are concerned and which fall within the purview of responsibility of the Security Council.”
The editorial, entitled “At the Boiling Point With Israel” starts by criticizing Israel’s settlement growth and suggests that Israel’s aim is to prevent a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The editorial board then suggests that the Security Council create guidelines in an “official solution” on issues of Israel’s security, Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem and borders. It also suggests a resolution relevant to the “current realities” of settlement growth.
It states “The best idea under discussion now would be to have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as Israel’s security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and borders for both states. The United Nations previously laid down principles for a peace deal in Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973); a new one would be more specific and take into account current realities. Another, though weaker, option is for Mr. Obama to act unilaterally and articulate this framework for the two parties.”
The piece suggests pressure from President Obama as “the most plausible pressure” on the Security Council in order to “put its authority behind a resolution to support a two-state solution and offer the outlines of what that could be,” and suggests that such “bureaucratic response” would be “unlikely to change anything, but it is the kind of political pressure Mr. Netanyahu abhors and has been working assiduously to prevent.”