Occupied Palestinian Territories – Bringing the U.N. Security Council Resolutions into Sharper Focus
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Former NHK Executive Commentator
April 28, 2015
This April, Palestine became a member of the International Criminal Court. The Palestinian government says it will present two cases to the ICC: one claiming that Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory in the West Bank of the Jordan River constitutes an illegal act of aggression; and another condemning the Israeli Army's killing of numerous civilians in Gaza and elsewhere as a war crime. These cases are aimed at prosecuting individuals responsible for the acts, and the ensuing legal process is likely to be full of twists and turns. Let us examine Israel's counterargument against the case concerning Palestine's "occupied territory" in the West Bank.
The entire area of the West Bank including East Jerusalem is recognized by Palestinians and international opinion in general as "territory under Israeli occupation" since the Six Day War in 1967. However, Israel claims that the pre-1967 borderlines were merely ceasefire lines and not national borders, because at the time Israeli statehood was not recognized by its Arab opponents. Based on this premise, the "West Bank" region in question could only be disputed territory, as opposed to being "occupied territory."
Meanwhile, Resolution 242 adopted by the U.N. Security Council as a formula for peace in the immediate aftermath of the war in 1967 did not specify the boundaries to which Israel should withdraw, expressing only its intent of seeking "peaceful coexistence across borders recognized by all parties through negotiation." The resolution strongly reflected the intentions of the United States and its sympathy towards Israel. That is why the United States - despite its role as mediator in subsequent peace talks – has only gone so far as to criticize Israel's drive to establish Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as being "harmful to peace," while shying away from condemning the "illegality" of the act under international law. There was also the pro-Israeli U.S. Congress to consider.
Since former U.S. President George W. Bush accepted the "two-state" solution of creating a Palestinian state that could coexist with Israel, both Israel and Palestine have voiced their support, along with the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, the United Nations and the international community. Yet, the United States has not offered any guidelines on the specific borderlines to which Israel should withdraw, leaving 60 percent of the West Bank under Israeli occupation. Moreover, the right-wing Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to fend off the center-left Zionist Union in Israel's general election that took place in March. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to remain at the helm of a right-wing coalition government for another term.
In the final days of his campaign, Mr. Netanyahu rattled the Obama administration by giving speeches declaring he "will not recognize Palestinian statehood" in a bid to capture voters on the far right of even his Likud Party. He has since backtracked on some of the comments he made during the election following initial reactions from the U.S. government, which said in effect that it may re-evaluate its position of protecting Israel at the United Nations. However, it is doubtful that Mr. Netanyahu will make any serious effort to realize the two-state solution.
Amid these developments, the European Parliament lost no time in passing a resolution supporting the creation of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borderlines, with Jerusalem as its capital. The resolution clearly stated that Israel's settlements in the occupied West Bank are "illegal." The move was led by France, which plans to submit a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would require Israel to commit to a deadline for withdrawing from the territory it occupies. France is expected to seek U.S. approval by presenting the resolution in connection with the nuclear talks with Iran that are currently being pursued by the Obama administration.
During the U.N. General Assembly meeting in 2013, Japan, instead of abstaining, voted in favor of a resolution that elevated Palestine's status from an observer organization without voting rights to that of a non-member observer "state." Ambiguity surrounding the Security Council resolutions has long been an obstacle to the Middle East peace process. Reflecting upon that past, and in view of the emphasis Japan places on the United Nations in its diplomatic stance and the possibility of its becoming a non-permanent member of the Security Council later this year, I suggest Japan make a contribution to breaking the impasse in the peace process. I feel this even stronger now, as the "deepening of the Japan-U.S. alliance" raises the probability of Japan taking military related action in a broader arena including the Middle East.
Kentaro Hirayama is former NHK Executive Commentator.
The entire area of the West Bank including East Jerusalem is recognized by Palestinians and international opinion in general as "territory under Israeli occupation" since the Six Day War in 1967. However, Israel claims that the pre-1967 borderlines were merely ceasefire lines and not national borders, because at the time Israeli statehood was not recognized by its Arab opponents. Based on this premise, the "West Bank" region in question could only be disputed territory, as opposed to being "occupied territory."
Meanwhile, Resolution 242 adopted by the U.N. Security Council as a formula for peace in the immediate aftermath of the war in 1967 did not specify the boundaries to which Israel should withdraw, expressing only its intent of seeking "peaceful coexistence across borders recognized by all parties through negotiation." The resolution strongly reflected the intentions of the United States and its sympathy towards Israel. That is why the United States - despite its role as mediator in subsequent peace talks – has only gone so far as to criticize Israel's drive to establish Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as being "harmful to peace," while shying away from condemning the "illegality" of the act under international law. There was also the pro-Israeli U.S. Congress to consider.
Since former U.S. President George W. Bush accepted the "two-state" solution of creating a Palestinian state that could coexist with Israel, both Israel and Palestine have voiced their support, along with the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, the United Nations and the international community. Yet, the United States has not offered any guidelines on the specific borderlines to which Israel should withdraw, leaving 60 percent of the West Bank under Israeli occupation. Moreover, the right-wing Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to fend off the center-left Zionist Union in Israel's general election that took place in March. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to remain at the helm of a right-wing coalition government for another term.
In the final days of his campaign, Mr. Netanyahu rattled the Obama administration by giving speeches declaring he "will not recognize Palestinian statehood" in a bid to capture voters on the far right of even his Likud Party. He has since backtracked on some of the comments he made during the election following initial reactions from the U.S. government, which said in effect that it may re-evaluate its position of protecting Israel at the United Nations. However, it is doubtful that Mr. Netanyahu will make any serious effort to realize the two-state solution.
Amid these developments, the European Parliament lost no time in passing a resolution supporting the creation of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borderlines, with Jerusalem as its capital. The resolution clearly stated that Israel's settlements in the occupied West Bank are "illegal." The move was led by France, which plans to submit a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would require Israel to commit to a deadline for withdrawing from the territory it occupies. France is expected to seek U.S. approval by presenting the resolution in connection with the nuclear talks with Iran that are currently being pursued by the Obama administration.
During the U.N. General Assembly meeting in 2013, Japan, instead of abstaining, voted in favor of a resolution that elevated Palestine's status from an observer organization without voting rights to that of a non-member observer "state." Ambiguity surrounding the Security Council resolutions has long been an obstacle to the Middle East peace process. Reflecting upon that past, and in view of the emphasis Japan places on the United Nations in its diplomatic stance and the possibility of its becoming a non-permanent member of the Security Council later this year, I suggest Japan make a contribution to breaking the impasse in the peace process. I feel this even stronger now, as the "deepening of the Japan-U.S. alliance" raises the probability of Japan taking military related action in a broader arena including the Middle East.
Kentaro Hirayama is former NHK Executive Commentator.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
パレスチナ占領地・・・問われる安保理決議
平山 健太郎 / 元NHK解説主幹
2015年 4月 28日
パレスチナはこの４月、国際刑事裁判所に加盟。自らが領土と考えるヨルダン川西岸でのイスラエルによる入植地造成を不法な侵略行為として、またガザなどでのイスラエル軍による住民多数の殺害を戦争犯罪として、それぞれ提訴するとしている。責任者個人を対象にした訴追であり、今後の曲折が予想されるが、このうちヨルダン川西岸「占領地」を巡るイスラエル側の反論について考えてみたい。
パレスチナ側や大方の国際世論は東エルサレムを含むヨルダン川西岸の全域を１９６７年の第三次中東戦争でのイスラエルによる「占領地」であると認識しているが、イスラエル側は、この戦争以前の境界線は、イスラエルを国家として認めていなかったアラブ側との単なる休戦ラインに過ぎず、国境線ではなかった。したがって問題の「西岸」地域は係争地ではあっても「占領地」ではないと主張する。また６７年戦争後間もなく、国連安全保障理事会が平和への処方箋として採択した２４２号決議も、「当事者間の交渉で合意する境界線を挟んでの平和共存」という趣旨の表現にとどまり、イスラエル側が撤退すべき領土の範囲を特定していない。イスラエルに同情的なアメリカの意向を強く反映した決議だった。その後和平交渉を調停してきたアメリカが、イスラエル側の進める西岸や東エルサレムでのユダヤ人入植地の造成を「平和に有害」と批判しながらも、国際法上の「違法性」にまで踏み込んだ非難をためらってきた理由もそこにある。親イスラエルの議会への配慮が重なった。
ブッシュ前大統領が、イスラエルと共存しうるパレスチナ国家の創設、いわゆる「二国共存」を受け入れて以来、イスラエル、パレスチナ両者も、オバマ政権や国連、国際世論も、この結論に賛同してきたが、イスラエル側の撤退の具体的な範囲について米国からの指針は示されず、西岸の６０%が依然イスラエルの占領下にある。しかもイスラエルでは、３月の総選挙で、ネタニヤフ首相の率いる右翼政党リクードが、追い上げる中道・左派の「シオニスト連合」に勝利。ネタニヤフ氏による右翼連立政権の続投が予測されている。
この選挙戦の終盤で、ネタニヤフ氏は「パレスチナ国家は認めない」など、リクードよりさらに右の有権者の票を吸い上げる演説を行い、オバマ米政権を当惑させた。「イスラエルを庇護してきた国連での政策を見直すかも知れない」というオバマ政権の当座のコメントの後、ネタニヤフ氏は、選挙戦での発言を一部取り消してはいるが、二国共存に真剣に取り組む姿勢を見せるかは疑わしい。
こうした中で欧州議会は、６７年戦争以前の境界線をベースにした、エルサレムを首都とするパレスチナ国家への支持を早々と議決。西岸占領地への入植を「違法」と明言している。その主導的な役割を担うフランスは、イスラエルに占領地からの撤退完了の時期を約束させる新しい決議案を近々安保理に提出する方針で、オバマ政権が進めているイランとの核を巡る交渉とも絡めた形で、アメリカにも同調を求めると見られる。
日本は２０１３年秋の国連総会で、パレスチナを、議決権を持たないオブザ‐バー組織からオブザーバー「国家」に格上げする決議案に棄権せず、賛成票を投じている。安保理決議をめぐるこれまでの曖昧さが、中東和平プロセスの障害になってきた経緯を振り返り、国連を重視している日本の外交姿勢や、２０１５年後半に日本が安保理の非常任理事国入りする可能性なども考慮して、局面打開に貢献してはどうだろう。「日米同盟の深化」が、中東を含む広域での行動に結びつく蓋然性も高まっている時期だけに、ひときわそう感じる。
（筆者は元NHK解説主幹。）
パレスチナ側や大方の国際世論は東エルサレムを含むヨルダン川西岸の全域を１９６７年の第三次中東戦争でのイスラエルによる「占領地」であると認識しているが、イスラエル側は、この戦争以前の境界線は、イスラエルを国家として認めていなかったアラブ側との単なる休戦ラインに過ぎず、国境線ではなかった。したがって問題の「西岸」地域は係争地ではあっても「占領地」ではないと主張する。また６７年戦争後間もなく、国連安全保障理事会が平和への処方箋として採択した２４２号決議も、「当事者間の交渉で合意する境界線を挟んでの平和共存」という趣旨の表現にとどまり、イスラエル側が撤退すべき領土の範囲を特定していない。イスラエルに同情的なアメリカの意向を強く反映した決議だった。その後和平交渉を調停してきたアメリカが、イスラエル側の進める西岸や東エルサレムでのユダヤ人入植地の造成を「平和に有害」と批判しながらも、国際法上の「違法性」にまで踏み込んだ非難をためらってきた理由もそこにある。親イスラエルの議会への配慮が重なった。
ブッシュ前大統領が、イスラエルと共存しうるパレスチナ国家の創設、いわゆる「二国共存」を受け入れて以来、イスラエル、パレスチナ両者も、オバマ政権や国連、国際世論も、この結論に賛同してきたが、イスラエル側の撤退の具体的な範囲について米国からの指針は示されず、西岸の６０%が依然イスラエルの占領下にある。しかもイスラエルでは、３月の総選挙で、ネタニヤフ首相の率いる右翼政党リクードが、追い上げる中道・左派の「シオニスト連合」に勝利。ネタニヤフ氏による右翼連立政権の続投が予測されている。
この選挙戦の終盤で、ネタニヤフ氏は「パレスチナ国家は認めない」など、リクードよりさらに右の有権者の票を吸い上げる演説を行い、オバマ米政権を当惑させた。「イスラエルを庇護してきた国連での政策を見直すかも知れない」というオバマ政権の当座のコメントの後、ネタニヤフ氏は、選挙戦での発言を一部取り消してはいるが、二国共存に真剣に取り組む姿勢を見せるかは疑わしい。
こうした中で欧州議会は、６７年戦争以前の境界線をベースにした、エルサレムを首都とするパレスチナ国家への支持を早々と議決。西岸占領地への入植を「違法」と明言している。その主導的な役割を担うフランスは、イスラエルに占領地からの撤退完了の時期を約束させる新しい決議案を近々安保理に提出する方針で、オバマ政権が進めているイランとの核を巡る交渉とも絡めた形で、アメリカにも同調を求めると見られる。
日本は２０１３年秋の国連総会で、パレスチナを、議決権を持たないオブザ‐バー組織からオブザーバー「国家」に格上げする決議案に棄権せず、賛成票を投じている。安保理決議をめぐるこれまでの曖昧さが、中東和平プロセスの障害になってきた経緯を振り返り、国連を重視している日本の外交姿勢や、２０１５年後半に日本が安保理の非常任理事国入りする可能性なども考慮して、局面打開に貢献してはどうだろう。「日米同盟の深化」が、中東を含む広域での行動に結びつく蓋然性も高まっている時期だけに、ひときわそう感じる。
（筆者は元NHK解説主幹。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟