Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), Kerry’s Principles, Paris Conference, the 
Coming Administration, and the Possibilities of the U.S.  Embassy Move

Topic 1: Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016)
It is a very significant resolution that is a fundamental addition to the legal and political system governing the Palestinian - Israeli conflict in terms of substance and timing.
Side note: Some criticizing Palestinian opinions proved to be irrational and unwise.  In return, some exaggerations and inaccurate judgments could be demeaning; i.e.   “This is the first resolution issued in the last 35 years, or the resolution adds to the “illegality” of the settlements new and unprecedented dimensions”.  Such judgments are misleading, as they insinuate to a long absence, and reflect a faulty reading of the parties’ positions.  Security Council resolutions on the situation of the Occupied Territory since 1967 including Jerusalem, must be read as one package and not disseminated to resolutions; one vis-à-vis the settlements, another about Jerusalem and a third about the Israeli practices all on one hand.  On the other hand, the approach must always be in integration with the resolutions and develop on them.    

Major points of resolution 2334 (2016):
1.  The legal status of the Palestinian land as Occupied Territory and settlements as illegal:
The resolution in the preamble states the reaffirmation of the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the year 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice.
The resolution in the operative part states that the settlements have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.  
It is of utmost importance to refer to this paragraph as advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  I would have preferred an operative paragraph on the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention.  I don’t think however that there is much difference based on the idea of integration with previous resolutions.  
2.  Settlement activities in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem.
The resolution reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respects all of its legal obligations in this regard.
Note the words "immediately" and "fully" i.e., without any exception.

3.  The position on the 4th of June 1967 lines.
The resolution underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.
The statement that George Bush gave in 2005 is similar to what was stated earlier; yet being incorporated in a UNSCR is of vital importance.
4.  The distinction between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  
The resolution calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
This is a very important position that could be regarded as a legal basis to many actions, beginning with the labeling of settlement products.
5.  The position on violence such as terrorism, provocation and destruction (so as to be accused of unilateralism).
The resolution calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction.  
In light of the negotiations history, this refers to Palestinians in its first part and to Israel in its second.
6.  References of the peace process and international efforts
The resolution urges in this regard, the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap, and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation.
Therefore, there are clear terms of reference as a basis for the Middle East peace process.  
Timing: it is the only resolution during Obama’s administration and it comes after almost ten years.  This means that the resolution reflects Obama’s administration position and its final response to the Israeli policies.  (I will get back to the significance of the resolution and its usage).
7.  Follow-up
The resolution reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions.  It requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution.
It is important to emphasize a serious Palestinian pursue- a very serious one indeed- to follow up on the implementation; specifically the periodic reports of the Secretary-General.

Topic two:
Remarks of U.S.  Secretary of State John Kerry on Peace in the Middle East and His Six Principles

We can note here two parts of Kerry's remarks:
Part 1: includes a withering attack on Israeli settlements, a robust defense for the two-state solution and a justification (clarification) of the U.S.  abstention on Security Council resolution and its decision not to veto.  The central point was that settlements emasculates the two-state solution, thus pushing Israel towards a catastrophic solution.
Part 2: includes six principles, which could be considered as the foundation for serious negotiations.  He stated that there is a broad consensus that the final agreement, which responds to the core needs of both sides, will be achieved through the following: (the principles define the final status agreement’s specifications).
1.  Provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.  
The first principle does not subject the existence of the State of Palestine to negotiations and insists that the 1967 lines are the solid basis for negotiations and that any adjustments must be equal and agreed upon.
2.  Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.
The second principle is not consistent with the Palestinian refusal of a Jewish state.  However, we note that it is founded on the basis of international legitimacy and not on the basis of religious or political narratives, recognition will come later (mutual recognition), and that its condition is to have full equal rights for all citizens of each state.
3.  Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgement of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples.
The third principle rejects the right of return Palestinians insist on.  Yet, we notice that for the first time, the text mentions "acknowledgment of suffering," and what can be read as the return of a limited number that will not alter the demographic composition of Israel and perhaps also the individual property rights.
4.  Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.
The fourth principle disapproves with the Palestinian position as East Jerusalem is considered the capital of Palestine.  Nevertheless, we notice an absolute rejection to the Israeli position in this regard.  Pointing to an internationally recognized solution confirms other international interests.  Then pointing to protect and ensure freedom of access to the holy places and their status quo, which hints to some form of an international system.
5.  Satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.
The fifth principle represents a compromise.  It certifies Israel's security needs and confirms on the other hand the need to end the occupation, even if later, and reiterates the right to afford security to the Palestinian people.
6.  End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative.
In addition to signs from part one of the remarks, the sixth principle accepts as stated, the Arab Peace Initiative in its current form.  It seems that it does not accept nor at least expects the success of Israel’s efforts to upturn the initiative, and that’s a very important point.  

After the Principles, Kerry refers to three steps: 
   - Steps on the ground that will begin the process of separating the two states
   - A political horizon
   - A basis for negotiations that the parties could demonstrate their seriousness about making peace
Then he refers to a quote said by Peres: (The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48%, now it is down to 22%, I think 78% is enough for us).
These principles are very important, some said they are too little and too late.  I accept “too late”, but I do not accept “too little” unless the delay was the reason that made it so.  It is shameful that these principles came late to that extent, regardless, we have to understand that these remarks Kerry has made, which have the support and acceptance of Obama, represent the official position of the U.S.  administration which is very important.  We notice that the remarks and the Security Council resolution, jointly have a significant legal, political, and practical impact that could be summarized as follows:
The main goal is to counter the possibility of eliminating the two-state solution (to defend the establishment of peace in the Middle East and to defend the two-state solution as the only possible and acceptable solution).  By the way, the solution which is catastrophic: Israel will seize more land and will get rid of some Palestinians, then it will isolate the remainder of them and will not recognize and acknowledge their equal rights.  This is exactly how Israel loses its democracy and establishes an apartheid state that will always remain in constant conflict with Palestinians and Arabs as well.
It is as important, in addition to all that was revealed earlier, to note that both documents strike the Israeli strategies in order to make fundamental changes that will eventually lead to ending the two-state solution.
These are:
- Legitimize settlements, or at least legitimize settlement blocs close to the borders and those in Jerusalem (or lack of opposition).
- Take Jerusalem out of the political settlement and the final status agreement or the negotiations related to it.
- Undermine the 1967 lines and open the door to imposed changes in favor of the Israeli side (This may terminate contiguity or validity of a Palestinian state).
- The problem is an internal problem of Israeli, and Israel is the one that grants the Palestinians their rights.
- Construct a regional change and impose new alliances with Arabs before attaining a solution with the Palestinians (or without such solution).
- Neutralize the International law and the international organizations, and prevent their use by Palestinians.

Topic 3:
 The French Initiative to Hold an International Peace Conference in Paris
France has made the move in order to give the necessary attention to and find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to recover the two-state solution, change the approach to reach a solution to confirm the international responsibility and the willingness of the international community to offer help.
This is how an international conference in Paris was proposed, with the participation of a number of concerned countries in the region and beyond, along with Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinians welcomed the initiative, yet the Israeli side rejected it utterly.  Accordingly, the proposal was altered to holding a preparatory ministerial meeting in Paris instead, without the participation of both sides.   Evidently, the meeting took place in Paris on June 3rd 2016 and a concluding statement was released.  Later on, another consultative meeting took place in New York in September, and finally the conference was held on the 15th of January 2017 and another statement was adopted.  The participants agreed to meet again for a follow up before the end of the year.
Hence, France deserves credit for its initiative and persistence to shun down the Israeli intransigence, while succeeding in taking the steps mentioned above.  Thank you, France.
On the other hand, it wouldn’t have been possible to hold an effective international conference because this requires forcing the Israeli side to respond positively, and this is unlikely, or it would require at least a clear and fundamental political authorization from the Security Council that would essentially be the basis for a political conference.  Even then, it would have taken time and effort, and a kind of international consensus.  In this regard, Palestinian expectations were not realistic (binding framework and a timetable for ending the occupation).  Yet again what happened was fruitful, effective and destined.
The thing that is not comprehensible though, is the statement of the conference 15/1 and its low ceiling compared to 2334 resolution and Kerry’s principles.  Did the Americans retreat? Did the French hesitate? Did the British undermine it? Or is it Trump’s phantom hanging over the place? (Permanent member that would change its position three weeks after the resolution is voted upon?).  In any case, mostly we are now encountering a new game.

Topic 4: 
The New Administration and the Possible U.S Embassy Move to Jerusalem
It is very difficult to read what is currently happening in the United States, which is important and vast, let alone the forecasts of the positions and policies of the new president and / or his administration.  
We are talking about a non-political, non-ideological, and non-conventional president.  A person with acute positions and sometimes contradictory (for example, he talked about moving the embassy to Jerusalem, while at the same time talked about his desire to resolve the conflict and to achieve the ultimate political solution) and I think he is effective.
The appointments announced by President Trump, did not contribute to better understand things, or anticipate the future.
There is also an all-out confrontation between Trump camp and the democratic liberal camp that developed feelings of anxiety and unfairness when its candidate got three million votes more than Trump did, yet she had lost.
There is also a broad and serious confrontation within Trump’s camp itself: it is divided into two main parts; the first represents the traditional Republican Party, and the other is the assembly of forces of the populist who are anti establishment, free trade, and globalization in general.  They include the religious right and the ethnic forces who are anti-foreigners and immigrants and anti-Islam in particular.
Until the moment, there aren’t still stable coalitions between the political, economic and social forces, and it is not clear yet whether some of these forces will sustain their traditional positions or will change.
What happens will affect the world in general: the emerging international system after World War II, international alliances, the relationship with Russia and China, the free trade agreements, globalization in general, the hostility to radical Islam, and of course the Middle East.
* So the question again: What will Trump do with the Middle East? and will he start, maybe soon enough, to move the embassy to Jerusalem? or not? My answer: No one knows.  Because in addition to all the above, we may witness an escalation in internal or domestic wars that will not allow the time and effort to handle the foreign policy and perhaps vice versa.
Wisdom calls that we think of the different possibilities, and to be well prepared for any possibility.
We must be ready to handle this administration positively and seriously if it chose to adopt the political solution.  And the best to do so, should be in a new form and with new faces.  
We must be well prepared to address openly this devastating move, had he opted to move the embassy.
In this case, we need to:
1.  Have a detailed Palestinian position to handle the consequences of this step, in terms of its connotations and results.
2.  Join the efforts with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and of course, Arab and Islamic countries and the Non-Aligned Movement on the basis of a common perception.
If theoretically this step was performed:
We must first understand every detail of this step, and by no means accept any imprudence: we need to fully comprehend not only the detailed arrangements regarding the embassy and the ambassador, but also to be aware about the future of the consulate (which has been in this location for more than one hundred and forty years, and now independently serving the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem)
* This step will mean abandoning any form of international regime for the city of Jerusalem (181) as well as the interests of the various international parties in Jerusalem.
* This step will constitute a grave violation of the international law and the standing policies of the United States: the legal status of the occupied territories since 1967, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the relevant Security Council resolutions (which the United States participated in their making) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
* This step will represent giving up on the international agreements to which the United States is a party of: the Oslo accord; previous formal guarantees: the letter of guarantees provided by the U.S government to Palestinians before Madrid.
* This step will signify a flagrant violation against the rights of Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem, and against the national Palestinian rights (Hashemite tutelage).
* Politically, this step will structure an annulment to the negotiating process stipulated in the Oslo accord, thus it will cancel the basis of a political solution, and possibly cancel the two-state solution through negotiations.
Therefore, the consequences of the embassy move would be:
1.  Undermining the international orders, the international law, and the interests of the international parties in Jerusalem.
2.  Undermining the possibility of achieving peace through a political settlement.
3.  Taking away the role of the mediator from the United States, and consigning her (the U.S) to being party to the conflict, hostile to Arabs and Muslims, and a violator to international law.  
What to do?
1.  Make all of the above clear and distinct to our people, to other Arab countries, to the world, and to the Americans themselves (even if they know it).
2.   By product, break off the Palestinian relationship with the staff of the illegally moved U.S.  embassy (along with ending the existence of the Consulate).  Consequently, such a step will lead to the closure of the Palestinian Representative Office in Washington (And I’m not saying this lightly).
3.  Declare the unwillingness to cooperate with the United States as a mediator, neither directly nor through the Quartet.
Concerning points 2 and 3; Palestinians’ willingness to talk with the United States must be confirmed and to cooperate the latter take opposite steps on her part.
4.  File a complaint to the UN Security Council, against a permanent member, for its direct violation of Security Council resolutions, including resolution 2334 (2016).
Consider the possibility of a short resolution to appeal to the administration to revoke the move of the embassy.
The U.S Veto: According to Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter, a member of the UNSC, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Members Positions: Not easy
Legal Mobilization: Address the International Court of Justice, whether on the basis of a contentious case or an advisory opinion, as well as to consider the possibility of mobilizing the local courts.
5.  Search with other Arab countries for new basis and new mechanisms for a political process (confirming the relentless willingness to communicate with the United States).
6.  Take collective positions in the various international assemblies and in international organizations and bodies.  And to urge the States to take further steps even if limited.
7.  Prepare for the worst and for the following steps that will logically arise, either by the U.S or by the Israeli government, who will perceive the historic opportunities as a “must be” exploited.
8.  Employ all available tools in the fight for our basic battle against settler colonialism, will grant support to all sectors of the Palestinian society.
Attain a system of punitive measures against settlements, settlers and entities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the legal obligations of States (this is different from BDS).
Conclusion: Resolution 2334 and Kerry’s principles can significantly contribute to constructing an effective defense Palestinian strategy in the next phase, including an offensive part against settler colonialism of our land.