Israel Matzav

Important letter to Kerry on 'settlements'

Here's an important letter from former foreign ministry legal adviser Alan Baker to US Secretary of State John Kerry about 'settlements.' I've uploaded it to ScribD and am embedding it below.

Letter to Kerry on settlements.docx

Labels: Alan Baker, John Kerry, settlements, settlements are legal

Video: Former Israeli ambassador to Canada on 'Palestinian' incitement

Here's former Foreign Ministry legal adviser and Israeli ambassador to Canada Alan Baker on 'Palestinian' incitement against Israel.

Let's go to the videotape.

Ending 'Palestinian' incitement was supposed to be Phase One of the 'road map.' So why is the World ready to go to Phase Three and give the 'Palestinians' a 'state' when they still haven't fulfilled Phase One? (That was a rhetorical question - I know why).

Labels: Alan Baker, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, road map

The 'Palestinians' UN gamble

Former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker says that the 'Palestinians' have a lot to lose by turning to the United Nations.

* The Palestinian leadership has announced its intention to abandon the negotiation process and to unilaterally seek a UN resolution that will impose a solution upon Israel. Facing a possible veto in the Security Council, the Palestinians are aiming to impose a UN resolution through the General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" procedure, which they hope will be supported by the UN member states.

* While such a resolution would not have the authority to alter the legal status of the territories, the negative consequences of such a course of action would nevertheless serve to void the very basis of the peace process. It would undermine the legal existence of the Palestinian Authority and violate commitments by Yasser Arafat to settle all issues by negotiation,

* Such unilateral action outside the negotiation process would constitute a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, thereby releasing Israel from its reciprocal commitments.

* Such unilateral action would undermine the international community's reliance on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 which form the foundation of all the agreements between the parties. It would also place into question the integrity and credibility of any Security Council resolutions or agreements resolving conflicts between states.

* It would render as meaningless the signatures of the major powers as witnesses to previous negotiated agreements. It would also be incompatible with provisions of resolutions and agreements requiring negotiated solutions to the Jerusalem and refugee issues.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Alan Baker, unilateral declaration of statehood, United Nations General Assembly