Here Comes (Not) The Bride

Yesterday, over seventy nations took part in a so-called “Peace Conference” in Paris, allegedly to further the “Peace Process” between Israel and  the so-called “Palestinians”.

What a farce!

What kind of a “Peace Conference” can there be when neither of the rival parties is present?
Neither Israel, nor the “Palestinians” were present at the event.

What kind of “Peace Conference” requires the presence of seventy nations who have, in the past, demonstrated time and again their hostility to one party to the conflict (Israel) and their willingness to completely ignore the obstinacy and refusal to negotiate of the other party (the “Palestinians”)?
Indeed, even if the parties to the dispute had chosen to attend, why should seventy other countries be represented at such a conference?!

Israel quite rightly boycotted the Paris “Peace Conference” because it was clear that it would be no different from any United Nations session – a kangaroo court held with the intention of blaming Israel alone for the lack of progress in the (non-existent) “Peace Process”.
And the “Palestinians” didn’t attend because they had no need. There were plenty of supporters ready to do their work for them.
It is enough to point out that while the closing statement of the participants (or most of them, anyway) “reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace“, the fact that neither of the parties to the conflict was present contradicts the very idea of a negotiated solution, and that while “the Participants …..
call on each side ….. to refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, refugees and which they will not recognize“, they themselves, in that selfsame closing statement, “reiterated that a negotiated two-state solution should ….. fully end the occupation that began in 1967 ….. and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)“, thereby dictating the outcome of negotiations.

Why was such a conference even necessary, given that the organizers – the French – knew perfectly well that at least one party to the conflict, Israel, would be absent?
Merely to hector and lecture the bride?

And then, when the “Palestinians” also failed to turn up, it should have been doubly clear to the conferences’s sponsors that this was nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.

In short, the much-vaunted Paris Peace Conference can best be compared to a wedding without the bride and groom.

Advertisements

About Shimona from the Palace

Born in London, the UK, I came on Aliyah in my teens and now live in Jerusalem, where I practice law. I am a firm believer in the words of Albert Schweitzer: "There are two means of refuge from the sorrows of this world - Music and Cats." To that, you can add Literature. To curl up on the sofa with a good book, a cat at one's feet and another one on one's lap, with a classical symphony or concerto in the background - what more can a person ask for?
This entry was posted in International Relations, News, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Here Comes (Not) The Bride

  1. David Kessler says:

    Maybe Israel and the PA could meet to try and work out a solution to the current problems in Stormont?

    • Edward Dove says:

      To be fair, the UK did express “reservations” about the whole business, and refused to sign off on the final declaration.

  2. Chrissie says:

    I agree. So, that begs the question…why the conference? Posturing? Well, they can all do that for free and have done so. So, why the conference? At the risk of sounding, well, paranoid, it would seem there were other goals, other agendas. How long has this conference been scheduled to take place? Why Paris? Why those particular participants? ESPECIALLY given that the two most interested parties did not/were not going to attend..a fact they could not have been oblivious to well before the actual event.

  3. I am pleased to say that The UK has NOT signed up to the document produced at the Paris Conference: See here:http://www.cufi.org.uk/news/breaking-britain-refuses-to-sign-paris-summit-statement/

  4. pilch92 says:

    That is sad, it sounds like a bunch of countries putting on a show.

  5. Carolyn R says:

    It was a farce! Shimona I sent you an email the other day forwarding an article on the fact the PA had brought a suit in France against French companies building the light rail system in Jerusalem. The PA lost in a decision that ruled that Israel is the legal occupant of Judea and Samaria.

    Do you know about this and why isn’t it publicised? One can only assume it is spurious or maybe it is true and the world doesn’t want to know!

  6. Kate4grace says:

    I wonder what the outcome will be long term.If it all becomes one state the Jews will be only half the population.If it is democratic then all will have a vote.They can’t live under military law for ever ,can they?Do you believe they will go to Jordan?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s