Latest news with #Resolutions242
New Straits Times
21 hours ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Asean not morally ambiguous
AS the war in Gaza grinds on, some have begun to question Asean's moral posture, suggesting it is caught between ethical clarity and geopolitical caution. A recent Nikkei Asia editorial, for instance, claimed Asean suffers from a strategic and moral dilemma in responding to the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, far from being paralysed, Asean has consistently supported a peaceful resolution based on international law. Since the 1970s, Asean has endorsed the two-state solution as the only viable path towards lasting peace. This includes support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative — also known as the Makkah Accord. These are firm commitments to legality, diplomacy and human rights. The claim that Asean has been muted or morally ambiguous dismisses the role played by key member states — especially Malaysia and Indonesia. Both have consistently condemned Israeli aggression and voiced support for Palestinian self-determination. Singapore, while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel, has also supported peaceful coexistence and a two-state solution grounded in rule of law. Asean has chosen collective consensus and sustained diplomacy over reactionary statements or token gestures. If paralysis exists, it is not within Asean, but within Israel's long-standing policy of rejectionism. Since the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, successive Israeli governments have walked away from every serious peace initiative. The expansion of illegal settlements, the military blockade of Gaza and discriminatory policies against Arab citizens have created a system many have likened to apartheid. The tragic events of Oct 7, 2023, have been cited by Israel to justify its indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza's hospitals, schools and refugee camps. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened. Food, water and fuel have been denied to over two million civilians, more than half of whom are children. This is not self-defence — it is collective punishment, forbidden under international humanitarian law. Asean, by contrast, has called for an immediate ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access and a return to negotiations. What Asean cannot do — because of geography and geopolitical limits — is intervene in a war sustained by decades of US vetoes at the UN Security Council and continuous arms support for Israel from Washington, London and Berlin. Notably, even within Europe there is growing unease. Belgium, Spain, Norway and Ireland have moved towards recognising Palestine as a sovereign state. They have criticised Israel's starvation tactics and disproportionate use of force. This shift is not an abandonment of Western alliances — it is a recognition that peace cannot be achieved through occupation and siege. Asean's position has also found resonance across the Global South. At the Asean-GCC Summit in October 2023, both blocs jointly reaffirmed their support for the two-state solution and peaceful coexistence. Asean's alignment with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the UN and the Arab League signals a unified call for justice — not through military intervention, but through diplomatic resolve. Asean does not practise megaphone diplomacy. Its strength lies in principled patience and coordinated regional consensus. Unlike Western powers, which condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine but defend Israeli strikes on Gaza, Asean does not apply moral standards selectively. What many forget is that this is not a war between two equal sides. It is the latest chapter in a prolonged occupation that began in 1967. To fault Asean for not taking sides in such a structurally unequal conflict is to conflate strategic restraint with moral apathy. Indeed, Asean's restraint is its greatest diplomatic asset. By refusing to inflame tensions or escalate rhetoric, Asean positions itself as a principled bloc that adheres to international norms. Malaysia and Indonesia, as prominent members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, have also spoken not just for Muslims, but for all who uphold dignity, justice and legality. The tragedy of Gaza is the failure of Israel to embrace coexistence, to respect international law and to heed decades of global appeals for peace. Asean has made its position clear: the only path forward is an end to occupation and the realisation of Palestinian statehood. Until that happens, it is not Asean's credibility that should be questioned — it is Israel's.
Al Binaa
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
The Fall of Resolutions 425 and 1701
• The Israelis despise international resolutions to the core. Since the inception of their entity, they have never implemented a single UN resolution. This rejection stems from two fundamental reasons. First, the very foundation of their entity rests on the violation of international law. Accepting UN resolutions would inevitably lead them to confront calls for enforcing Resolution 181, which mandates the establishment of a Palestinian state on half of the territories occupied in 1948 and all of those occupied in 1967. It would also necessitate adherence to Resolution 194, which upholds the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees, restoring them to their lands, livelihoods, and homes. Acceptance of these resolutions was, in fact, a condition for the entity's membership in the United Nations. • The second reason behind their rejection of international resolutions is the conviction of their leaders that negotiating outside the framework of international law and UN decisions grants them leverage. It allows them to exploit hidden sources of power – political, security-related, and financial – that Washington deploys on their behalf in negotiations. This strategy enables them to secure gains that would be unattainable under the constraints of international law. • On every battlefield and in every negotiation, Israel has sought to sideline international resolutions. It negotiated with Egypt outside the framework of Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which mandate withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, managing to retain control over Gaza with Egyptian approval. It did the same with Jordan, disregarding the West Bank and East Jerusalem, restricting negotiations to defining Egypt's and Jordan's official borders in defiance of UN directives. With Syria, it attempted a similar approach, and when it failed, it sabotaged the negotiations entirely. As for Lebanon, Resolution 425 explicitly requires a full withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders. Yet, Israel refused to comply, instead imposing negotiations over an agreement outside the resolution's framework – something that prominent legal scholars, foremost among them the late Dr. Mohammad Al-Majdhoub, regarded as a historic mistake for Lebanon, as it subjected an established legal right to negotiation. • Resolution 1701 mirrors Resolutions 242 and 338 in that it envisions withdrawal to an arbitrary line rather than to internationally recognised borders. To prevent the perpetuation of occupation, it calls for the separation of areas occupied by the Israeli entity's army during the July War – territories that lie within the Blue Line, demanding an immediate withdrawal since their status was resolved in 2000, making further negotiation unnecessary. Meanwhile, areas contested since 2000 remain under the purview of Resolution 425, which mandates withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders, as these borders are definitive. Resolution 1701 does not call for negotiations over these lands; rather, it instructs the UN Secretary-General to propose solutions to disputes regarding them. Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally: Lebanon's acceptance of merging the fate of occupied territories both within and beyond the Blue Line nullifies Resolution 1701. Furthermore, agreeing to subject both matters to negotiation effectively also nullifies Resolution 425.
