Principle 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.
Principle 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.
Principle 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, acknowledgment of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples.
Principle 2. Fulfill the vision of 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.
If we had vetoed this resolution just the other day, the United States would have been giving license to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose. So, we reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel. On the contrary, it is not this Resolution that is isolating Israel — it is a permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible. Virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many friends of Israel — including the United Kingdom, France, Russia — all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we voted and again this year, along with every other member of the Council.
Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people to decide whether unusually heated attacks that Israeli officials have directed toward this administration best serve Israel’s national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support as I described. Those attacks, alongside allegations of a U.S.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims, distract attention from what the substance of this vote really was about.
And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to delegitimize their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist. But this vote was not about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now — it was about making sure peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the future. We all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood.
There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, most of them in Areas A and B where they have limited autonomy. They are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints, and unable to travel into or out of the West Bank without a permit from the Israelis. So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives of them of the most basic freedoms — separate and unequal. Nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American? Would the world?
You may hear that these remote settlements aren’t a problem because they only take up a small percentage of the land. Again and again we have made clear that it’s not just a question of the overall amount of land available in the West Bank — it’s whether the land can be connected or is broken up into small parcels like Swiss cheese that could never constitute a real state. The more outposts that are built, the more settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a contiguous state. So in the end, a settlement is not just the land it’s on, it’s also what the location does to the movement of people, what it does to the ability of a road to connect one community to another,, what it does to the sense of statehood that is chipped away with each new construction.