"The core issue here is that the Israeli government refuses to commit to terms of reference for the negotiations that are based on international law and United Nations resolutions, and that it frantically continues to intensify building of settlements on the territory of the State of Palestine"
About this Quote
Mahmoud Abbas compresses two longstanding Palestinian grievances into one argument: negotiations lack an agreed legal baseline, and simultaneous settlement expansion predetermines the outcome on the ground. The call for terms of reference signals a demand that talks be anchored in international law and United Nations resolutions, especially the two-state framework along the 1967 lines, the principle of inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war in Resolution 242, and subsequent texts such as Resolution 2334 that reaffirm the illegality of settlements under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Without that anchor, Abbas suggests, bargaining becomes an exercise in power rather than law.
The reference to the State of Palestine situates the claim in the post-Oslo era and the 2012 UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state. From this vantage, West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements are seen as encroachments on a future sovereign territory, fragmenting contiguity and undermining the viability of a coherent state. The phrase frantically continues to intensify underscores the idea of facts on the ground: each new unit, outpost, or legal change shifts the negotiating baseline by making reversals politically and logistically harder.
Israeli governments have typically rejected preconditions, arguing that all core issues must be resolved directly and that UN forums are biased. They dispute the application of certain legal interpretations, call the territories disputed rather than occupied, and frame settlement activity as subject to final-status talks while prioritizing security concerns. From this perspective, conditioning talks on specific resolutions, or freezing all settlement activity in advance, is seen as prejudging outcomes.
Abbas is pointing to why past rounds collapsed, from Camp David to the Kerry talks: the gap between a rules-based framework and a process that allows the stronger party to keep altering realities. The statement thus frames the stalemate as a contest between international norms and incremental entrenchment, arguing that diplomacy cannot succeed if its ground rules are fluid while the ground itself is being continuously reshaped.
The reference to the State of Palestine situates the claim in the post-Oslo era and the 2012 UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state. From this vantage, West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements are seen as encroachments on a future sovereign territory, fragmenting contiguity and undermining the viability of a coherent state. The phrase frantically continues to intensify underscores the idea of facts on the ground: each new unit, outpost, or legal change shifts the negotiating baseline by making reversals politically and logistically harder.
Israeli governments have typically rejected preconditions, arguing that all core issues must be resolved directly and that UN forums are biased. They dispute the application of certain legal interpretations, call the territories disputed rather than occupied, and frame settlement activity as subject to final-status talks while prioritizing security concerns. From this perspective, conditioning talks on specific resolutions, or freezing all settlement activity in advance, is seen as prejudging outcomes.
Abbas is pointing to why past rounds collapsed, from Camp David to the Kerry talks: the gap between a rules-based framework and a process that allows the stronger party to keep altering realities. The statement thus frames the stalemate as a contest between international norms and incremental entrenchment, arguing that diplomacy cannot succeed if its ground rules are fluid while the ground itself is being continuously reshaped.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Mahmoud
Add to List
