Condemnations of the US ambassador to Israel's statements regarding settlements
The Global Council for Tolerance and Peace strongly condemned the recent statements made by the US Ambassador to Israel, in which he referred to what he called "Israel's right to expand." These statements sparked a wave of regional and international rejection, with many considering them a green light for settlement policies and the imposition of a fait accompli, which blatantly contradicts the established principles of international law and the UN Charter.
Global Council for Tolerance: Statements undermine peace efforts
In an official statement, Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Jarwan, President of the Global Council for Tolerance and Peace, affirmed that such positions provide unjustified political cover for the expansionist and settlement practices that are devouring Palestinian lands. Al-Jarwan explained that these statements not only constitute a breach of diplomatic norms but also represent a direct threat to security and stability at both the regional and international levels, and undermine any genuine opportunities for achieving a just and comprehensive peace based on respect for the sovereignty of states and the legitimate rights of peoples.
The Council called on the international community to assume its historical and legal responsibilities and to take firm and clear positions regarding any policies or statements that would encourage expansion or undermine the international legal order, stressing that sustainable peace can only be built on justice, coexistence and respect for internationally recognized borders.
Legal and political context: The danger of legitimizing settlements
These statements come at a time of unprecedented tensions in the region, and their danger stems from their contradiction of relevant UN Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 2334, which affirms the illegality of settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Talk of a "right to expansion" directly undermines the principle of a "two-state solution" adopted by successive US administrations and the international community as the only way to end the conflict.
Observers believe that such positions could fuel feelings of anger in the Arab and Islamic street, complicate diplomatic efforts aimed at calming tensions, and weaken the credibility of international mediation in the stalled peace process.
The Saudi position: categorical rejection and reaffirmation of principles
For its part, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, strongly condemned these statements, denouncing their implications regarding "Israel's control over the Middle East." The Kingdom affirmed its categorical rejection of these irresponsible claims, describing them as a dangerous precedent and a disregard for the distinguished relations that bind the countries of the region to the United States of America.
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned of the grave consequences of this extremist rhetoric, which threatens global peace and undermines the foundations of the international order agreed upon by the world's nations to end wars and respect national sovereignty. The Kingdom called on the US administration to clarify its position on these statements, which contradict international efforts to promote peace.
Regional repercussions and the future of the peace process
The Kingdom reiterated its firm and unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, emphasizing that the only way to achieve stability in the region is to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state within the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. These developments underscore the need for the international community to reaffirm international law and the Arab Peace Initiative as the sole framework for a solution, rejecting policies of imposition or attempts to alter historical and geographical realities on the ground.
