UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands

US Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has told the whining Israeli prime minister that only he is responsible for Washington’s decision to allow the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemned Israel for illegal settlement construction in occupied Palestinian territories.....from Press TV

 

.....so what does this means for Canadian institutions complicit in support for illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territory....an exhaustive list of such complicities would be useful, in preparation to present a memorandum to the UN, signed by people with any shred of respect for peoples rights.......

Can these institutions be taken to Federal Court for the crime of complicity, given that Canada is a signatory to the UN Charter?

iyraste1313

Israel will not abide by the UN Security Council’s demands for Tel Aviv to halt its settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands, the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement.

“Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms,” the statement from the PM’s office said, according to Reuters.....

...so what exactly, legally dies this mean if a country violates decisions of the Security Council?

 

 

cco

The resolution didn't include any mention of sanctions, and didn't authorize military action, so, it means nothing, legally. Just that Obama finally decided to flip the bird at Netanyahu on his way out the door, long after it would've had any effect. Netanyahu's already looking forward to Trump moving the embassy, and his government's already explicitly said the two-state solution is dead.

JKR

I think this Security Council resolution is not very significant considering that in just 4 weeks time when Donald Trump assumes the presidency the UN Security Council will become impotent to stop anything Netanyahu does because Trump has chosen people like David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt to handle US policy vis a vis Israel. These people make most people in Likud seem moderate. Judging by his appointments, Trump is going to have the most radical pro Zionist policy we've seen yet by an American administration.

iyraste1313

Settlements “a flagrant violation under international law” from Stuart Littlewood

So what exactly does the resolution say? It condemns all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, and the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.

The resolution also:

  1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
  2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
  3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
  4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;
  5. Calls upon all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

The US didn’t have the backbone to support the resolution, only to abstain. Furthermore, despite its tough wording, this was only a Chapter 6 resolution with more growl than bite. The situation clearly calls for a Chapter 7 job as Israel’s actions most definitely “constitute a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression” requiring coercive and enforceable measures.

Nevertheless it wasn’t entirely a waste of time. It turns a spotlight on Israel’s criminal conduct, it will have the effect of releasing the brake on various civil society actions against Israel – especially BDS – and it will hasten the day when countries slap sanctions on the rogue state and demand Israel’s expulsion for repeatedly failing to meet the obligations of UN membership.......

...releasing the brake? It´s time to begin a legal assault on Canadian institutions that are complicit with illegal settlements above and beyond the 1967 borders!

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Quite honestly,I think the borders should not go beyond the 1948 borders.  I guess it's good Bibi doesn't have to deal with me.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:
Nevertheless it wasn’t entirely a waste of time. It turns a spotlight on Israel’s criminal conduct, it will have the effect of releasing the brake on various civil society actions against Israel – especially BDS – and it will hasten the day when countries slap sanctions on the rogue state and demand Israel’s expulsion for repeatedly failing to meet the obligations of UN membership.......

The spotlight is also on Israel's current reaction to the almost trivial action of the sponsoring US regime. I mean, 12 Ambassadors given a dressing down, Ambassadors outright recalled from New Zealand and one other state involved with sponsoring the Resolution, over-the-top idiotic rhetoric by the criminal Tel Aviv regime, etc., etc..

I'm just saying don't underestimate this stuff. Neten-Yahoo and his regime are being publicly exposed as bullying criminals. And that's a very good thing. Laughing uproarously at the petulant Israeli response helps the wider public understand the necessity for this Apartheid regime to come to an end. And that's a very good thing indeed.

iyraste1313

A US senator has threatened to introduce a measure in Congress to pull US funding for the United Nations until the Security Council repeals a resolution it passed condemning Israeli settlement construction as illegal.

"It's that important to me," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, told CNN on Saturday. "This is a road we haven't gone down before. If you can't show the American people that international organizations can be more responsible, there is going to be a break. And I am going to lead that break."

"I will do everything in my power, working with the new administration and Congress, to leave no doubt about where America stands when it comes to the peace process and where we stand with the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel," the South Carolina Republican added.

...from Press TV

 

Sean in Ottawa

The last time the US was isolationist they were by choice. Maybe the next time it will be imposed.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The late Hugo Chavez, and others I'm sure, had already raised the issue of moving the UN to a new location. If the US regime cuts its very substantial funding ... I would expect good support to expel BOTH the rogue Israeli regime AND their masters in Washington.

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if a UN without Israel and the US might be a better UN. Of course those regimes still need to be consulted, not bombed, but it may very well be that this consultation would be more productive when US and Israeli sabotage of the UN is reduced, when they are forced to reckon with an angered, outraged world ready to shun those two barbaric regimes.

Then again, there are plenty of barbaric regimes still left in the UN. So who are we kidding? The UN is the only game.

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

The late Hugo Chavez, and others I'm sure, had already raised the issue of moving the UN to a new location. If the US regime cuts its very substantial funding ... I would expect good support to expel BOTH the rogue Israeli regime AND their masters in Washington.

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure if a UN without Israel and the US might be a better UN. Of course those regimes still need to be consulted, not bombed, but it may very well be that this consultation would be more productive when US and Israeli sabotage of the UN is reduced, when they are forced to reckon with an angered, outraged world ready to shun those two barbaric regimes.

Then again, there are plenty of barbaric regimes still left in the UN. So who are we kidding? The UN is the only game.

Although these "barbaric" regimes have a lot less power.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Fascinating. The Russian FM has basically said that the resolution was nothing other than dirty in-fighting between Democrats and Republicans and "misuse of the Security Council". Curiouser and curiouser.

Quote:
As to the subject of their latest telephone conversation, the Russian Foreign Ministry has provided a detailed report, which is being summarised by TASS....

It was Lavrov’s comments to Kerry about US misuse of the UN Security Council in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute which are by far however the most interesting

The two top diplomats exchanged views on the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement and around it. Lavrov stressed the necessity of creating conditions for direct talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine and warned against bringing US’ domestic agenda into the work of the Middle East Quartet and the United Nations Security Council. He stressed that attempts to use these formats in bickering between the Democrats and Republicans are harmful,

(bold italics added)

Yesterday in an article for The Duran I pointed out that Resolution 2334, which the Obama administration allowed to pass through the UN Security Council and which it almost certainly itself engineered, and which has reaffirmed the Occupied Territory status of east Jerusalem, was actually targeted at Donald Trump, and was not an attempt to advance the cause of Middle East peace but was rather an attempt by Barack Obama to embarrass Donald Trump and to tie his hands in his future dealings with Israel.

The Duran: Sergei Lavrov schools John Kerry. Again.

 

NDPP

UN Resolution 2334 is Good For Israel

http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.ca/2016/12/un-resolution-2334-is-go...

"...But things may be slightly more complicated than they look at first glance. If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish State, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution.

It de facto legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders, The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements.

Banks and businesses may start to refrain from operating in the occupied territories. Israeli military personnel serving in the occupied territories are about to become subject to the scrutiny of international law.

Netanyahu, so it seems, made a fuss about the resolution, but the resolution plays into his hands. It provides him with an opportunity to break the stalemate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows it. President Obama knows it, the president elect will be advised as soon as he takes some time off Twitter..."

josh

ikosmos wrote:

Fascinating. The Russian FM has basically said that the resolution was nothing other than dirty in-fighting between Democrats and Republicans and "misuse of the Security Council". Curiouser and curiouser.

Quote:
As to the subject of their latest telephone conversation, the Russian Foreign Ministry has provided a detailed report, which is being summarised by TASS....

It was Lavrov’s comments to Kerry about US misuse of the UN Security Council in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute which are by far however the most interesting

The two top diplomats exchanged views on the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement and around it. Lavrov stressed the necessity of creating conditions for direct talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine and warned against bringing US’ domestic agenda into the work of the Middle East Quartet and the United Nations Security Council. He stressed that attempts to use these formats in bickering between the Democrats and Republicans are harmful,

(bold italics added)

Yesterday in an article for The Duran I pointed out that Resolution 2334, which the Obama administration allowed to pass through the UN Security Council and which it almost certainly itself engineered, and which has reaffirmed the Occupied Territory status of east Jerusalem, was actually targeted at Donald Trump, and was not an attempt to advance the cause of Middle East peace but was rather an attempt by Barack Obama to embarrass Donald Trump and to tie his hands in his future dealings with Israel.

The Duran: Sergei Lavrov schools John Kerry. Again.

 

 

Oh, for Christ's sake.  What a steaming pile.

swallow swallow's picture

Well, it's important to reduce a resolution about Palestinian rights to another matter of Russian foreign policy, isn't it? I mean, there are still threads on babble not about the brilliance of Lavrov and Putin, and they must all be made to be about Russia's greatness! 

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Well, it's important to reduce a resolution about Palestinian rights to another matter of Russian foreign policy, isn't it? I mean, there are still threads on babble not about the brilliance of Lavrov and Putin, and they must all be made to be about Russia's greatness! 

The problem is that the US history does suggest that on their side as well, this had nothing to do with the people. They are, after all one more proxy war between powers.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow wrote:

Well, it's important to reduce a resolution about Palestinian rights to another matter of Russian foreign policy, isn't it? I mean, there are still threads on babble not about the brilliance of Lavrov and Putin, and they must all be made to be about Russia's greatness! 

Uh, no genius. The claim is that this is an attempt in the waning days of the brutal Obama regime to saddle the incoming Trump regime with an embarrassing legacy and mess to clean up. The schooling that Lavrov gave Kerry was just extra.

And, OMFG, did he school him. But that part is irrelevant. Try to pay attention to the key points. If I want to argue that Lavrov is the best diplomat in the world right now, I will start a thread with that title.

It's tough to be a fan of the US regime these days. It's like cheering Elmer Fudd. Blam! Blam! He keeps opening fire on his own left foot ... and sadly lamenting the damage that he blames on .. whoever is handy.

josh

Heaven forbid they "saddle" Trump with anything.  And I wasn't aware that condemning the illegal settlements would be an "embarassing legacy."  But I guess when you support Putin and Trump, it's only natural that Netanyhau would come next.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

OK, I guess it's time to spoon feed here. I will type slowly as well.

If Obama humiliates Israel publicly then his replacement in the White House will have to "mend fences" and kowtow, lick the boots, etc. of the Israeli regime, whatever his/her desire to change policy. This is what Obama seems to be doing in variety of files - not just wrt Israel - and, so far, he seems to be quite successful. 

More successful, in fact, that most of his policy "initiatives".

 

Rev Pesky

Kerry defends US decision on settlements

Quote:
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, has offered a blistering defence of the United States’ decision to not veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement building in a speech that marked the toughest remarks on Israel by a US official in years.

...“I am compelled to respond today that the United States did in fact vote in accordance with our values,” Kerry said of UN security council resolution, which demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”.

“If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic,” Kerry said. “It cannot be both.”

...The secretary of state’s speech came as Donald Trump, who has vowed to reverse course from the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel, prepares to take office on 20 January. The president-elect issued a prebuttal to Kerry’s speech earlier on Wednesday, tweeting: “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but … not any more.”

Prebuttal? Fire that writer.

"...the United States did...vote in accordance with our values." Well, I suppose if you consider abstention a 'vote'.

The most important statement is the one that follows the vote statement..."Israel can be either Jewish, or democratic...It cannot be both."

That was a true, and very important, statement to make. Kerry goes on to say this decision was to preserve the possibility of a 'two-state' solution, but of course that has never been on the table. The only way Israel would accept a two-state solution (if at all) would be if they were allowed to ethnically cleanse their territory, removing all remaining Palestinian Arabs that live within Israel's borders (and keep the existing settlements). That's not going to happen.

As far as whether the USA did this as a statement of principle, or a jab at the Trump administration, I don't really care. I agree that the USA probably did it as a jab, but in the end it will afford some comfort to the Palestinians. Sometimes things done for the wrong reasons still have a salutary effect. This may be one of those cases.

Of course, if the USA really wanted to do something for the Palestinians, they could shepherd ships through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. I doubt that's about to happen.

josh

Following that logic, I guess Obama should make a speech supporting the settlements and calling on Israel to annex the west bank.  That way his successor won't have to "mend fences."  In any event, in this instance, there is no "have to."  Trump doesn't need any incentive to go along with whatever Netanyahu wants.

kropotkin1951

Strange how now that Obama is leaving office he is trying to portray himself in a better light by doing things that will have no effect given he is a lame duck on his last month.  But it will allow for the faux-left in the Democratic party to claim he was a great progressive POTUS not the war crimes committing Wall street sycophant that he was for 7 years and 11 months.

swallow swallow's picture

Having the Security Cuoncil on record condemning the illegal settlements is a valuable tool for campaigs in support of Palestinian rights. I kow a lot of solidarity activists will be using it that way in the coming years, regardless of what Trump does. 

Maybe let's focus on that, and not on the domestic politics of the USA and Russia. 

kropotkin1951

swallow wrote:

Having the Security Cuoncil on record condemning the illegal settlements is a valuable tool for campaigs in support of Palestinian rights. I kow a lot of solidarity activists will be using it that way in the coming years, regardless of what Trump does. 

Maybe let's focus on that, and not on the domestic politics of the USA and Russia. 

Agreed

6079_Smith_W

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/israel-palestine-peace-solution-je...

Quote:

"The settler agenda is defining the future in Israel. And their stated purpose is clear: They believe in one state: Greater Israel," Kerry said.

"If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both, and it won't ever really be at peace," he added.

Rev Pesky

Edward Said accepted the idea of a one-state solution. In fact he believed it was the only possible solution. Here he is, writing in 1999:

The One-State Solution

Quote:
It is my view that the peace process has in fact put off the real reconciliation that must occur if the hundred-year war between Zionism and the Palestinian people is to end. Oslo set the stage for separation, but real peace can come only with a binational Israeli-Palestinian state.

''Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine,'' writes the distinguished Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell in his recent book, ''The Founding Myths of Israel.'' ''Even Zionist figures who had never visited the country knew that it was not devoid of inhabitants.

...If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution within the Zionist way of thinking.''

...Israel's raison d'etre as a state has always been that there should be a separate country, a refuge, exclusively for Jews.

...Yet over the past 50 years, especially since Israeli settlements were first implanted on the occupied territories in 1967, the lives of Jews have become more and more enmeshed with those of non-Jews.

...The alternatives are unpleasantly simple: either the war continues (along with the onerous cost of the current peace process) or a way out, based on peace and equality (as in South Africa after apartheid) is actively sought, despite the many obstacles. Once we grant that Palestinians and Israelis are there to stay, then the decent conclusion has to be the need for peaceful coexistence and genuine reconciliation.

Eighteen years after Said wrote this, it is still the only possibility for peace (as hard as it may be to achieve). I think Kerry, in his statement, accidentally put this 'one-state solution' on the table. It's time for the abandonment of of the failed idea of two-states. In any case, Israel would never accept two states, so there's no point in continuing to prate on about it.

A secular state, with equal rights for all. Now that would be a shining light in the Middle East.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I have read that spin on it too.

Clearly it is on the table, and always has been. But it is a very big if, and I don't agree with another assessment that Kerry's remarks were "a eulogy for the two state solution".

Either option could work, the question is, are people of a mind to want to make them work. I think Kerry got to the crux of the racist problem, which is in fact more important than the political options.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

But the embrace of Trump and the belligerence toward the rest of the world that Netanyahu is using to woo right-wing voters carries a profound risk. Israel is betting all its chips on an unpopular, untested president with no knowledge of the region and a history of breaking his campaign promises. If he does renege, Israel will find itself even more isolated.

And if he keeps his word—if Trump governs the way he campaigned—then he will promote policies that are deeply unpopular with many Americans, including American Jews. Implausible as it sounds, it may be Trump and Netanyahu, two men who profess to be Israel’s strongest defenders, who definitively shatter the “unbreakable alliance” and rupture the decades-old bipartisan consensus on Israel.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-israel-worst-nightm...

 

NDPP

Let's hope so. Another variation on that theme here...

 

Trump Sets the Cat Among the Jewish Pigeons  -  by Israel Shamir

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2016/12/trump-sets-cat-among-jewish-pigeons

"Palestine/Israel will be transformed into a democratic state where Jews and Palestinians will live happily ever after..."

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I have read that spin on it too.

Clearly it is on the table, and always has been. But it is a very big if, and I don't agree with another assessment that Kerry's remarks were "a eulogy for the two state solution".

Spin?

If it's true that the 'one-state solution' has always been on the table, perhaps you could tell us why thye United Nations, in creating Israel didn't go for the 'one-state' option.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...I think Kerry got to the crux of the racist problem, which is in fact more important than the political options.

What is that sentence supposed to mean?

6079_Smith_W

It can either be a Jewish (racist) state or a democratic state. The second part of the sentence is my opinion - that it really isn't a question of one model being better than the other. If Israel could overcome that racist problem either a one or two state solution could probably work, depending on what the Israelis and Palestinians want.

And some people have always favoured the one state solution. It's not like Kerry introduced it.

NDPP

Kerry's Israel/Palestine Vision  -  by Stephen Lendman

http://sjlendman.blogspot.ca/2016/12/kerrys-israelpalestine-vision.html

"...Peacetalks are futile, stillborn each time announced. The greatest hoax in modern times. They're an insult with one side holding supreme power, the other having none at all, along with Israeli-collaborative PA governance betraying its own people.

The only language Israel understands is force, It's time to exert it, politically, economically and financially..."

Rev Pesky

Now there is this back-and-forth between the UK and the USA. One wonders if the USA let the UK know they weren't going to veto the resolution. It's possible that if the UK knew of the upcoming USA abstention, they themeslves may have voted against the resolution.

The May government now is trying to distance themselves from the Obama adminstration, in the hopes of mollifying Trump. The problem with Trump is he can't think any further ahead than his twitter screen.

NDPP

"American [and Canadian!] debate over Israel skews right because Zionists have restricted it through gatekeeping and intimidation. 

Especially non-Jews.

Please reconsider. We need u."

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/814088947714392064

Please advise NDP and other gutless/complicit/bought off 'representatives'

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy on Israeli Settlements, Kerry, Military Aid & End of Two-State Solution

quote:

GIDEON LEVY:

I think what Secretary Kerry described so nicely about the future is the past and the present. He just described the reality in the West Bank and Gaza in the recent 50 years. Nothing changed. It’s exactly there. And therefore, my claim is that the one state is—has been established 50 years ago. The only question now is what kind of regime will this state have, because, by the end of the day, the Green Line was killed many, many years ago. The '67 borders are, unfortunately, irrelevant anymore. The settlers go to such a quantity, that it became an irreversible reality. And what Secretary Kerry described is very, very precise. But the only question I ask myself: "Mr. Secretary, don't you know that this is the reality by now? Don’t you know that this is the reality in the recent decades? You are speaking about the future." When will be the stage in which people like Secretary Kerry will admit that the two-state solution is dead? I think that if they had more guts and more honesty, they would have said it by now. But saying this means to reshuffle everything—all our concepts, all our beliefs, all our values. And it takes time for statesmen to change their minds. But by the end of the day, we have only one alternative. And the alternative is the one state, which exists already for 50 years. And the struggle should be from now on, like the name of your program, democracy now, equal rights. That’s the only issue at stake.

quote:

DIANA BUTTU:

When it comes to the issue of representatives speaking before the media, you’re absolutely right, Amy. In order to get a Palestinian voice onto the mainstream media, the—I’ve noticed that the conversation ends up being between one Israeli faction and another Israeli faction, or sometimes you get somebody within the U.S. administration speaking. What I think that they need to know is that we are very capable of speaking for ourselves, and we should be invited to speak for ourselves, rather than having people speak about us. This is what one of the major problems is, is that, for decades, the Israelis have been speaking about us, but not to us. And the international community has spoken about us and not to us. And you see this particularly when it came to Secretary Kerry’s statement that people—that Palestinians don’t want to see a one state. The polls are actually showing the opposite, that people don’t believe in two states any longer, and even taking away the negative, not believing in it, that people genuinely want to see one state. So it’s time for people to start listening to the voices of Palestinians. We’re very capable of speaking for ourselves.

NDPP

Transcript - Max Blumenthal - Thom Hartmann - 23 Dec'16

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2017/01/transcript-how-alt-right-helps-...

"...So now it's time for liberal Zionists, those who've been favoring the imaginary two-state solution, which is as enigmatic and difficult to find as the 'moderate' rebels in Syria, - it's time for them to choose.

It's do you accept the one-state, the one-state reality on the ground, which is a unitary APARTHEID state, or will you favor a situation in which Palestinians are granted equal rights, the right to participate in a bi-national state on an equal basis with Jews. Do you accept full equality before the law as you do in the US?

Because there is no middle ground..."

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It can either be a Jewish (racist) state or a democratic state.

It can also be an Islamic state. Many prefer that option.