No Veto: UN Security Council Adopts Anti-settlement Resolution; U.S. Abstains

That would be contrary to international- wherein the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.

 

UN Peacekeeping forces are not national defense forces but this resolution by the Security Council re-affirms Israel's right to exist as established by UN Security Council Resolution 242.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have proposed a "national defense force" that would provide mutual protection for both Israel and Palestine.

http://www.thenational.ae/world/pal...-pressures-israel-with-nato-security-proposal

Israel cannot claim that national security is a concern in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the US and NATO agree to providing for the national security of both nations so long as it's necessary.

References to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a humanitarian arm of the United Nations, as "U.N. forces" is an intentional and nefarious attempt to distort the truth and we know the distortion because the rockets were not "returned to terrorists" as claimed.

Yes, it is true that the UNRWA located some rockets at a vacant school in July 2014 and "According to longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide, incidents involving unexploded ordnance that could endanger beneficiaries and staff are referred to the local authorities." The UNRWA contacted local law enforcement that reports to Palestinian government in Ramallah, not to Hamas, which heads the government and runs the police force in Gaza and the local law enforcement removed the rockets.

Talk about putting the shoe on the wrong foot. Israel is the aggressor nation that invaded the Palestinian (and Syrian) territories in 1967, not the Palestinians (that didn't even have an army). It's Israel that's maintained a hostile force of occupation in the Palestinian territories since 1967, not the Palestinians (that still don't have an army). Israel is in violation of International Law under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions by allowing and authorizing the settlement of "territories occupied" by it's civilian population, not the Palestinians. If the UN was to militarily provide for national security of anyone it would be for the Palestinians because it's Israel that's violating the sovereignty of the Palestinian people and not the other way around.

But the UN doesn't typically provide for national security except in rare cases to expel foreign invaders (which would be Israel in this case) and instead seeks to resolve conflicts peacefully to protect the sovereignty ensuring national security for all parties involved in a conflict and it has done exactly that and re-affirms that commitment in this resolution.

In 1967 the UN Security Council established the criteria for peace with UNSC Resolution 242 that lists two fundamental principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

This is referred to as the "Land for Peace" clause because Israel must leave the territories it invaded and occupied in 1967 for peace to be realized.

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

This is the requirement for peace that the parties must agree to. This includes the necessity of Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories to show "respect for and acknowledgement of" the "territorial integrity and political independence" of Palestine and the Palestinians must also provide that same "respect for and acknowledgement of" the "territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel.

In the most recent peace negotiations the Palestinian agreed to peace based upon the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (with the addition of NATO forces to ensure national security for both Israel and Palestine). It's Israel that is currently refusing to agree to a lasting peace with the Palestinians based upon this UN Security Council Resolution by demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "historical Jewish State" which is BS.

The national identity of a nation is determined by the people of the nation and not by other nations.
It's irrelevant to the securing of peace between the two nations.
It's not even true because Palestine, that is now divided between Israel and the Palestinian territories, was overwhelmingly an Arab state when it was provisionally recognized as a nation by the League of Nations after WW I.

The current UN Security Council resolution, in points #1 through #5, the Security Council formally reprimands Israel for it's continued flagrant violations of International Law that that jeopardize the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel has long deserved that reprimand. The Unites States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has been irresponsible in the past with it's veto of other Security Council resolutions that may have prevented the escalation in Israeli violations of International Law.

At the same time the UN Security Council, in this current resolution, addresses both Israel and the Palestinians in points #6 through #13. Points #10 and #11 are specific in declaring the UN Security Council's determination and commitment to ensuring the national sovereignty and independence of both Israel and Palestine.

“10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

“11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/bre...of-israel-resolution-2334/2016/12/24/0/?print

The Palestinians have always supported the equality of the Palestinian Jews with the Palestinian Arabs and included that provision in the original Palestinian Charter from 1964 that was amended in 1968.

http://pac-usa.org/the_palestinian_charter.htm

There have always been "Palestinian Jews" and, in fact, the first census by the British after Palestine was provisionally recognized as a nation in 1922 provides us with this information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_census_of_Palestine

As for the illegal Israeli immigrant population in the West Bank and E Jerusalem it will ultimately be up to the government of the Palestinians to decide what to do just like the US government is going to have to decide what to do with the estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the US today. If the Palestinian government wants to grant some a means to remain and someday be citizens then we'd assume that the illegal Jewish immigrants would have to file an application for lawful immigration.

 

Either force or the threat of force. Same thing.

 

It's inadmissible but it's the norm. These laws are made to prevent wars - not sort out an ongoing one.

True annexion, that is, making all Palestinians Israeli citizens, is definitely a solution. But it won't happen, as it would be detrimental to the very cause for Israel's creation - that of an exclusively Jewish territory.

 

There's only one problem with the impeachment and removal from office of Donald Trump......

Mike Pense!

 

The "Jewish Identity" of Israel is already in trouble.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209333,00.html

 

Yes- it's a desperate gamble.

 

I don't see it as '\ normal ' at all- and neither does international law. Israel, of course, ignored that existing law when it attempted its permanent occupation of Palestine. As we can see from Saturday's Resolution 2334- its occupation is inadmissible under law. Now- rather than the authority of the UN weakening, as Israel hopes- even though its very legitimacy is UN-dependent- the authority of the UN becomes stronger as more states rely upon the Security Council for their safety. Clearly, if Israel was permitted to flaunt the inadmissibility of taking territory by force then each and every other United Nations member state would be exposed . The Resolution was passed unanimously.

 

In the sense that Obama did not have the courage to vote in favor of the resolution, you are right. Yes, he's a coward.

In the sense that some tiny measure of justice was accomplished in censuring Israel, he done good.

 

Jeeeeesh...... Trump's hair brings the worst in people, eh?

Yea sure, let's hope for Republican House and Senate to impeach Trump.

 

Yea well, enjoy this misguided anti-Israel resolution by attention seeking, irrelevant Obama for all of next 25 days, and watch the stand being reversed on January 21st.

By the way, did not Trump promised to move American embassy to Jerusalem? Do you think, Trump was just running his mouth?

Merry Christmas.

 

Jeesh... you speak of Trump impeachment as if it is a done deal and only a matter of time... Is that what you wished for from Santa Clause this year?

 

Courageous Obama is an oxymoron.

As for sensuring Israel, let's count the days until Obama's mischievous, backstabbing deed is reversed and US unwavering support of its only ally in the Middle East is restored. Have no doubt.

Merry Christmas

 

Allies don't shoot up your ships and kill your sailors. Allies don't plan and execute attacks at WTC.

 

You think that Trump has no Republican enemies and Pence no friends ?

 

WoW...

 

Irrelevant. Trump will govern and Pence will perform his VP duties admirably, until Trump does something unAmerican worthy of impeachment. Let's hope he do no such thing, right?

 

How do you ' reverse ' a Security Council Chapter Six Resolution passed unanimously ?

And a merry christmas back.

You think that the ' flamebait ' threat of movement of the United States embassy from legitimate Israeli territory into legally confirmed Occupied Territory will legitimize legally confirmed Israeli criminality. How will becoming a criminal accomplice reflect upon Trump on the world stage ?
EVERY recent administration has promised to move the embassy to Occupied Jerusalem. When it gets down to the nitty G none does. What do you think holds them back ?

 

A mean-spirited, vindictive, spineless coward indeed, he is leaving a horrible international and domestic mess behind after 8 years in the office. What a legacy of our first Affirmative action president, even his own party despises him.

As far as the matter in hand is concerned, the capital is moving to Jerusalem, Israel has a friend in the WH and in the Senate, this Obama's symbolic temper tantrum is a minor matter compared to what Israel and the US can accomplish in the next 8 years.

 

.....

 

Don't you think, an inspired UN will go for anti-Israel resolutions again and again? And the new UN Ambassador will now vote properly - that's how you 'reverse' resolution.

And Trump is not your regular politician, we've all agreed with that. What held other administrations back will not necessarily hold Trump back - we all agreed with that too.

Go, Trump.

 

2334 isn't ' anti-Israel '. It's anti-crime. As we've already established, time and time again, the occupation is illegal. To ' reverse ' that fact ANY state would have to get the Security Council to agree that the gaining of territory by means of force wasn't inadmissible after all. Good luck with that.

Placing your hopes in tyranny has a great many historical precedents- all of them bad for your position.

 

IMO this is the one good thing Obama did in his tenure, Im sure many of my friends here will disagree with that but this is the corner stone of an agreement,

The resolution states it supports any land swap or borders accepted by the sides throu negotiations but now we have a clock ticking for boycott on WB goods and maybe even some sanctions, perhaps not in Trump cadency but he won't be there forever so the Likud needs to re-calculate its rout regardless, maybe even press for an agreemnet during Trump.

I hope that in the near future at least we stop funding those remote WB settelments, I hope that much will be clear for the Likud....

 

"The almost guaranteed new laws..." You are just being ridiculous. Please cite me the campaign promise in which Trump promised to make criticism of Israel illegal.

Before the election, you guys were calling him a Nazi, now he's a Zionist. Please try to make up your addled minds.

 

OK back to the Conspiracy Theory section.