Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Historic UN Security Council Vote Condemns Israeli Settlements

A historic UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements was adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention on Friday.

Inter Press Service

A historic UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements received sustained applause within the security council chamber after it was adopted with 14 votes in favour and one abstention on Friday.

The Arab-backed resolution condemns the “construction and expansion” of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, calling them a “flagrant violation” of international law and a “major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution.”

Rivad Mansour. Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the UN welcomed the vote describing it as long-overdue, necessary and important.

“The resolution adopted reaffirms the Council’s decades-long position that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem have no legal validity, constitute flagrant breaches under international law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention, and constitute a major obstacle to peace,” said Mansour.

The United States abstained from the vote, choosing not to use its veto in a break with the country’s long-standing foreign policy towards Israel.

In her address following the vote, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power agreed that Israeli settlements have “no legal validity,” however, she noted that their vote was not a straightforward one due to double standards Israel has faced at the UN.

“For as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations,” she told the Council, noting that this unequal treatment hurts Israel and undermines the legitimacy of the UN and is among the reasons that the U.S. did not vote in favour of the resolution.

But because the resolution “reflects the facts on the ground,” the U.S. did not veto the document, Power said.

“It is precisely our commitment to Israel’s security that makes the U.S. believe that we cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a change of attaining our longstanding objective: two states living side by side in peace and security,” she continued.

Though she reaffirmed the U.S.’ continued commitment to the security of Israel, Power noted that one cannot simultaneously champion Israeli settlement expansion and a viable two-state solution.

Since the inception of the UN, the U.S. has consistently vetoed resolutions on Israel and Palestine. According to Security Council Report, the U.S. has vetoed 30 resolutions on issues pertaining to the region, including a 2011 resolution which similarly criticised settlements.

The Obama administration has been critical of settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In October, the State Department “strongly condemned” the Israeli government’s decision to create a new Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Egypt, the original sponsor of the resolution, noted that document reflects a “a painful reality of illegitimate settlement.”

“Egypt has been and continues to be one of the strongest believers in the possibility of just durable peace in the Middle East based on the principles of two-state solution and land for peace as recognised by international legitimacy,” said the Egyptian Ambassador to the UN Amr Abdellatif Aboulatta.

The resolution was initially on the Security Council’s agenda on Thursday until Egypt withdrew the resolution hours before the scheduled vote. This prompted another group of nations to reintroduce the resolution for an immediate vote on Friday afternoon.

Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President-elect Trump urged the U.S. to veto the resolution on Thursday.

“As the United States has long maintained, peace between Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations,” said Trump.

Almost 600,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas that Palestinians want as part of their future state along with the Gaza Strip. Israel captured those territories in the 1967 war and considers Jerusalem as its capital.

 

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share