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.

Print Friendly

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

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.