Archive for the ‘UN Security Council’ category

Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote

December 24, 2016

Five Ways Trump Could Avenge the Anti-Israel UN Vote, BreitbartJoel B. Pollak, December 23, 2016

trump-israel-640x480SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty

President-elect Donald J. Trump hinted on Friday, via Twitter, that “things will be different after Jan. 20” at the United Nations.

He was reacting to President Barack Obama’s decision to betray Israel and to allow an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council to pass. The resolution regards all Israeli settlement — including East Jerusalem, the Old City, and Hebron — as illegal. It was a sneak attack by lame-duck Obama. Here is what Trump may have in mind as a response.

1. Signing a congressional declaration that the UN Security Council resolution is not United States policy. Congress could quickly pass, and President Trump would sign, a declaration that the previous administration had no mandate to allow the UN Security Council resolution to pass. The declaration could affirm prior U.S. policy that some areas in the West Bank will always be under Israeli control — or it could even leave the status of the West Bank open to potential Israeli annexation.

2. Immediately move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The Trump transition team has been hinting that moving the U.S. embassy would be a high priority. Now there is absolutely no reason to delay. The entire case against moving the embassy had been that the U.S. should not take unilateral action outside negotiations between the two parties. But Obama just undermined his own argument by unilaterally taking the Palestinians’ side over settlements. Moving the embassy is now a no-brainer.

3. Cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority. President Obama kept U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to the Palestinians even though the Palestinian Authority has continued to support terrorists and incite hatred against Israelis and Jews. By pushing for unilateral measures at the UN, the Palestinian leadership has also thrown away the bilateral premise of whatever remained of the peace process. They have never faced consequences for their hostility to peace. They should face them now.

4. Defund the United Nations, in whole or in part. The UN is dependent on American taxpayers for some 22% of its general budget. International diplomats, bureaucrats and miscreants live the high live in Manhattan and elsewhere while passing resolutions and running programs directly contrary to the interests of the United States. The Trump administration and Speaker Paul Ryan will find plenty of fat to cut — and could target funding that would support Friday’s awful resolution.

5. Announce a presidential visit to Israel. Trump should visit Israel — and include the Old City, and even Hebron, to show that the new administration regards Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal, undivided capital; and that the religious rights of all people to access holy sites in the West Bank must be undisturbed under any dispensation. After Obama’s perfidy, Trump would be greeted as a hero throughout the country.

Ironically, from this dark moment in U.S.-Israel relations, a new light may shine.

UNSC resolution promotes Mid East war

December 24, 2016

UNSC resolution promotes Mid East war, DEBKAfile, December 24, 2016

obama_bibi2480-1

The United States did not abandon Israel by its abstention from vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements that was passed Friday, Dec. 23, 2016.

The one who abandoned Israel was US President Barack Obama – and not for the first time. During his eight years in office, Obama let Israel down at least three times on issues that jeopardized its security:

One of the first consequences of his 2011 “Arab Spring” initiative was the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak as Egyptian president and his direct promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of power in Cairo.

Four years later, Obama turned his back on Israel to award Iran favored status. Iran was allowed to retain the infrastructure of its military nuclear program as well as continuing to develop ballistic missiles, with the help of an infusion of $250 billion in US and European sanctions relief.

The horror of the carnage in Syria overshadowed the fact that President Obama allowed Tehran to pump Revolutionary Guards forces into the country through Iraq in order to fight for the brutal Assad regime. The president made no effort to halt the influx of pro-Iranian Shiite groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, into Syria, as though it was perfectly natural and his policies had nothing to do with bringing Israel’s arch-foes to its back door.

In 2015, too, when Obama tried to wash his hands of the Middle East at large, he opened the war for the Islamic State and its leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi to walk in and commandeer large swathes of Iraq and Syria virtually unopposed.

From those vantage points, the jihadists sent out a tentacle to Egyptian Sinai – close to another Israeli border.

Of late, the Obama has claimed he was not aware of ISIS’ potential for expansion, implying that US intelligence was at fault.

All the same, Obama never tired of emphasizing that he had done more than any US president before him to support Israel’s security, mainly in the form of advanced US weapons systems supplied for its defense. Because of the close military and intelligence ties between the two countries, no voice was raised to contradict him.

It is now time to point to the hypocrisy of the incumbent president’s posture: Had he invested less in granting benefits and free rein to the Jewish state’s closest enemies, Israel would perhaps have been less dependent on American hardware.

In the latest UN Security Council resolution, Israel is reprimanded on the score that “all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including east Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-state solution.”

Before anyone else, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry are in a position to attest to the falseness of this equation.

On Nov. 25, 2009, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would impose a 10-month freeze on construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a concession to ease the US peace initiative. Israel gave way further on its demand for direct negotiations, when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas dug his heels in against meeting Israeli officials face to face. John Kerry was forced to engage in shuttle diplomacy.
Even after those concessions for peace, the Obama initiative fell flat when it came up against Palestinian resistance.

The departing US president seems determined to use his last weeks in office to teach the Israeli prime minister a painful lesson he won’t forget in a hurry after his White House exit on Jan. 20.

But he is getting it wrong one more time. The UN SC resolution will soon be reduced to a piece of paper. The Palestinians will wave it gladly in the face of the international community, but Israel won’t remove a single settlement or stop building new housing estates in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister’s Office made it clear that Israel is not bound by the resolution and rejects it.
The only concrete result will be to make peace more elusive than ever

The notion that Donald Trump will come riding to Israel’s rescue as soon as he moves into the Oval Office is foolish. He was elected to rebuild America as a global power. That would necessarily include restoring US influence in the Middle East, but how he proposes to accomplish this is not generally known.

If he decides to call on Israel for support and assistance, it stands to reason that he will introduce radical changes in Obama’s steps – especially the nuclear deal with Iran and the peace process with the Palestinians.

Not all those changes can be achieved peacefully. They may well entail the use of military force by the United States and Israel. In this sense, Security Council Resolution 2334 may turn out to be the real obstacle to peace, tending rather to promote belligerence in the Middle East, because the Palestinians and other hardliners and rejectionists will use the resolution as their justification for bashing Israel and more acts of terror.

Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’

December 24, 2016

Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’ Fox News via YouTube, December 23, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crEicBxcfwA

Obama Rhymes-With-Bucks Israel

December 24, 2016

Obama Rhymes-With-Bucks Israel, Power LineScott Johnson, December 23, 2016

What matters is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure in favor of a new system of the President’s own devising, in which the U.S. partners with Iran and stands idly by while 500,000 civilians are massacred in Syria, and Russia and China launch cyber-attacks targeting key U.S. institutions without fear of retribution or reprisal—actions that are reserved only for America’s friends.

***************************

President Obama checked off another item on his “rhymes with bucket list” today in the United Nations. The United States abstained in a 14-0 vote by the UN Security Council condemning all Israeli building and activity in the West Bank as “illegal,” including building in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and Israel’s sovereign access to the Western Wall. The Security Council resolution had been put forward by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal. The Prime Minister’s Office in Israel has responded: “Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN and will not abide by its terms. At a time when the Security Council does nothing to stop the slaughter of half a million people in Syria, it disgracefully gangs up on the one true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and calls the Western Wall “occupied territory.” I would like to associate myself with Lee Smith’s comments at Tablet (whole thing here). Smith writes:

In a sense, the UN vote is a perfect bookend to Obama’s Presidency. A man who came to office promising to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, has done exactly that by breaking with decades of American policy. It is also seeking—contrary to established tradition and practice, which strictly prohibit such lame-duck actions—to tie the hands of the next White House, which has already made its pro-Israel posture clear.

No doubt that many of those critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship will defend and applaud the administration’s action, even as the effects of the resolution are obscene. So what if it enshrines in international law the fact that Jews can’t build homes or have sovereign access to their holy sites in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3000 years? Israel, as Kerry said, is too prosperous to care about peace with the Palestinians. Maybe some hardship will shake some sense into the Jewish State—which after all, could easily have made a just and secure peace with the Palestinian leadership at any time over the past two decades, if that’s what it wanted to do. Accounts to the contrary, from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, say, or left-wing Israeli politicians like former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the late Shimon Peres, are simply propaganda generated by the pro-Israel Lobby, whose wings the President has thankfully clipped.

But the Obama Administration’s abstention isn’t just about Israel or bilateral relations with a vital partner in a key region. It’s also about the prestige of the United States and its power—the power, for instance, undergirding international institutions like the United Nations. Consider how the Obama Administration has used the UN the last several years—to legalize the nuclear program of Iran, a state sponsor of terror, and make it illegal for Jews to build in their historical homeland. In Turtle Bay, the White House partners with sclerotic socialist kleptocracies like Venezuela in order to punish allies, like Israel. Is this American moral leadership? For Sean Penn, maybe.

Israel is likely to profess not to care that much about the actions of a lame-duck President in a forum that has long been famous for its antipathy to the Jewish State. But in private, Israeli officials are said to be panicking at the fresh gust of wind that the President Obama has blown into the sails of the BDS movement, especially in Europe.

Also panicking are Democratic members of Congress whose re-election prospects in 2018 may have just been sacrificed by the departing leader of their Party. Democratic Senator and reputed Presidential hopeful Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a J Street favorite who is up for re-election in 2018 in a state that Donald Trump won by a 9 percent margin, showed the extent of his own distress on Friday by issuing a statement opposing a U.S. abstention. That statement read in part: “Earlier this fall I joined Senate colleagues urging the Administration to uphold its position opposing one-sided resolutions at the U.N. Security Council regarding Israel. Any lasting peace must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed by the international community.”

Whether issuing such statements will be enough to keep swing-state Jewish voters and other pro-Israel Democrats in line in 2018 remains to be seen—but clearly, the health of the Democratic Party, which lost over 1000 officeholders during Obama’s tenure, is hardly the first thing on the President’s mind, either. What matters is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure in favor of a new system of the President’s own devising, in which the U.S. partners with Iran and stands idly by while 500,000 civilians are massacred in Syria, and Russia and China launch cyber-attacks targeting key U.S. institutions without fear of retribution or reprisal—actions that are reserved only for America’s friends.

Obama Joins the Jackals

December 24, 2016

Obama Joins the Jackals, Washington Free Beacon , December 23, 2016

The Jewish Federation of North America, or JFNA, one of the country’s largest and most influential pro-Israel organizations, described the administration’s actions as “tragic” and said the move is likely to mar Obama’s legacy.

“It is tragic that the administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” the organization said in a statement.

The Anti-Defamation League, a historically left-leaning organization that is headed by a former Obama administration official, said that it was “outraged” by Obama’s decision to allow the anti-Israel measure to be approved.

***********************************

Multiple sources from across the Jewish organizational world and in Congress are accusing the Obama administration of stabbing “Israel in the back” on Friday by choosing not to veto a United Nations resolution censuring the Jewish state, according to conversations with sources.

The resolution, which has been floating through the U.N. for some time, finally came to a vote in the Security Council on Friday, where the Obama administration reversed years of policy by abstaining from the vote instead of vetoing it.

The decision quickly drew outrage across the pro-Israel community and in Congress, where multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that the incoming Trump administration is likely to pursue consequences for the U.N.’s action.

Israeli officials also lashed out at the Obama administration, calling its behavior “shameful” and alleging that President Obama used the anti-Israel vote as a way to express his hostility for the Jewish state before vacating the Oval Office.

“The Obama administration has long flirted with international efforts to delegitimize Israel, so what happened today isn’t really surprising,” said one senior congressional aide who spoke to the Free Beacon only on background when discussing potential action against the U.N.

“The good news is that a Republican government will enable us to roll back the Obama administration’s hostile anti-Israel policies,” the source said. “President-elect Trump has already signaled a level of support for Israel that we haven’t seen in eight years. Now we have a real opportunity to hold Iran accountable, fight BDS, and do everything possible to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.”

Trump warned the U.N. shortly after the vote via Twitter that “things will be different” after his inauguration.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said that Congress and Trump will work together “to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel.”

A senior official at a national Jewish organization who works with Congress and the White House told the Free Beacon that Obama intentionally abstained from the vote in order to “stab our Israeli allies in the back.”

“The only reason Republicans have kept funding for the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations is because the Obama administration said the funding was helpful to American diplomacy,” the source said. “President Obama just used that diplomacy to stab our Israeli allies in the back. Republican lawmakers are already talking about how they can come together with the Trump administration to axe that spending. Democrats, many of whom will now be in trouble with constituents, are certainly not going to get in their way.”

Lawmakers and national Jewish organizations quickly condemned the administration’s behavior, accusing it of abandoning Israel at a time of need.

“The Obama administration’s decision to abstain from today’s UN Security Council vote is disgraceful,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) said in a statement. “The adopted resolution is anti-Israel and anti-peace.‎ Congress and the incoming administration will stand with our friends and allies, and oppose all efforts to delegitimize Israel.”

The Jewish Federation of North America, or JFNA, one of the country’s largest and most influential pro-Israel organizations, described the administration’s actions as “tragic” and said the move is likely to mar Obama’s legacy.

“It is tragic that the administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” the organization said in a statement.

“The administration’s decision undermined a core principle of American foreign policy that has been embraced by Democratic and Republican Administrations for decades: that the only route to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through direct negotiations between the parties,” JFNA said.

The Anti-Defamation League, a historically left-leaning organization that is headed by a former Obama administration official, said that it was “outraged” by Obama’s decision to allow the anti-Israel measure to be approved.

“We are outraged over the U.S. failure to veto this biased and unconstructive UNSC resolution on Israel,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO. “This resolution will do little to renew peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians. It will only encourage further Palestinian intransigence vis-à-vis direct negotiations with Israel in favor of unilateral, one-sided initiatives.”

“The Obama administration repeatedly stated that a solution to the conflict cannot be imposed on the parties but must be achieved directly by the parties themselves,” Greenblatt added. “It is deeply troubling that this biased resolution appears to be the final word of the administration on this issue.”

Amb. Bolton on US abstention from UN Israel vote

December 24, 2016

Amb. Bolton on US abstention from UN Israel vote, Fox News via YouTube, December 23, 2016

Congress Threatens to Defund UN over Anti-Israel Vote

December 24, 2016

Congress Threatens to Defund UN over Anti-Israel Vote, BreitbartJoel B. Pokkak, December 23, 2016

(Obama allowed the UN Security Council to do its nasty deed. Isn’t there some way we can “defund” Obama? — DM)

barack-obama-samantha-powers-sept-29-2015-getty-640x480Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images

Ambassador Samantha Power, who represents the United States at the UN Security Council, sat mum on Friday when the chair called for votes against an anti-Israel resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal. But she raised her hand high when the chair called for abstentions.

She, and her boss, President Barack Obama, could have voted no, in keeping with precedent, and in deference to the incoming administration of President-elect Donald J. Trump. Instead, they let the resolution pass.

In anticipation of Obama’s suspected — now confirmed — abstention, members of Congress threatened to de-fund the UN. The U.S. accounts for some 22% of the UN’s budget, supporting a large, comfortable bureaucracy and its various programs.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued a statement, warning:

This provocative action by the United Nations is an outrage and must be dealt with sternly and forcefully.

As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I oversee the United States assistance to the United Nations. The United States is currently responsible for approximately 22 percent of the United Nations total budget.

If the United Nations moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution, I will work to form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce United States assistance to the United Nations.

In addition, any nation which backs this resolution and receives assistance from the United States will put that assistance in jeopardy.

Others joined Graham’s call to defund the UN, including Sen. James Lankford (R-OH). The Republican Jewish Coalition issued a statement also calling for defunding the UN:

By allowing the United Nations’ anti-Israel resolution to be adopted by the Security Council, in the face of fierce bi-partisan opposition, the actions of the Obama Administration will forever be remembered as a dark, shameful moment for our country. The resolution passed today will only serve as a greater barrier to peace, which can only truly be achieved through negotiations. Instead of pressuring the Palestinians to be a partner for peace, President Obama chose to break with long standing diplomatic practices and allowed the one-sided, anti-Israel United Nations to be used as a tool to bludgeon Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East.

We applaud the efforts of Republican Senators, led by Senator Graham, to strip funding to the United Nations, which has time and again showed their anti-Israel bias. What happened today will forever be on the heads of the President, his Party, and groups like J Street that remained silent.

The passage of the resolution marks the Obama administration’s final stab in the back against Israel, on its way out the door and in defiance of the results of the November election, when voters chose Trump’s more assertive U.S. foreign policy.

In the hours before the vote, American Jewish organizations otherwise friendly to the Obama administration, such as the Union for Reform Judaism, belatedly mobilized to urge the Obama administration to veto the resolution. It was all to no avail.

In her statement attempting to justify the Obama administration’s failure to exercise its veto, Power cited a statement by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 opposing further Israeli settlements. She argued — incorrectly — that opposition to Israeli settlements had been the policy of every U.S. administration since 1967, ignoring the fact that President George W. Bush had assured Israel it would accept some settlements, as a reward for Israel’s recognition of the Palestinian aspiration to statehood.

Power attempted to cover the Obama administration’s backstabbing by noting that Israel is unfairly singled out for criticism by the UN: “Israel continues to be treated differently than other UN member states,” she said.

Yet even as Power said those words, she and the Obama administration participated in precisely that kind of singling out — subjecting Israel to criticism that no other states in similar situations had ever faced, in a week when the city of Aleppo fell to the genocidal Syrian regime.

She further argued that the U.S. would have blocked any resolution that threatened Israeli security. The implication was that a resolution that is factually and legally false, and which rewards Palestinians for decades of terror, does not harm Israel.

Power stated that “we cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance to attain” the goal of a two-state solution. The claim flies in the face of Israeli efforts to renew negotiations — even to freeze settlement construction — in vain.

President-elect Trump had managed to keep the resolution at bay the day before by opposing it publicly, and by convincing Egypt to withdraw it from the agenda. But the Obama administration, aided by temporary Security Council members New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal, persisted.

The vote is a watershed: Israel faces a new and more hostile diplomatic reality, and the myth of bipartisan support for Israel has been shattered forever. Democrats will now bear an anti-Israel legacy.

U.S. Abstains In UN Vote On Israeli Settlements

December 23, 2016

U.S. Abstains In UN Vote On Israeli Settlements, Fox News via YouTube, December 23, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpb7u2Ulqwg

Trump was Right to Stop Obama from Tying his Hands on Israel

December 23, 2016

Trump was Right to Stop Obama from Tying his Hands on Israel, Gatestone InstituteAlan M. Dershowitz, December 23, 2016

(This was published just a couple of hours before the UN Security Council voted unanimously to pass the resolution, Obama’s America abstaining. — DM)

The Egyptian decision to withdraw the one-sided anti-Israel Security Council resolution should not mask the sad reality that it is the Obama administration that has been pushing for the resolution to be enacted. The United States was trying to hide its active ‘behind the scenes’ roll by preparing to abstain rather than voting for the resolution. But in the context of the Security Council where only an American veto can prevent anti-Israel resolutions from automatically passing, an abstention is a vote for the resolution. And because of this automatic majority, an anti-Israel resolution like this one cannot be reversed by a future American president. A veto once cast cannot be cast retroactively.

The effect, therefore of the Obama decision to push for, and abstain from, a vote on this resolution is to deliberately tie the hands of President Obama’s successors, most particularly President elect Trump. That is why Trump did the right thing in reaction to Obama’s provocation. Had the lame duck president not tried to tie the incoming president’s hands, Trump would not have intervened at this time. But if he had not urged the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution, he would have made it far more difficult for himself to try to bring about a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border to be sacrosanct and any building behind those boarders to be illegal would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.

President Obama’s lame duck attempt to tie the hands of his successor is both counterproductive to peace and undemocratic in nature. The lame duck period of an outgoing president is a time when our system of checks and balances is effectively suspended. The outgoing president does not have to listen to Congress or the people. He can selfishly try to burnish his personal legacy at the expense of our national and international interests. He can try to even personal scores and act on pique. That is what seems to be happening here. Congress does not support this resolution; the American people do not support this resolution; no Israeli leader – from the left, to the center, to the right – supports this resolution. Even some members of Obama’s own administration do not support this resolution. But Obama is determined – after 8 years of frustration and failure in bringing together the Israelis and Palestinians – to leave his mark on the mid-East peace process. But if he manages to push this resolution through, his mark may well be the end of any realistic prospect for a negotiated peace.

One would think that Obama would have learned from his past mistakes in the mid-East. He has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Everything he has touched has turned to sand.

Now, in his waning days, he wants to make trouble for his successor. He should be stopped in the name of peace, democracy and basic decency.

But it now appears that Obama will not be stopped. Four temporary Security Council members have decided to push the resolution to a vote now. It is difficult to believe that they would have done so without the implicit support of the United States. Stay tuned.

U.S. declines to veto U.N. Security Council resolution for Israel to stop Jewish settlement activity

December 23, 2016

U.S. declines to veto U.N. Security Council resolution for Israel to stop Jewish settlement activity, Washington PostCarol Morello, December 23, 2016

The U.N. Security Council on Friday passed a resolution demanding Israel cease Jewish settlement activity on Palestinian territory in a unanimous vote that passed with the United States abstaining rather than using its veto as it has reliably done in the past.

The resolution said settlements are threatening the viability of the two-state solution, and urged Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations that lead to two independent nations.

This marked the first time in more than 36 years that the Security Council passed a resolution critical of settlements.

The United States’ abstention Friday reflected mounting frustration in the Obama administration over settlement growth that the United States considers an obstacle to peace.

The resolution came one day after a scheduled vote was postponed when the sponsor, Egypt, withdrew it after the Egyptian president spoke by phone with President-elect Donald Trump. Friday’s resolution was sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal.

Shortly before the vote, several U.S. senators said that if it passed they would introduce legislation to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations and to any states that voted in favor of it.