Posted tagged ‘UN Security Council’

Analysis:The dangers of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016)

December 28, 2016

Analysis: The dangers of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), Israel National News, Amb. Alan Bake, December 28, 2016

The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.

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

The resolution does not make law, and as such, the determinations as to the lack of legal validity of Israel’s settlements are no more than declaratory, but they are a major impediment to negotiations.

The December 23, 2016, resolution adopted by the UN Security Council regarding Israel’s settlement policy has been received with mixed and even extreme reactions.  [Click to read the text of UN Security Council Resolution 2334]

The Palestinian leadership, having initiated the resolution, is celebrating its adoption as an affirmation by the international community, including the United States, of its claims against Israel.

Israel sees this resolution as a major impediment to continued peace negotiations in light of the fact that it by-passes the negotiation process in an attempt to prejudge central issues that are on the negotiating table. As such, it seriously prejudices any possible return to the negotiating process.

Israel considers that the resolution provides political incentives to those in the international community hostile to Israel. It advances boycotts and sanctions and could even be used to support possible litigation against Israeli leaders.

Summary of Implications

Following is a brief summary of the legal and quasi-legal implications of the resolution:

The resolution (as all previous resolutions regarding Israel) was adopted under the sixth chapter of the UN Charter (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and as such is not mandatory. It contains a series of political determinations and recommendations to the international community. The resolution does not make law, and as such, the determinations as to the lack of legal validity of Israel’s settlements are no more than declaratory.

Much of the terminology repeats UN terminology and language used in previous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions (“inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force,” “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem,” “secure and recognized borders,” “violation (serious or flagrant) under international law,” the references to the lack of legal validity of settlements, and their being an “obstacle” or “major obstacle” to achieving a two-state solution).

References in the tenth preambular paragraph to the fact that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “entrenching a one-state reality” are new and would appear to be inspired by, or even direct quotes from statements by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Vice President Biden. Similarly, expressions not previously included in major Security Council resolutions regarding the peace process, such as “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” (operative paragraph seven), as well as the references in the ninth paragraph to the “Arab Peace Initiative” and the “principle of land for peace” as additional bases for peace, clearly are intended to instill concepts that have never been agreed-upon elements in the negotiating process.

The call upon states in the fifth operative paragraph to distinguish between dealings between Israel-proper and the territories will also be used by BDS activists and states to buttress their boycott campaigns.

The reference in the third operative paragraph to the “4 June 1967 lines” as a basis for negotiations would appear to be a new element, echoing statements by Obama and Kerry, and running counter to the 1967 Security Council resolution 242, which is the basis for all of the Arab-Israeli peace process, which calls for negotiation of “secure and recognized boundaries.” The Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords make no specific reference to the 1967 lines. As such this reference would appear to be an attempt to prejudge or unduly influence the negotiating issue of borders.

Despite the declaratory and recommendatory determinations in the resolution attempting to prejudge the status of the territories, east Jerusalem, borders, and settlements, the resolution nevertheless would appear to contradict itself in that it goes on to reaffirm the call for negotiations on “all final status issues” (operative paragraph eight) and for “a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”

Analysis

While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction.

The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.

The United States, through its decision not to veto the resolution, enabled acceptance of a Security Council resolution referring to “occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.” This indicates U.S. acceptance of the fact that the territories and east Jerusalem belong to the Palestinians. This despite the claim that the United States has consistently agreed with Israel that there has never been any legal determination, agreement, treaty, or other binding source determining that.

This represents a serious, and even irresponsible departure from U.S. policy which has consistently advocated negotiated settlement of the issues of permanent status, Jerusalem, and borders. This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated.

While the United States and Israel have entertained basic disagreements on settlement policy, the United States has consistently rejected, as a matter of basic policy, any attempt by the international community to prejudge this or the other permanent status negotiating issues.

The outrage voiced by Israel with both the resolution itself and the Obama administration’s enabling it to pass stems from five basic components:

  • The text of the resolution, which is unprecedented in the extent of the condemnatory language used.
  • Israel’s frustration at the irresponsible behavior by the Obama administration.
  • The evident irreversibility of the resolution and the potential for future damage.
  • The imbalance between accusations of Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinians’ blatant violations of international law in their incitement and payment to terrorists.
  • The issue of settlements is not the core of the conflict. It remains the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish State and its right to any part of the land west of the Jordan River.

Congress Moving to Cut U.S. Funding to U.N. in Wake of Anti-Israel Vote

December 28, 2016

Congress Moving to Cut U.S. Funding to U.N. in Wake of Anti-Israel Vote, Washington Free Beacon, , December 28, 2016

While the Trump administration will not take office until the end of January, Congress will be working overtime before then to stop the Obama administration from further damaging the U.S.-Israel relationship, according to the source, who hinted that a full cut-off of U.S. funding to the U.N. currently is on the table.

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

Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.

Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.

The Obama administration is still under bipartisan attack for its decision to help craft and facilitate the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem, a move that reversed years of U.S. policy on the matter.

The Free Beacon was the first to disclose on Monday that senior Obama administration officials played a key role in ensuring the measure was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. This included a phone call by Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the measure.

While Biden’s office continues to dispute the claim, reporters in Israel and Europe confirmed in the intervening days that the call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko did in fact take place.

With anger over the issue still roiling, leading members of Congress told the Free Beacon on Wednesday that they will not delay in seeking retribution against the U.N. for the vote. This could include cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N. and stripping the Palestinian mission’s diplomatic privileges.

Lawmakers also will work to rebuff further attempts by the Obama administration to chastise Israel on the international stage. This would include freezing funds that could be spent by the administration on further U.N. action.

“The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) told the Free Beacon. “President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power, and their colleagues should remember that the United States Congress reconvenes on January 3rd, and under the Constitution we control the taxpayer funds they would use for their anti-Israel initiatives.”

“The 115th Congress must stop the current administration’s vicious attack on our great ally Israel, and address the major priorities of the incoming administration,” Cruz said, expressing his desire to work with the incoming Trump administration to reset the U.S. relationship with Israel.< Senior congressional sources currently working on the issue further disclosed to the Free Beacon that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are in an uproar over the Obama administration, which they accuse of plotting behind closed doors to smear Israel.

“Not content with spending the last eight years using the United Nations to undermine American sovereignty, the Obama administration has finally trained their sights on Israel and is trying to exploit this unelected and unaccountable international body to impose their resolution of the Palestinian issue on Israel,” one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon. “Enough is enough.”

While the Trump administration will not take office until the end of January, Congress will be working overtime before then to stop the Obama administration from further damaging the U.S.-Israel relationship, according to the source, who hinted that a full cut-off of U.S. funding to the U.N. currently is on the table.

“A new administration will arrive on January 20th, but in the intervening weeks Congress has an important role mitigating the damage President Obama can do in his final hours,” the source said. “Why on earth would we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad in support of the UN, which has proven itself again and again utterly unable to encourage any positive progress? Just take Syria — if they were doing anything over the last five years, it should have been working out a fair and equitable adjudication of the Syrian war.”

“Instead, they’ve proven themselves utterly useless–in fact they’ve probably made a gut-wrenching catastrophe worse,” the source explained. “There’s no reason to think this action will turn out any more favorably.”

A second senior congressional aide working on a package of repercussions expressed fear that the U.N. vote was just the first salvo targeting Israel.

“The question now is whether this was the finale or the prologue of what this administration has planned against Israel,” the source said, adding that “everything is on the table right now — including funding cuts and scaling back diplomatic relations with countries that brought forward this resolution.”

A similar list of punitive actions was confirmed by multiple congressional sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter. The sources were granted anonymity so they could speak freely.

“Obama went to the U.N. because a U.N. resolution is functionally irreversible by normal means,” added a veteran foreign policy insider who is currently working with the incoming Trump administration. “Obama’s goal was to eliminate any limited options that could be used to repair the damage to Israel, and he gambled that Trump and Congress would be too intimidated to use the remaining big stick options. He’s going to lose that gamble.”

“American leaders will now use exactly those options,” the source explained. “Everything is on the table, from systematically going after the U.N., to moving the U.S. embassy into parts of Jerusalem the U.N. says aren’t Israeli, to kicking the Palestinians out of Washington.”

“Members on both sides of the aisle are furious, so our response will be swift and forceful,” the second congressional source said. “With a Trump administration in place, any nation that seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state will need to answer to the United States.”

The UN resolution on Israel

December 28, 2016

The UN resolution on Israel, Israel Hayom, Elliott Abrams, December 28, 2016

Since the adoption last week of the Security Council resolution on Israel, I’ve had my say in ‎The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post condemning the Obama administration’s ‎decision to allow the resolution to pass.

The resolution rewards the Palestine Liberation Organization for refusing to ‎negotiate and adopts its tactic of replacing serious, face-to-face negotiations with useless ‎dramas in New York. It is a danger to Israel. And by refusing to veto the resolution, the Obama ‎administration abandoned the usual American practice of defending Israel from what ‎former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick called “the jackals” at the United Nations.‎

Over this past weekend, administration spokesmen have tried to defend this abandonment ‎of Israel in truly Orwellian terms, inverting the meaning of their action. This was done to ‎”help” Israel and to “defend” it; we know better than its ‎elected government (and main opposition parties) where its interests lie; we abandoned Israel because we are its ‎friend.‎

These were main themes of the president’s aide Ben Rhodes when he spoke to reporters ‎Friday, saying the resolution “expresses the consensus international view on Israeli settlement ‎activity. … This is consistent with long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy as it relates to ‎settlements. … One of our grave concerns is that the continued pace of settlement activity, ‎which has accelerated in recent years, which has accelerated significantly since 2011. … ‎

“Let’s be clear here: We exhausted every effort to pursue a two-state solution through ‎negotiations, through direct discussions, through proximity discussions, through ‎confidence-building measures, through a lengthy and exhaustive effort undertaken by ‎Secretary [of State John] Kerry earlier in the president’s second term. We gave every effort that we could ‎to supporting the parties coming to the table.‎

“So within the absence of any meaningful peace process, as well as in the face of accelerated ‎settlement activity that put at risk the viability of a two-state solution, that we took the ‎decision that we did today to abstain on this resolution.‎

“Where is the evidence that not doing this is slowing the settlement construction?‎”

Those who enjoy the children’s exercise where the child is asked to find all the things wrong in ‎a picture — signs upside down, dogs with horns, etc. — will enjoy pondering Rhodes’ ‎misleading narrative.‎

Yes, the resolution “expresses the consensus international view on Israeli settlement ‎activity,” and calls them illegal, and that is the point: Until the Obama administration, the ‎United States’ position was that they were unhelpful but not illegal. Therefore, the ‎resolution is not “consistent with long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy.”‎

As to the pace of settlement activity, Rhodes is simply wrong. I reviewed the ‎statistics in Foreign Policy and there Uri Sadot and I concluded that‎: “A careful look into the numbers shows that neither the population balance between Jews ‎and Palestinians, nor the options for partition in the West Bank have materially ‎changed. … Israeli population in the settlements is growing, but at a rate that reflects mostly ‎births in families already there, and not in-migration of new settlers.‎”

In fact, settlement growth has not “accelerated significantly” since 2011, whatever ‎Rhodes says.‎

His most disingenuous remark is about the failure of negotiations. Indeed, the ‎Obama/Kerry efforts failed because the Palestinians refused to come to the table even ‎when Israel undertook a 10-month construction freeze. One of President Barack Obama’s officials, ‎Martin Indyk, was described in Haaretz as saying this in 2014 about those negotiations:‎ ‎”Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. I saw him sweating bullets to find a ‎way to reach an agreement.”

Indyk continued that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not show flexibility.

“We tried to get Abu Mazen [Abbas] to the zone of possible agreement but we were ‎surprised to learn he had shut down,”‎ Indyk said.

So what is to be done when the Palestinians refuse to negotiate? Punish Israel. Join the ‎jackals in Turtle Bay. Adopt the PLO view that action in the United Nations will replace face-‎to-face talks. That was Obama’s decision.‎

Rhodes’ twisted formulation of “where is the evidence that not doing this is slowing the ‎settlement construction?” is a kind of epitaph for Obama policy. He said: “We have a ‎body of evidence to assess how this Israeli government has responded to us not taking this ‎kind of action, and that suggests that they will continue to accelerate the type of settlement ‎construction that puts a two-state solution at risk.”

Settlements expand if we veto ‎resolutions, he is saying, so we have decided not to veto resolutions.‎

This is precisely wrong, an inversion of the truth. The Obama account of settlement ‎expansion is invented and avoids the facts to build a case against Israel. Netanyahu is not ‎popular among settlers exactly because he has restrained settlement growth and ‎adopted a 10-month freeze. In 2009, Hillary Clinton said, “What the prime minister has ‎offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements … is unprecedented.” What has ‎been the Obama reaction to his restraint, to his freeze, to the PLO refusal to negotiate?‎

The reaction has been to blame Israel and assault Netanyahu year after year, including with ‎childish epithets. And this attitude culminated finally in the abandonment of Israel at the ‎United Nations. Supporters of strong Israel-American relations can only be glad that the ‎‎22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms in the White House.‎

Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution

December 28, 2016

Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution, Times of Israel, December 27, 2016

kerryandpalPalestinian Authority lead negotiator Saeb Erekat, right, and US Secretary of State John Kerry in Ramallah, West Bank, on January 4, 2013. (State Department)

Report published in Egypt has Kerry and Rice advising senior Palestinians on strategy at UN and after Trump takes power.

An Egyptian paper published what it claims are the transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials that, if true, would corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind last week’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

An Egyptian paper published what it claims are the transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials that, if true, would corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind last week’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

At the same time, a report in an Israeli daily Tuesday night pointed to Britain helping draft the resolution and high drama in the hours leading up to the vote, as Jerusalem tried to convince New Zealand to bury the Security Council measure.

In a meeting in early December with top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Palestinians that the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security council, Israel’s Channel 1 TV said, quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper.

Also present at the meeting were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service.

riceniceUS National Security Adviser Susan Rice speaks during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2015 Policy Conference, March 2, 2015 in Washington, DC. (photo credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

Kerry is quoted as saying that he could present his ideas for a final status solution if the Palestinians pledge they will support the proposed framework. The US officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Riyadh to present the plan to Saudi leaders.

Israel fears that Kerry, who is slated to give a speech Wednesday on the subject, will then lay out his comprehensive vision for two-state solution at a Paris peace conference planned for January. Israel has refused to attend. Israel further fears that this Kerry framework could be enshrined in another UN Security Council resolution.

The Egyptian report fits with Israeli claims that it had received “ironclad” information from Arab sources that Washington actively helped craft last week’s UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

samanthaSamantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, addresses the United Nations Security Council, after the council voted on condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Friday, Dec. 23, 2016 (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Responding to a question about the Al-Youm Al-Sabea report, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner denied that the US discussed the language of the resolution with Erekat or in a meeting with officials from New Zealand.

The Obama administration has denied it was behind the resolution, saying that it only decided not to veto it after reading the final text.

Meanwhile, a report in the daily Haaretz Tuesday cited Western and Israeli officials detailing how Britain, and not the US, worked with the Palestinians to craft the text of the resolution, toning it down to make it palatable enough for Washington to avoid a veto.

“The Israeli diplomats say that from information that reached the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, British legal figures and diplomats had been working directly with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution even before it was distributed by Egypt,” Haaretz said.

nzdipNew Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully addresses a Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East on December 16, 2016. (UN/Manuel Elias)

According to Haaretz, in the hours before the resolution went forward, Netanyahu phoned New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully, and warned him that going ahead with the resolution “will be a declaration of war.”

“It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem,” Netanyahu is reported to have said.

Since the resolution passed, Netanyahu has taken a series of measures against the states that supported the resolutions, minimizing ties with some and calling in their envoys for rebuke.

According to the Egyptian report, the US diplomats expressed their mistrust of Netanyahu, saying he wanted to destroy the two-state solution and was only interested in maintaining the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians.

The transcript showed Kerry and Rice advising the Palestinians not to make any provocative moves when US President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, calling him dangerous.

They warned against such steps as ending security cooperation with Israel, pursuing legal action against Israeli officials in the ICC, or dissolving the Palestinian Authority.

They also said Trump’s administration was likely to adopt a policy on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that would be totally different to that of previous administrations going back to 1967.

mideast-palestinians-_horo-4-305x172In this Friday, Dec. 11, 2015 file photo, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat delivers a speech at the Mediterranean Dialogues Conference Forum, in Rome. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, File)

When asked how the Palestinians would react if Trump carried out his promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Erekat reportedly said the Palestine Liberation Organization would rescind its recognition of Israel and ask Arab states to expel their US envoys.

Erekat made precisely that threat in a December 19 conference call organized by the Wilson Center policy forum. He said he would immediately resign as the chief Palestinian negotiator, and that “the PLO will revoke its recognition of Israel” as well as all previously signed agreements with Israel. Furthermore, said Erekat, all American embassies in the Arab world would be forced to close — not necessarily because Arab leaderships would want to close them, but because the infuriated public in the Arab world would not “allow” for the embassies to continue to operate.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The issue is Israel’s existence

December 28, 2016

The issue is Israel’s existence, Israel Hayom, Dr. Ephraim Herrera, December 27, 2016

The current phase is no less dangerous: diplomatic, legal and public relations warfare against Israel — a variety of initiatives aiming to present it as an immoral, apartheid, “illegal” country that must be denounced. Lest we delude ourselves: The goal of the public diplomacy war is the collapse of the Jewish state. International pressure demanding that Israel return  to the June 4, 1967, borders is understood as the first stage, not the last. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has consistently declared that he will never recognize the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. And that he will never surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

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

The U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements is perceived throughout the entire Muslim world as a giant victory and a historic achievement for the rights of Palestinians. Indeed, the resolution, which “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,” renders negotiations pointless because the international community rejects outright any Israeli legitimacy over any land beyond the lines drawn before the Six-Day War. In other words: Israel must withdraw from the Jewish Quarter, from Jerusalem’s new neighborhoods and from all of Judea and Samaria.

The common denominator in the Palestinian reaction — whether Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad — is that this victory has to be leveraged, with vigor. A Palestinian Authority spokesman said actions must be taken to isolate Israel in the international arena, and called on the international community to take the necessary steps to implement the resolution ratified by the United Nations. The PA foreign minister called for actions that would put an end to the “Judaization” of Judea and Samaria. Other mouthpieces noted the need for legal action against Israelis for war crimes.

From the onset of Israel’s creation, the Muslim world without exception has sought to exterminate the Zionist entity. Its initial efforts focused on classical armed conflict: from the War of Independence to the Lebanon War, the enemies’ armies suffered staggering defeats, even if exacting from us a painful price. From the mid-1980s, the Muslim world shifted to a different strategy: intifadas. Here, too, Israel paid a heavy price, but was able to withstand the threat. For years now, calls for another intifada in Judea and Samaria and among Israeli Arabs have fallen on deaf ears. The third wave of terrorism, which is still ongoing, has introduced a new method of resistance: lone-wolf attackers, armed with knives or behind the wheel of a careening vehicle, seeking to terrorize the civilian population. However, a series of measures implemented by Israel’s security forces, alongside quick and effective action by civilians at the scene of attacks, have suppressed the phenomenon significantly.

The current phase is no less dangerous: diplomatic, legal and public relations warfare against Israel — a variety of initiatives aiming to present it as an immoral, apartheid, “illegal” country that must be denounced. Lest we delude ourselves: The goal of the public diplomacy war is the collapse of the Jewish state. International pressure demanding that Israel return to the June 4, 1967, borders is understood as the first stage, not the last. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has consistently declared that he will never recognize the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. And that he will never surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

The heated argument between the Israeli Left and Right overlooks the essence of the problem: The issue is not the territories but the very existence of the State of Israel. It is imperative that Israel find effective ways to counter this new type of warfare, which is no less an existential threat than classic wars, intifadas and knives.

Infamous United Nations Security Council Resolution on Israel is a Symptom of a Deeper Foreign Policy Crisis That Requires Change

December 27, 2016

Infamous United Nations Security Council Resolution on Israel is a Symptom of a Deeper Foreign Policy Crisis That Requires Change, Center for Security Policy, Luis Fleischman, December 27, 2016

soongone

The recent resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemning Israel over settlements represents another foreign policy blow for the United States.

It is consistent with this administration’s policy to appease enemies that do not deserve it (e.g., Iran and Cuba), spit in the face of allies, and thus weakening the image of the United States worldwide.

What is the meaning of this security council resolution for Israel and the settlements?

Let us start with the basics. The resolution fails to distinguish between ‘settlements blocs’ and settlements in areas where a Palestinian state is supposed to be created. Former U.S President George W. Bush accepted construction in a set of Jewish settlements next to the 1967 border as long as the scope of settlements does not expand well into the West Bank.

However, the UNSC resolution, supported and initiated by Obama, defines settlements as every piece of territory that was taken by Israel in the war of June 1967. This includes the Western Wall (the holiest site in Judaism), neighborhoods that have been in existence for decades and had no previous Arab presence, and even the Golan Heights. The latter, having nothing to do with the future of a Palestinian state, was taken from Syria before June 1967, and was used by the Syrians before that date to bomb Israeli civilian targets. Nowadays, if Israel withdraws from the Golan, the territory is likely to fall in the hands of the Iran-backed murderous Bashar Al Assad, or worse, in the hands of the radical Islamist group Al Nusra (now controlling Syrian territory next to the Golan).

On the other hand, the resolution demands nothing from the Palestinians. In the past, peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians failed not because of settlements but because the Palestinian leadership refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state by requiring the so –called “right of return” of three million Palestinians to Israel proper. That proposal is not a formula for peace but a formula for the continuation of war.

Very much in contrast to the Palestinians, Israel offered solutions in the past by offering generous concessions that included withdrawal from most of the West Bank, the creation of a Palestinian state, and agreement to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled the Jewish settlements in the area.

This unbalanced resolution ignores these past painful and risky Israeli concessions, contemptuously rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Furthermore, the resolution failed to include the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and abandon the “right of return.”

After Egypt backed off from introducing the resolution at the request of the U.S, Vice-President Joe Biden proceeded to recruit other sponsors. He called the Ukraine first, a country that still has serious problems recognizing its population’s collaboration with the anti-Semitic Nazi murderous machine and has even honored a Ukrainian militia that murdered Jews during WWII. The other three were New Zealand, Malaysia, and Venezuela. Malaysia is a country that has refused to recognize Israel and whose former president made statements supporting theories of a Jewish conspiracy. Venezuela has adopted an open anti-American ideology, has cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah and its political and military elite are heavily involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, Venezuela is a massive violator of human rights whose policies have led to the starvation of its population

What kind of message is the United States sending to its enemies when we it makes alliances against its own ally?

This kind of resolution has been long supported by France. France’s foreign policy towards the Middle East is mainly motivated by the desire to diminish the status and influence of the United States and increase its own. Israel is considered to be a U.S ally and an easy political target.

As an example, for France, that resolution constitutes a tremendous political victory from their narrow point of view. However, as they face serious terrorist attacks in their own soil, the French have weakened themselves by voting against the country that is at the forefront of the fight against the kind of terrorism that now they themselves are facing.

However, despite the stupidity displayed by the French, their weakness is our problem too. A defenseless West also exposes America and its citizens to danger and risk. If our western allies are not strong enough, we will collapse and be hung with them.

The Russians and the Chinese provide political backing to their allies such as Syria, Iran or even North Korea. The West does not.

What is now needed is a strong American leadership that can provide a sense of common purpose to the West as a whole. The U.S needs to set the tone as well as take the initiative and leadership in the West, in order to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas and reduce the power of rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela. Such leadership needs to be expanded to other countries including Latin American countries with significant potential such as Brazil and Argentina.

The anti-Israel UNSC resolution is a problem that transcends Israel. The challenge ahead for President–elect Donald Trump is huge, but the opportunity to make substantial change happen is there too.

Cartoons and Videos of the Day

December 27, 2016

Via Capitol Steps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0DpwaTcsbc&t=5s

 

Via Capitol Steps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M6YvDXQcgQ

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

friendly-back-pats

 

rock-him

 

civworld

 

Via The Jewish Press

obama-un-kotel-occupiers-1

The UN Declares War on Judeo-Christian Civilization

December 27, 2016

The UN Declares War on Judeo-Christian Civilization, Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, December 27, 2016

How is it that Western jurisprudence, created after the Second World War to prevent more crimes against humanity, is now being used to perpetuate more crimes and against democracies?

It is a dreadful manipulation to try erase all Jewish and Christian history, to make believe that all the world was originally and forever only Islamic. That is what a jihad looks like. It is not just orange jumpsuits, beheadings and slavery. If one can erase and rewrite history, one can redirect the future.

If Palestinian men beat their wives, it’s Israel’s fault, argued UN expert Dubravka Simonovic with a straight face.

Last month, the President of the UN General Assembly sported the famous keffiyah scarf, a symbol of the “Palestinian resistance” (read terrorism). This is simply the continuation of the cultural obliteration of Israel, which is supposed to justify next its physical obliteration.

The UN’s war on the Israel’s Jews is, at heart, a war against the West. The UN and its backers are briskly paving the way for the European Caliphate.

2016 has been a sumptuous year for the anti-Semites at the United Nations. The UN Security Council just targeted the only democracy in the Middle East: the State of Israel. The outgoing Obama Administration reportedly orchestrated what even Haaretz called a “hit and run” campaign in UN to denigrate the Jewish State and leave it to a fate where only conflict and hate loom. This is a cultural genocide that is no less dangerous than terror attacks. It is based on anti-Semitic lies and creates the atmosphere not for achieving “peace”, as disingenuously claimed, but for perpetuating war.

UNSC Resolution 2334 is the culmination of a dizzyingly fruitful year for anti-Semites. Last November, committees of the UN General Assembly in a single day adopted 10 resolutions against Israel, the only open society in the Middle East. How many resolutions have been approved against Syria? One. How many against the rogue state of North Korea? One. How many against Russia when it annexed Crimea? One.

Hillel Neuer, of UN Watch, observed:

“Even as Syrian president Bashar Assad is preparing for the final massacre of his own people in Aleppo, the U.N. adopted a resolution — drafted and co-sponsored by Syria — which falsely condemns Israel for “repressive measures” against Syrian citizens on the Golan Heights. It’s obscene.”

Not a single resolution was approved for those states which really abuse human rights, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Venezuela, China or Cuba, not to mention many virtual tyrannies throughout Africa. Only one resolution was approved for the “Palestinian refugee properties”, but not even a single mention for the property of the Iraqi Christians in Mosul.

Another resolution in this racist banquet of the United Nations concerned the “application of the Geneva Convention in the occupied territories”. There are hundreds of territorial disputes in the world, from Tibet to Cyprus, but only Israel deserves to be called out?

According to the liars at the United Nations, the most evil country in the world is Israel. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad, and Jordan’s Prince Zeid al Hussein are sponsoring even now a “blacklist” of international companies that have ties with Israeli companies in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, to facilitate boycotting Israel in the evident hope of economically exterminating the only democracy and pluralistic nation in the region: the Jewish State.

The UN Envoy for Children and Armed Conflict, Leila Zerrougui of Algeria, suggested also including the Israeli army in the blacklist of countries and groups that regularly cause harm to children, along with Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Islamic State, the Taliban, and countries such as the Congo and the Central African Republic, infamous for their child-soldiers — but of course not the Palestinians, who continue to promote using children as combatants and children as “martyrs“. How is it that Western jurisprudence, created after the Second World War to prevent more crimes against humanity, is now being used to perpetuate more crimes and against democracies?

The UN women’s rights commission condemned Israel as the world’s only violator of women’s rights. Not Syria, where Assad’s forces use rape as a tactic of war, or the Islamic State, which enslaves women from religious minorities. Not Saudi Arabia, where women are punished if they do not wear the Islamic full-covering clothing in scorching temperatures, or drive a car or even leave the house. Not Iran, where “adultery” (which can include being raped) is punishable by being stoned to death. And if Palestinian men beat their wives, it’s Israel’s fault, argued UN expert Dubravka Simonovic with a straight face.

The UN’s World Health Organization also singled out Israel as the only violator in the world of “mental, physical and environmental health”, despite Israel being the only state in the world actually to give medical care to its enemies (ask Hamas leaders’ children).

Canadian law professor Michael Lynk was then appointed as the UN’s “impartial” investigator of alleged Israeli human rights violations despite his long record of anti-Israel lobbying, including his board membership on many pro-Palestinian organizations, including Friends of Sabeel and the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations.

Last October, the UN cultural agency, UNESCO — by magically declaring ancient Biblical Jewish sites “Islamic”, even though Islam did not historically exist until the seventh century, hundreds of years later — pretended, with the villainous complicity of the West, to erase the Jewish-Christian roots of Jerusalem.

It is a dreadful manipulation to try erase all Jewish and Christian history, to make believe that all the world was originally and forever only Islamic. It is a jihad. That is what a jihad looks like. It is not just orange jumpsuits, beheadings and slavery. If one can erase and rewrite history, one can redirect the future. If you do not know where you are coming from, what values will you defend or fight for?

Names matter. If it is Jewish, then it is called “Judea and Samaria”; if it is “Palestine”, you can say the “Jews stole it” and that Israel is a “colonialist construct” based on “injustice”. Why then is no one is pointing to the entire continent of South America, conquered from the native Indians by Cortés, Pizarro and Europeans with guns?

The latest UN Security Council resolution against Israel is not only about “settlements”, but the Old City of Jerusalem. Its members want to reset history not at 1967, but at 1948, the year Israel was born.

When Marcel Breuer and Bernard Zerfuss designed UNESCO’s building in concrete and glass at the Place Fontenoy in Paris, and Pablo Picasso donated frescoes to it, they most likely imagined the rebirth of Western culture after the tragedies of war, the Holocaust and the Nazi nightmare. Never in any other spot on earth were words such as “education”, “science”, “culture”, “freedom”, “peace” and “brotherhood” repeated so many times. There was hope and commitment that the future would be better — not worse. But the dream lasted no longer than the few minutes of the announcement.

The Soviet Union had in fact already stained UNESCO’s cultural programs with the red of Communism, such as when UNESCO promoted a “new world information order“, the goal of which goal was to end the dominance of the Western press — presented as a “threat” to the “cultural identity” of “Third-World” nations. Under the Eiffel Tower, the authoritarian and anti-Western Third World then took control of the UN cultural center, which became, according with the Washington Post, “overly bureaucratic, costly, wasteful and imbued with an anti-Western, anti-capitalist bias”.

Since then, Israel continues to be treated as a pariah by these ideological and corporeal criminals on the Seine. Even after that, in 1975 the UN body “tipped its hand” by propagating the anti-Semitic blood libel of “Zionism is racism“.

Last month, the President of the UN General Assembly, Peter Thomson, sported the famous checkered scarf, the keffiyah, a symbol of the “Palestinian resistance” (read terrorism). This is simply the continuation of the cultural obliteration of Israel, which is supposed to justify next its physical obliteration.

2158Last month, the President of the UN General Assembly, Peter Thomson, sported the famous checkered scarf, the keffiyah, a symbol of the “Palestinian resistance” (read terrorism). This is simply the continuation of the cultural obliteration of Israel, which is supposed to justify next its physical obliteration. (Image source: UN/Manuel Elias)

The fate of Judeo-Christian civilization — Christianity as well as Judaism — on which all our values are based, is tied to the fate of the State of Israel. If Israel ceases to exist, so does Christianity. The world has been witnessing how the few Christians and other non-Muslims still remaining in the rest of the Middle East — once the glorious Christian Byzantium — are being slaughtered, now that the Jews and Greeks are gone.

The United Nations’ war on the Israel’s Jews is, at heart, a war against the West. The UN and its backers are briskly paving the way for the European Caliphate.

Mike Huckabee: Obama’s legacy is to ‘embrace Iran’ and ‘reject Israel’

December 27, 2016

Mike Huckabee: Obama’s legacy is to ‘embrace Iran’ and ‘reject Israel’, Washington Times, December 27, 2016

mikehuckabee_c0-0-4080-2378_s885x516Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks at Inspired Grounds Cafe in West Des Moines, Iowa. (Associated Press)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Tuesday he’s not sure there’s any value to the United Nations, after the United States abstained from a vote last week on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

“We provide most of the funding for the U.N. and it’s time for us to re-evaluate,” Mr. Huckabee, a former 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said on Fox Business Network. “I’m not sure there’s any value to the U.N. It’s a joke.”

“If I were Obama, I probably wouldn’t plan a vacation to Tel Aviv anytime soon,” said Mr. Huckabee, who has traveled to Israel on a fairly regular basis and is leaving for another trip there soon.

 “It certainly forever damages his legacy. His legacy is to embrace Iran — the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world — and to reject Israel, the only democracy that exists in the entire Middle East,” he said.

On Friday, the U.S. declined to veto a resolution from the U.N. Security Council in a move that critics saw as a slap at Israel. The resolution said Israel was violating international law by building settlements on territory Palestinians want as part of a future independent state.

The situation drew intense criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and bipartisan criticism from U.S. lawmakers.

“This has been condemned by Democrats as well as Republicans. This transcends party,” Mr. Huckabee said.

The ‘occupied’ Western Wall

December 27, 2016

The ‘occupied’ Western Wall, Israel Hayom, Nadav Shragai, December 27, 2016

At the beginning of the last century, Jews had to collect the dung from the donkeys and horses that the Arabs intentionally left at the “occupied territory” of the Western Wall, among the Jews huddled against its stones. The Mughrabi Arabs who immigrated here from North Africa placed their homes and their toilets next to “the occupied territory of the Western Wall,” and sullied it with human feces and sewage more than once. In return for their willingness to correct their bad manners, the Jews had to bribe the heads of the Mughrabi quarter with large sums of money, and even then, it did not always help.

For the sake of the struggle for the Western Wall, the Palestinians enlisted Buraq, the Prophet Muhammad’s miraculous beast, over 100 years ago, as well as the tradition of the place where Muhammad tied him at the end of his nocturnal journey from Mecca to Jerusalem — which was transferred from the eastern and southern walls to the Western Wall. Even the grand mufti, the hateful Haj Amin al-Husseini, one-time Hitler ally, “adopted” the Western Wall. Inspired and orchestrated by Husseini, the Palestinians waged a war over the Western Wall, which led to the murder of Jews in the 1929 Palestine riots and the establishment of a British commission of inquiry, which, just as now, distorted the facts and determined that the Muslim Waqf had ownership of the Western Wall.

The holiness of the Western Wall to Muslims did not prevent them from building homes, staircases and sewage pipes adjacent to the wall for generations. For the duration of the 19 years of their rule as conquerors of Jerusalem, the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting the Western Wall — in contrast to their signed commitment. They also shattered and desecrated 38,000 of the graves in the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives — now “Israeli-occupied” territory; they leveled the “occupied territory” of the Jewish Quarter and destroyed dozens of “occupied” synagogues. They expelled the thousands of refugees who settled in the quarter’s ruins and kept it as the Shuafat refugee camp, another “occupied territory,” with the rights to its establishment in their name.

In our generation, the official Palestinian television station promises its viewers that “Arab homes” will soon be built on “the occupied territory” of the Western Wall Plaza (formerly the Mughrabi neighborhood) and makes it clear that the sinful Jews are “defiling the Western Wall.” The Muslim Waqf and the Palestinians have for years — listen closely — prevented Israel from clearing garbage and debris from the “Little Western Wall,” which is a continuation of the Western Wall. Oh, the absolute shame of it — this garbage has become part of the status quo of the place.

Here, then, is a golden opportunity to take the necessary step — the first of many — that will put us on a sane path of action. Later on, the time will come to throw the U.N. Security Council’s shameful resolution into the garbage and to go back to building in Jerusalem and its suburbs. This is what we did for years. We owe it first and foremost to ourselves.