What's new

U.N. Security Council demands end to Israeli settlements, U.S. abstains

Muhammad10

T20I Debutant
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Runs
6,284
The Obama administration on Friday allowed the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements, defying pressure from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump as well as Israel and several U.S. senators who urged Washington to use its veto.

The resolution was put forward at the 15-member council for a vote on Friday by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal a day after Egypt withdrew it under pressure from Israel and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. Israel and Trump had called on the United States to veto the measure.

It was adopted with 14 votes in favor, to a round of applause. It is the first resolution the Security Council has adopted on Israel and the Palestinians in nearly eight years.

The U.S. decision to abstain was a relatively rare step by Washington, which usually shields Israel from such action.

The U.S. abstention was seen as a parting shot by U.S. President Barack Obama, who has had an acrimonious relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who has made settlements a major target of peace efforts that have proven ultimately futile.

The resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" and said the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."

A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the United States, France, Russia, Britain or China to be adopted.

The Palestinians want an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war.

Israel disputes that settlements are illegal and says their final status should be determined in talks on Palestinian statehood. The last round of U.S.-led peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians collapsed in 2014.

The passage of the resolution changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians and likely will be all but ignored by the incoming Trump administration.

But it was more than merely symbolic.

The resolution formally enshrined the international community’s disapproval of Israeli settlement building and could spur further Palestinian moves against Israel in international forums.

Trump, who called for a veto along with Netanyahu, is likely to be a more staunch supporter of Netanyahu's right-wing policies. He named a hardline pro-Israel ambassador and vowed to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

A senior Israeli official said on Thursday that if adopted there was "zero chance" the Israeli government would abide by the measure. Under the U.N. Charter, U.N. member states "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council."

The 15-member council had been due to vote on Thursday, but Egypt withdrew the draft resolution, under pressure from Israel and Trump, who spoke with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution. I have no doubt that the new U.S. administration and the incoming U.N. secretary-general will usher in a new era in terms of the U.N.'s relationship with Israel," Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said after the vote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un-idUSKBN14C1IV?il=0
 
Last edited:
Trump clearly not pleased about the US abstaining here.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812390964740427776">December 23, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Trump clearly not pleased about the US abstaining here.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812390964740427776">December 23, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Whats his problem?
 
Donald "I'm Nobody's Puppet" Trump is a lackey of Israel.

Thats exactly why i asked the question. He used to say he isn't going to let US be world police and stuff like that. Now he has got his knickers in a twist.
 
I guess that at this stage Obama has nothing to lose, so broke decades of veto policy regarding Israeli expansionism.
 
Egypt, who was the original sponsor of resolution, chickened out.
Equally pathetic by Obama, you kept veto for 7 Years and 11 months and now you abstained.

Plus, Israel cannot hurt NZL.
 
Too little, too late from Obama. However, it is nice to see the Israelis whine like they are.
 
Israel is one of those countries who give a damn about UN or anyone else. They wont pay heed to anyone.
 
Won't matter to Israel. Obama trying to make a legacy of his lame duck presidency. Trump will probably (and rightly imo) move the US consulate to Jerusalem.
 
Israel is one of those countries who give a damn about UN or anyone else. They wont pay heed to anyone.

They don't have to pay heed to any worldly power as long as America continues to stay in their pocket like it always has. :trump2
 
Israel is one of those countries who give a damn about UN or anyone else. They wont pay heed to anyone.

Not anymore as resolution passed by security council and not by general assembly.

Now israel is vulnerable on so many fronts...this is evident how much they tried against resolution...Bibb asked trump to call siri. ..

Anyway israel will be okay for next 4 years...but eventually it will treated as south africa
 
Israel is one of those countries who give a damn about UN or anyone else. They wont pay heed to anyone.

Surely you mean don't give a damn? If they gave a damn, wouldn't they be influenced to some extent?
 
Why US not vote in favour of the resolution? Abstaining shows that they are not in favour of stopping illegal jewish settlements. :facepalm:
 
They don't have to pay heed to any worldly power as long as America continues to stay in their pocket like it always has. :trump2

That is only possible because they are capable to do the same unlike many other countries in the world.
 
Why US not vote in favour of the resolution? Abstaining shows that they are not in favour of stopping illegal jewish settlements. :facepalm:

You realize obama did this because he's going and has nothing to lose. Pro-Israel Right and left would have grilled him over this, fox would be talking about this for a month.
 
You realize obama did this because he's going and has nothing to lose. Pro-Israel Right and left would have grilled him over this, fox would be talking about this for a month.
does not matter if it hurts feelings of anybody as long as it is the right thing to do. Stopping illegal jewish settlements is the right thing to do and if US really is in favour of stopping those settlements like all other countries are then US should have voted in favour of the resolution like all other countries did. there is no "but" in truth.
 
does not matter if it hurts feelings of anybody as long as it is the right thing to do. Stopping illegal jewish settlements is the right thing to do and if US really is in favour of stopping those settlements like all other countries are then US should have voted in favour of the resolution like all other countries did. there is no "but" in truth.

To some people right thing to do is make settlements and nothing wrong with kicking people out since its god given right!
 
Obama did try to regign in Israel during his presidency.

The problem was tha Israel has a very right wing president and a pro settler government who don't give a toss about peace and just want as much land as possible.

There will be no 2-state soloution now because it's simply now pointless when Israel has taken so much land in the West Bank.

It will be a 1 state soloution with the Palestinians living as 2nd class citizens.
 
Last edited:
When did New Zealand become so pro Palestinian
Venezuela and Malaysia fair enough

Not sure if they're pro Palestinian or pro human rights, although there's a clear overlap between the two.

At some point, everyone has to feel guilty for condoning Israel's routine, remorseless violation of international law.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if they're pro Palestinian or pro human rights, although there's a clear overlap between the two.

At some point, everyone has to feel guilty for condoning Israel's routine, remorseless violation of international law.


Interesting history between the two including acts of espionage etc
 
Won't matter to Israel. Obama trying to make a legacy of his lame duck presidency. Trump will probably (and rightly imo) move the US consulate to Jerusalem.

Why rightly ?

The UN have passed several resolutions stating Israel's claims to the whole of Jerusalem is a breach of international law and that East Jerusalem is occupied territory.

This is a principle held by both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
 
Tbf the UN is a joke...

Lol the Saudis were on the Human Rights Council...in fact a whos who of tyrannies have been on this council...

Iran was elected to the Commission of the Status of Women twice for example...

Tbf the UN Security Council ONLY seems to discuss Israel...wish they would remember other issues in the world...cough Rwanda for instance which they showed no interest in...

If I remember rightly this is the same organisation that praised the Sri Lankan government for their Human Rights record...

Ban Ki Moon and Kofi Annan have both stated openly that the body disproportionately attacks Israel...ie rules apply to Israel that don't apply anywhere else...

So which countries voted against Israel...

China, Russia countries which of course defend human rights...Tibet???...Crimea???

And then a 35 year dictatorship Angola which has constantly committed HR violations...
Should I really discuss Egypt and HR?...
Venezuela which constantly attacks its opposition...
Ukraine...lol...
Malaysia...which of course is impartial...

This notion that the UN is some kind of humanitarian impartial organisation dedicated to human rights is an absolute fallacy...

There are legitimate criticisms for Israeli settlement building but the organisation condemning them have absolutely no legitimacy...
 
Why rightly ?

The UN have passed several resolutions stating Israel's claims to the whole of Jerusalem is a breach of international law and that East Jerusalem is occupied territory.

This is a principle held by both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
Why not?

The UN has passed a number of resolutions against Israel, none against Saudi Arabia. That the UN has been reduced to political activism and point scoring against Israel was pointed out Moon himself. Saudi Arabia chairs the human rights panel.

You will probably see a shift in the republican position. The 2 state solution was never feasible
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now this terrorist state is threatening New Zealand for voting against illegal settlements.
World would definitely be a better place without israel.
 
Now this terrorist state is threatening New Zealand for voting against illegal settlements.
World would definitely be a better place without israel.

This is why Israel is so bitter. Most of Israelis have been living there since some time. They are not going anywhere. Both sides should accept two state solution and learn to live in peace.
 
Can someone tell me what exactly does UNSC do apart from passing resolution no countries adheres too or condemning?

I mean Israel is so brazenly dissing them. Yet countries like India, Pakistan want to be a permanent members of this joke of an organisation?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump has no idea what Israeli settlements are <a href="https://t.co/fyUJVPTYPb">pic.twitter.com/fyUJVPTYPb</a></p>— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) <a href="https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/814321776498999296">December 29, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Jesus Christ man, does Trump even know what "settlements" are ? Do some damn homework.
 
UN almost seems as useless as its predecessor "League of Nations".
 
UN almost seems as useless as its predecessor "League of Nations".

Main objective of UN was to prevent WW3, and UN has been extremely successful..

Welfare of children, women, minorities are just side show..."nice-to-have" kind of kind...but main objective is still to prevent WW3.
 
Main objective of UN was to prevent WW3, and UN has been extremely successful..

Welfare of children, women, minorities are just side show..."nice-to-have" kind of kind...but main objective is still to prevent WW3.

True that the war victim count would never reach 60 million(ww2 count) but when one imagines the war victims that have occurred irrespective of it one can easily say there is massive scope for improvement.
 
Back
Top