What’s wrong with U.N. Resolution 2334?
After all the brouhaha at the nasty surprise we received at the hands of the Obama Administration who refused to veto UNSC Resolution 2334, followed by John Kerry’s nasty attack on Israel, putting all the blame for the failure of the “peace process” on Israel and the settlements, it’s a useful exercise to examine exactly what is so wrong with this resolution.
Just to remind you, Resolution 2334 outlaws ALL Israeli settlement, construction, residence in ANY AND ALL areas captured, or rather liberated, in 1967. This includes “East’ Jerusalem, which itself includes the Jewish Quarter, the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – and the Western (Wailing) Wall, aka the Kotel, which is the holiest site at which Jews are permitted to pray. For now.
Below is Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, explaining exactly what is wrong with it, and how it goes further than Resolution 242 which was voted on in 1967 after the Six Day War.
One of the most succinct and clear answers that I have read appeared on the Quora website, a site where members can ask questions on any subject, and anyone who feels qualified (or even not!) may answer. Gail Ellis, who lives in Israel, wrote the following answer to the question “Why should the US have vetoed Resolution 2334?“:
Because, in characterizing the West Bank as “Palestinian territory” and the Israeli settlements as ‘illegal’ the resolution both lying and contradicting longstanding US policy (as well as its signed legal obligations).And in passing it, not only has the UN tried to usurp powers it is NOWHERE granted in its charter and violated its own charter, it has demonstrated that the international community (separately and collectively) will not uphold its signed agreements. None of which is going to bring peace any closer.…Here are the historical and legal facts in support of the above:Jewish National Home Determined by San Remo Conference (1920)
- In 1910 the legal sovereign of the area that became the Mandate for Palestine was the Ottoman Empire. (No one disputes this).
- After the allied powers defeated the Ottomans, the Ottomans transferred the sovereignty of the area to the victorious allied powers, in the treaties of Sevres and Lausanne. (No one disputes this).
- In 1920 the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into international law in the San Remo Resolution, adopted by the victorious allied powers, this being a binding international agreement. (No one disputes this).
- In 1922 the San Remo Resolution was implemented as the Mandate for Palestine, and ratified by the League of Nations, this ALSO being a binding international agreement. No one disputes this. Or, rather, I should say (since the effect of this UN Resolution is to ignore or attempt to nullify, the provisions of the Mandate, in violation of its own charter) no one disputes that the League of Nations Mandates were binding legal documents that set valid borders for the states that emerged out of them in the case of any OTHER of the MANY instances of them).
- The MANDATE of the Mandate for Palestine WAS the creation of a Jewish national home (understood by all signatories at the time to be a Jewish commonwealth in the event that Jewish immigration was sufficient to permit this) in the area defined as the Mandate (and that included the West Bank and Jerusalem).
- In 1924 the US and Britain ratified the Anglo American treaty (which contained a carbon copy of the Mandate), this ALSO being a binding international agreement. In becoming party to this agreement the US became party to article 5 and 6, in both it and the Mandate (see below)
- Article 6 of the Mandate IS THE ONLY TIME THE WORD ‘SETTLEMENT’ IS MENTIONED IN A BINDING INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT REGARDING PALESTINE.It states: “The Administration of Palestine … shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land”Article 5 of the Mandate specifically states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”THE US IS PARTY TO THESE CLAUSES AS WELL VIA THE ANGLO AMERICAN AGREEMENT.
- Article 80 of the UN charter PRESERVES the rights granted by Mandates.
- The 1948 partition plan was a UNGA resolution (i.e. a non binding suggestion of compromise, as all UNGA resolutions are nonbinding). IF both the Jews and the Arabs had accepted it, AND had signed a treaty by which the Jewish people relinquished part of its rights (promised in the Mandate) to future sovereignty over the area, THEN the borders suggested by UNGA 181 would have become the legal borders. The Arab side rejected the compromise (with an invasion by 5 armies). Therefore the borders proposed by UNGA 181 have the same legal validity as any other rejected offer: NONE. And NOTE – even if you assume (for the sake of argument) that UNGA 181 was legally binding (which it was not), under its terms Jerusalem was supposed to be a corpus separatum, belonging to neither party.So how did Jerusalem suddenly legally become “Palestinian territory” ? (NO ONE has an explanation for this.)
- At the end of the War of Independence, the ‘green line’ was established by the 1949 Armistice agreement, whichspecifically states (because it was the ONLY THING both the Jews and Arabs agreed on) that it is not a permanent political border.
- Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank. Jordan’s annexation was not recognized by anyone except the Brits AND the PLO which stated in article 24 of its original 1964 charter “This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”So how did the West Bank suddenly become ‘Palestinian Territory’? (No one has an explanation for this).
- The Oslo Accords (which transfer a kind of partial sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority in Areas A and B (basically all powers except the preservation of external security in Area A, and a joint responsibility for security in Area B) give Israel FULL administrative control over Area C (including the right to build). The Oslo accords specifically state that settlements are an issue that will be resolved ONLY in the final agreement.
There is not a person on this earth who can give the name, date and signatories of ANY binding legal agreement which transferred the right to full sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem from the last legal beneficiary thereof (the Jewish People, via the Mandate) to the Palestinian people.As there is NO SUCH DOCUMENT, consequently, the West Bank is NOT Palestinian territory (as the resolution claims).In addition, NOWHERE in the UN charter is it granted the power to set the borders of one of its member states OR to nullify existing treaties setting them.- which this resolution does.…… apparently precedent works differently when it comes to Israel – as there is not ONE instance of the UN invoking the fourth Geneva convention in any other ongoing occupation, such as Turkey’s of North Cypress, China’s of Tibet, Morocco’s of Western Sahara, Russians of the Ukraine etc. Nor is there ONE instance of a border dispute between countries arising out of the mandate system in which the borders set by the mandate were not held to be the legal borders.)
Gail draws the very obvious, harsh conclusions of the effect of this resolution:
- To encourage the Palestinians not to negotiate (which is the only way sovereignty can be legally transferred to them), because they know the UN will LIE, USURP POWERS IT DOES NOT HAVE AND VIOLATE ITS OWN CHARTER on their behalf whatever they do
- To encourage Israel not to negotiate as it clarifies that Israel can not expect the international community to uphold any future signed agreements, as it has (separately and collectively) demonstrated that it will not uphold past signed agreements.
That is why the US should have vetoed it.
That response should be bookmarked and used every time someone questions Israel’s right to build in Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem, the Golan, or even questions Israel’s very right to exist.
It should also be sent to John Kerry next time he feels a speech coming upon him.
An Open Letter To An Israel Hater
ReplyDeleteBy Paula R. Stern
January 1, 2017
Sometimes thoughts come in groups. That’s what happened to me after I heard about United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. I wanted to say something to Senegal, and I did. I wanted to say something to New Zealand, and I did.
That leaves three countries that have a hand in this fiasco (and another 10 who deserve our anger and disdain). One is the Ukraine, where just a few days ago, they threw a pig’s head and red paint at the grave site of a much-loved Jewish rabbi who had the misfortune to have lived and died in the Ukraine. Another is Venezuela, whose loyalty as a major oil producer is clearly not going to be centered on little Israel. Venezuela, according to Wikipedia, has a ton of its own problems but still has time to focus on little Israel. Never mind that “Venezuela was the most murderous place on Earth in 2015” and “in Venezuela, a person is murdered every 21 minutes.”
What the UNSC resolution did was suggest that the deaths of 450,000 people in Syria is less important than Israel daring to build apartments for its citizens on land it captured from a country that attacked us. Yes, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and lost.
Jordan held the land from 1948 – 1967 and made zero effort to create a Palestinian entity…and not one UN resolution condemned them as “occupiers.” During that time, unlike the almost fifty years that have followed, one religion was denied access to its holiest place – Judaism. Yes, that’s right. Jews were not allowed to go up to the Temple Mount or even visit the Western Wall, and not one nation protested, not one UN resolution accused Jordan of intolerance.
As absurd as that resolution was, the truth is, there was really one nation behind it. Yes, Egypt drafted it (and then withdrew it). Yes, four nations sponsored it and fourteen nations agreed with it, but it was the Obama administration’s abstention that was most responsible for the resolution. First, because Obama’s minions campaigned to have the resolution brought to a vote after Egypt decided to pull the resolution. Second, because I believe the other nations expected the Obama administration to save them from looking as bad as they do now by stepping in with a veto, as has been standard US practice for generations (yes, with a few notable exceptions).
So, the final open letter is to a man who has plotted and planned, hated and despised. A man who came to office by convincing America he could make a dream come true, and leaves us all after delivering only a nightmare.
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama has proven himself to be petty and childish throughout his years in the White House. More, he is clearly seen, not only in Israel itself, but even in the US as a hugely anti-Israel president (one example from The Washington Post: Why it’s correct to label the Obama administration ‘anti-Israel.’”
Obama is a vengeful man, lashing out against those who disagree, or worse, those who don’t fall to his charms and his whims. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t fall for Obama and neither did Israel. Worse, we didn’t agree to commit suicide to help him achieve something that we have, for the most part sadly concluded is un-achievable. You can’t dance the tango alone and you can’t make peace alone – at least not without ending up looking like a fool (at best) or seriously endangering yourself (at worst).
Like Obama, John Kerry’s ego took control and made him think he could be the one to force a peace agreement on Israel (and the Palestinians) and Barack Obama willingly fell into the same idea. They failed. More, their great plan to see their dynasty continue, the deceit and the corruption included, in the reign of Hillary Clinton ended in a humiliating defeat. America voted for Donald Trump in such huge numbers that even the mass efforts of heavily populated California and New York couldn’t over balance the results.
And, on November 9, as America began to come to terms with the Clinton loss AND the Trump victory, Barack Obama became one of the most dangerous men on earth – to Israel, to the idea of any future peace agreement, and to the United States as well. We knew eight long years ago that Obama would be disastrous. What we didn’t know is how un-presidential he would be, how nasty and spiteful.
In the waning days of his administration, he has redefined his legacy. For almost seven decades, the US was, without doubt, Israel’s strongest ally. Obama sought to change that and we here in Israel watched as he worked to turn the American people against us with lies and mistruths. There is no “cycle” of violence. The unilateral actions John Kerry called for – have already been done…by Israel…and they did not end in a peace agreement. The Oslo Accords brought death; the Gaza Disengagement Plan brought us rockets and war.
The US history of cooperation and friendship with Israel was high on Obama’s target list. When Israel was at its weakest, the US jumped in; when the world bordered on crazy, the US balanced it. Yes, past administrations have failed to veto US resolutions in the past, but never under situations such as this and never after eight long years of endless attempts to undermine and pressure the Jewish State. So here goes – my open letter to a man who ultimately will fail.
Obama's Duplicity
ReplyDeleteReader comment on: UN, Obama Further Radicalize Arab-Palestinians
After eight years of his being in office and seducing the World into regarding him as being a fair, decent, and trustworthy President of USA, as his parting gesture, Obama has finally displayed his true colours. He has now clearly nailed those colours to the Islamic fundamentalists' mast with what is tantamount to affording carte blanche to Islamic extremists to indulge in any heinous act they consider as being appropriate to achieving their nefarious and malevolent ends. Sadly, that will not just potentially impact upon Israel. It is the signal for an extreme Islamic 'open season' on the rest of the non-Muslim world and that does, indeed, exacerbate a situation which was already becoming rapidly untenable in the West without the duplicitous mendacity of a perverse Obama intervention.
Quite what is in Obama's mind in encouraging that course of events is yet to be shown, but perhaps it is a clear exposure of his roots and where his true sympathies reside, coupled with some perverse hope of that protecting his own post-presidential interests, not to mention his own skin once he no longer has the full weight of USA security protection caring for his every move. Whatever his perverse motives may be, we can be sure that, at the very least, Western, non-Muslim interests will now be significantly less secure because of yet another ill-conceived attempt at Islamic appeasement. Appeasement of aggressors never works. Surely the history of World War 2 is sufficiently recent for most of us to comprehend that? However, because Western leaders have colluded and conspired to accommodate every whim and fancy of Islam, we have created a monster which is now difficult to confront, let alone combat. Thereby, the future does indeed look very bleak, especially for those with aspirations to raise and nurture our future generations of non-Muslims.
If the U.S. was conquered by various nations over a thousand years plus and than some outside forces helped Americans defeat the occupiers and regain its sovereignty and set up the American U.S. government again, would you consider the Americans as occupiers.
ReplyDeleteI will take it a step further. Many Americans who were displace by the occupying forces in America were forced out of their homes and returned to the U.S., would you consider them occupiers or people returning to their homes. The U.S. has only been an independent sovereign country less than 250 years, after eliminating the Indigenous American Indians and fighting the British occupiers for Independence.
If Mexico which had numerous wars and battles with the U.S. decided to fire thousands of rockets against the U.S., would you tolerate it or you would demand your country respond with extreme force at all costs, no holds barred and stop this rockets and terror attacks against Americans and women and children.
The Jewish heritage as the remaining indigenous people in The Land of Israel including 2 Jewish Temples and many heroic battles to defend it, thus, the Jewish history goes back over 3,000 years with a continues habitation under extreme conditions. The Arabs/Muslims were nomads who milked the land and destroyed it as a viable source of habitation.
Many Jewish communities in what is now the Arab/Muslim countries were in existence for about 3,000 years. Prior to WWII, there were over a million Jewish families living in Arab/Muslim countries. The Arabs/Muslims during the rise of Muhammad in about 627 terrorized, killed and raped the Jewish women and confiscated all their assets, whereby some of those Jewish communities no longer exist. In the past 70 years the Arabs/Muslims have ethnic cleansed the Jews and Christians from the Arab/Muslim countries.
YJ Draiman
The U.N. did not create or re-establish the State of Israel; it only followed the instructions and Agreements of “The Supreme Allied Powers” after WWI. The British Mandate for Palestine, April 1920 and its consequences The British Mandate for Palestine (as trustee for the Jewish people), sometimes referred to as the Mandate of Palestine, was a League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was split up by the Treaty of Sèvres and Lausanne. At the 1920 San Remo conference of the Allied Supreme Council, at which the Mandates were granted (and the 1917 Balfour Declaration was incorporated as part of the allocation, that gave it the force of International Law), and at which time the Arabs received over 12 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves, the precise boundaries of all territories, including that of the British Mandate of Palestine aka The Land of Israel, were specified, to “be determined by the Principal Allied Powers” and were completely finalized based on the Faisal Weizmann Agreement of January 1919 which specified all of Palestine for the Jewish National Home which is about 120,000 sq. km., (see the minutes of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and the 1920 San Remo Conference) and described four years later. However, it was clear that the boundary of Britain’s mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people, was to extend eastward to the western boundary of its mandate for Mesopotamia. In 1921, following Churchill’s negotiations with Emir Abdullah Transjordan (later Jordan was created as the new Arab state for the Arabs in Palestine/Israel) was part of the Mandate, but it was separated from the area on which a Jewish National Home had been reconstituted and to be re-established, a move formalized by the British in violation of treaties and agreements, by the addition of a September 1922 clause to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine aka The Land of Israel, which allowed for postponement of all mandatory provisions which expressly included as part of the ‘Jewish National Home’ on lands which lay to the east of the Jordan River. YJ Draiman.
ReplyDelete