Breaking: UN Security Council passes historic resolution against settlements as two-state solution ‘slips away’

US Politics

Today the United States abstained on a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding Israel end settlement construction in Occupied Palestine, allowing the resolution to pass with spontaneous cheers. The resolution is historic, and represents the strongest rebuke President Obama has made of Israeli policy in his entire administration.

Many speakers said they were acting because the two-state solution is slipping away.  The last time the UNSC adopted a resolution on Israeli settlements was in 1980.

“That the Council has finally chosen to act is significant, after years of paralysis,” said Riyad Mansour of Palestine. He said the measure, sponsored by Malaysia, Venezuela, New Zealand and Senegal, is a “last attempt” to revive the two-state solution and may be “too little, too late.”

Secretary of State John Kerry later echoed that concern in a statement:

Today, the United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

In a strong speech following her abstention, Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, quoted Ronald Reagan saying in 1982 that an immediate settlement freeze by Israel would be the most important factor in allowing peace talks to proceed. So nothing has changed in 34 years. And for five decades US presidents of both parties have opposed Israeli colonization.

The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution… The total settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem now exceeds 590,000….

In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution that focused exclusively on settlements… Since 2011, settlement growth has only accelerated. Since 2011, multiple efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed. And since 2011, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly warned – publically and privately – that the absence of progress toward peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two-state solution at risk

She took a shot at Netanyahu.

The Israeli Prime Minister recently described his government as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history”… At the same time, the Prime Minister has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two-state solution. But these statements are irreconcilable… One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.

The British ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, said the resolution was “a sober recognition that the two-state solution is slipping away.” Malaysia said the world has a “legal, political and moral responsibility… to act.” Japan said that it was “alarmed” by the apparent end of the two-state solution.

Donald Trump had a careful response.

House Speaker Paul Ryan promptly called the US action “absolutely shameful” and vowed that “our unified Republican government” will work to undo the U.S. stance.

Ryan was one of many who saw the vote as a basis for activism– such as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)– against Israel.

Today’s vote… sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel. 

Democratic Senators Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer opposed the action by the Obama administration, as did Democratic Senators Chris Coons, Joe Manchin, and Richard Blumenthal. Democratic leader Schumer:

Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution.

The Anti Defamation League said it is “deeply troubled” by the Obama administration’s failure to veto. The Israel lobby group AIPAC said it is “deeply disturbed” by Obama’s action on the “ruinous resolution” and it pivoted to Trump:

AIPAC is deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama Administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)….

It is particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America’s long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations. AIPAC expresses its appreciation to President-elect Trump and the many Democratic and Republican Members of Congress who urged a veto of this resolution.

Israelis are also angered by the vote. In his speech to the Security Council, Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon called it an “evil decree” against the “righteousness” of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem, and cited the “Holy Book,” showing 3000 years of Jewish connection to the land. Danon:

“Who gave you a right to issue such a decree denying our eternal rights to Jerusalem?… Would you ban the French from building in Paris? Would you ban the Russians from building in Moscow?”

In a fear-mongering speech prior to the vote Education Minister Naftali Bennett warned “everyone” on the Security Council “If you raise your hand or remain silent … you’re supporting the forces of terror, you’re supporting airplanes hitting buildings in New York and trucks killing people in Berlin, terror attacks in Brussels, Orlando and Dallas.”

“Whoever gathers to condemn us for building here and does nothing to fight Molotov cocktails and murder has chosen the wrong side of history. Today the battle is between good and evil and Israel stands at the forefront of the good forces with Hezbollah and ISIS in the north and Hamas in the south. We are fighting for the free world, yet the free world is gathering to condemn us…”

Human rights attorney Zaha Hassan, Coordinator and legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team during Palestine’s bid for UN membership and a Middle East Fellow at New America, said that today’s resolution may turn out to be President Obama’s “enduring legacy” on the Middle East:

“The UN Security Council resolution that passed today, though only reiterating legal obligations and international consensus, is incredibly significant because for more than two decades Israel has been attempting to blur the lines between what is Israel and what is the occupied West Bank through its settlement enterprise. The resolution makes clear that Israel, as an occupying power, owes the Palestinians certain obligations and all settlements, whether built in East Jerusalem or inside the West Bank, are without legal validity and in violation of international law. In other words, they are war crimes…

“This could potentially have far-reaching implications for Israel in its trade with the world and in all its financial transactions.

“The urgency of this resolution cannot be overstated in light of the incoming Trump Administration’s connection to support for settlements deep inside the occupied West Bank.

“That Obama refrained from using the US veto speaks volumes about concerns over the uncertain future of the two state solution.

“This simple act of omission–refusing to use the veto–may turn out to be Obama’s enduring legacy on Mideast peace.”

Yousef Munayyer of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights said the two-state solution has already slipped away, and the resolution is a last ditch:

“For the first time in decades, the United States has failed to use its veto on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. In terms of the law, this resolution changes very little. Israeli settlements have always been illegal and, in fact, the US has voted in support of Security Council resolutions that affirm this fact in the past. But the resolution’s language makes very clear that it is a desperate, last-ditch effort to save a ‘two-state solution’ by calling for an immediate cessation of Israeli settlement activity. In reality, it is far too late and no piece of paper can save something that has long been dead…

“As Donald J. Trump prepares to enter the White House along with an Israel policy that appears to be nothing short of a full embrace of… Israeli apartheid, dropping even the traditional pretense of opposition to Israel’s settlement building, we are on the verge of the international community being forced to come to terms with the reality that the two-state solution is officially and undeniably dead.

“If Trump’s presidency provides the two-state solution’s death certificate, this resolution can be looked at as the autopsy. As problematic as it was, if the two-state solution ever had a chance, its cause of death is something the international community can agree on: Israeli settlement expansion that took place for decades with the international community providing cover and support for it.”

The liberal Zionist groups Peace Now and J Street celebrated the Obama administration’s decision. J Street:

“In the days ahead, there will no doubt be loud criticism from the usual suspects about the United States’ abstention. However, most supporters of Israel recognize the dangers posed by unbridled settlement expansion.”

The liberal Zionist group Israel Policy Forum opposed the resolution. It seems to fear the resolution will help BDS.

today’s resolution is likely to encourage further efforts to isolate Israel, and in turn harden Israeli attitudes against the United Nations, rather than serve as a constructive criticism of steps undertaken by either party which are inconsistent with the goal of two states.

Thanks to Adam Horowitz

About Phil Weiss and Annie Robbins

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss

Other posts by .


Posted In:

168 Responses

  1. oldgeezer
    December 23, 2016, 2:58 pm

    Wow. Just wow.

    I have never been so happy to have been wrong about this resolution.

    Bennett’s reaction is like a whiney baby. The fact that there are other conflicts or that terrorism exists targetting the western world and Israel is not a licence for Israel to violate international law.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Israel is on the wrong side of history. There is no doubt in the mind of the nations of the world.

    There is no doubt that Israel has been violating international law for 50 years including flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions.

    Those that support Israel stand with the forces of evil to use Bennett’s words.

    • Mooser
      December 23, 2016, 3:22 pm

      “The Israel lobby group AIPAC expressed anger at Obama and fear of what the historic resolution will unleash, and it pivoted to Trump:”

      That didn’t take long.

      • oldgeezer
        December 23, 2016, 3:51 pm

        Quelle surprise!

        I think it is sad that Obama abstained. There is nothing objectionable in the resolution unless you object to international law. It doesn’t force an agreement and acknowledges the need for negotiations.

        I guess law and fairness is not enough for supremacists who demand a benefit to themselves.

      • xanadou
        December 23, 2016, 9:49 pm

        “There is no doubt that Israel has been violating international law for 50 years including flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions.”

        Not 50, almost 69 years, and counting…

      • oldgeezer
        December 23, 2016, 10:58 pm

        @xanadou

        No disagreement from me on that. I agree completely. I am merely falling in line with the UNSC resolution which essentially ignores crimes prior to 67. That said I do agree with you.

        Israel’s entire basis is terrorism and crimes against humanity.

    • Sibiriak
      December 23, 2016, 5:41 pm

      President-elect Donald Trump:

      As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th..

      https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

  2. HarryLaw
    December 23, 2016, 2:59 pm

    Bennett said “if you raise your hand or remain silent in the vote against Israel, you’re supporting the forces of terror”, Therefore he accuses the US of supporting terror.
    Then he said “We are fighting for the free world, yet the free world is gathering to condemn us…” Correction, ‘you’ [Israel] are fighting the free world, and the unfree world, since no other Nation at the United Nations support you. Your on your own Bennett.

  3. Annie Robbins
    December 23, 2016, 3:26 pm

    we made some updates and will continue to do so as quotes come in, so check back.

    this is so wonderful. i know there are people (like my present company!) who don’t think this is a big deal, but i think it’s a very big deal.

    • broadside
      December 23, 2016, 3:41 pm

      It is a very big deal. That’s how pitiful the US-Israel relationship is — that an abstention should mean so much.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2016, 5:34 am

        Agreed.

    • broadside
      December 23, 2016, 4:07 pm

      And will get only bigger when the Times, in an editorial, supports the move, which it has to do.

    • US Citizen
      December 23, 2016, 5:37 pm

      Annie, Annie, Annie ! I follow your and Phil’s and Adam’s posts and articles with alacrity. I watched the news and was jumping up and down with joy.

      FINALLY. The tide is turning and there is no going back, Trump or no Trump. Trump is Bush to Nothingyahoo Cheney.

      To the backlash in Congress that is sure to begin – if your loyalties lie with Israel, you’re free to leave the States; just surrender your US citizenship at the border. No man can serve two masters.

      AIPAC called the Obama administration’s decision “deeply disturbing.” Really ? Karma is a bitch -hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    • Walker
      December 23, 2016, 5:44 pm

      It is a big deal. It’s also a big deal that every other member of the UNSC voted “yes”.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2016, 5:39 am

        Obama heralded this in his Cairo Speech; then he backed down in 2011, via veto; now, in his last days, he stood some ground, not enough to vote for the resolution, but at least, he abstained from vetoing it. Hats off to Mr. Obama, he will still be able to golf on really decent courses in his retirement, just not the best ones secured only by a veto immunizing Israel from humanity’s call for justice.

  4. broadside
    December 23, 2016, 3:40 pm

    Hearing from the hacks in Congress, you’d think the vote was 10-5, and it was a US yes vote that got the resolution through.

    What the Clarence Thomas hearings were to the proper spelling of ‘harass’ this vote is to the proper spelling of “Hallelujah!”

  5. eljay
    December 23, 2016, 3:47 pm

    … Danon:

    “Who gave you a right to issue such a decree denying our eternal rights to Jerusalem?… Would you ban the French from building in Paris? Would you ban the Russians from building in Moscow?” …

    Paris belongs to France and Moscow belongs to Russia. Jerusalem does not belong to Israel or to “the Jews”. Neither party has “rights” – never mind “eternal rights” – to it.

    • Sibiriak
      December 23, 2016, 5:50 pm

      eljay: Jerusalem does not belong to Israel
      ——————-

      True. Israel can build in West Jerusalem; East Jerusalem is claimed by Palestine.

      • eljay
        December 23, 2016, 6:35 pm

        || Sibiriak: … True. Israel can build in West Jerusalem … ||

        West Jerusalem was legally annexed to Israel? I didn’t know that.

      • Sibiriak
        December 23, 2016, 8:54 pm

        @eljay

        Live and learn.

        From the resolution:

        Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, [emphasis added]

        Please note the operative phrase, “ Palestinian territory occupied, since 1967 including East Jerusalem. , which is consistent with multiple previous resolutions. West Jerusalem is not included.

        So yes, Israel can legally build in West Jerusalem.

      • eljay
        December 23, 2016, 9:21 pm

        || Sibiriak @ December 23, 2016, 8:54 pm ||

        Appreciate the info, but it doesn’t say that West Jerusalem was ever legally annexed to Israel. According to Wiki*:

        While the international community regards East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine. Under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947, Jerusalem was envisaged to become a corpus separatum administered by the United Nations. In the war of 1948, the western part of the city was occupied by forces of the nascent state of Israel, while the eastern part was occupied by Jordan. The international community largely considers the legal status of Jerusalem to derive from the partition plan, and correspondingly refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city.

        _________________
        *Not a definitive source, I know, but I did a bit of googling and couldn’t find any confirmation of legal annexation. Perhaps the legal annexation of territory is irrelevant in international law? I don’t know.

      • Sibiriak
        December 24, 2016, 12:39 am

        @eljay

        Please review my comments. I wrote that Israel could legally build in West Jerusalem. I never said Israel had legally annexed West Jerusalem (although there are good arguments that it has–see below.)

        By your logic, since neither Jordan nor the Palestinians ever legally annexed” East Jerusalem, Palestinians do not have the right to build there, or settle there etc.

        That’s absurd, of course.

        In fact, the 1949 Armistice agreements gave both Israel and Jordan full jurisdiction over their respective territories divided by the “Green Line”.

        As Hostage describes it:

        The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”.

        That is the normal definition of annexation. [emphasis added]

        * * *

        [Hostage:] Under international law, an armistice agreement allows the belligerents the same rights and duties as those of an ordinary state. Those rights are not limited to the rules contained in the Hague regulations or the Geneva Conventions.

        Both Israel and Jordan extended their municipal jurisdiction to the new territories.

        Despite complaints from the Arab League, that was perfectly legal under the terms of their agreements. [emphasis added]

        * * *

        [Hostage:] Neither Jordan nor Israel were ever treated as “belligerent occupying powers” under the terms of the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements. Full Stop. Both countries extended the jurisdictions of their municipal laws and courts right up to the Green Line. [emphasis added]

        * * *

        Talknic The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared and recognized Sovereign extent, were considered to be “occupied”. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.

        Hostage: Sovereignty is just a synonym for jurisdiction. The two sides signed international armistice agreements that permit them to govern the respective territories until hell freezes over absent any mutually agreed upon modifications of the armistice borders.

        […]
        After the Lausanne protocols were signed, all of the parties extended the application of their municipal laws to the territory under their control and no one considered them to be merely occupiers anymore. [emphasis added]

        * * *

        Talknic: The 1949 Armistice Agreements specifically did not change any borders, they only set Armistice Demarcation Lines.

        Hostage: The Armistice Demarcation lines can’t ever be altered without Israel’s consent. They have indicated the limits of the civil jurisdiction of Israel’s Courts since at least 1950.

        Annexation is nothing more than the de jure application of a State’s municipal laws to a new territory. [emphasis added]

        ————————-

        So, Hostage argues 1)”annexation” means the de jure application of a state’s laws over the territory; 2) the 1949 Armistice agreements, concluded under UN aegis, gave Israel and Jordan the legal right to apply their laws over their territories right up to the Green Line; therefore, Israel legally “annexed” West Jerusalem and Jordan legally “annexed” East Jerusalem.

        Perhaps you would like to put forward a counter-argument, but the fact remains:

        1) The proof is in the pudding: The UN has never condemned either Jordan’s annexation of East Jerusalem, nor Israel’s annexation of West Jerusalem. On the other hand, the UN the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem multiple times.

        2) The ICJ has taken the same position in its “Wall” opinion= Israeli construction, settlement, civil jurisdiction in West Jerusalem is LEGAL; Israeli construction, settlement, civil jurisdiction in East Jerusalem is ILLEGAL.

        It is incumbent upon you, eljay, to explain the very sharp distinction both UN and the ICJ have drawn between Israeli activities in West Jerusalem and Israeli activities in East Jerusalem.

        3) Even if you use a definition of “annexation” different than accepted legal definition described by Hostage and you conclude that neither Jordan nor Israel legally “annexed” East and West Jerusalem respectively, that in no way means that Jordan and Israel had no rights to build/ settle on the territory they had jurisdiction over via the UN sanctioned 1949 Armistice agreement.

        Israel can legally build in West Jerusalem.

        That point stands.

      • Sibiriak
        December 24, 2016, 12:54 am

        On the other hand, the UN the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem multiple times .
        ——————-

        Correction: “…the UN has condemned the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem multiple times.”

      • Talkback
        December 24, 2016, 4:39 am

        Sibiriak, in 1980 the Security Council was very explicit about the fact that Jerusalem as a whole was occupied by Israel, not only East Jerusalem.

        “Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including JERUSALEM, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population, …

        5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including JERUSALEM, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

        6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including JERUSALEM;”

        Actual Resolution:
        “1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including EAST JERUSALEM, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law …”

        2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including EAST JERUSALEM, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;”

        So the Security Council says “reaffirms” and “reiterates”, but it explicitely doesn’t and has changed the wording from “Jerusalem” to “East Jerusalem”.

      • eljay
        December 24, 2016, 8:55 am

        || Sibiriak @ December 24, 2016, 12:39 am ||

        Thanks for the additional information. I understand now that contrary to the U.N.’s vision of a Free City, Jerusalem exists as a partitioned city with each part legitimately belonging to its occupier who may develop it as he chooses.

    • Sibiriak
      December 24, 2016, 9:29 am

      talkback: in 1980 the Security Council was very explicit about the fact that Jerusalem as a whole was occupied by Israel, not only East Jerusalem.
      —————–

      Nowhere does it say “as a whole”. It doesn’t exist in the text. It is your addition to the text.

      other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including JERUSALEM

      .

      West Jerusalem was NOT occupied “since 1967”, only East Jerusalem, therefore the above statement refers only to East Jerusalem.

      To properly understand a text, you must take into consideration all its phrases. Your interpretation requires you to ignore the critical “occupied since 1967” phrase . You can’t do that. You can’t just ignore an absolutely critical phrase in a sentence.

      Equally to the point, multiple resolutions since that one refer to territories ” occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” , which makes it absolutely explicit that West Jerusalem is not included.

      1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

      2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

      There is no way to interpret those statements as including territories NOT occupied since 1967 , such a West Jerusalem, and it would make zero sense to repeatedly refer to East Jerusalem if the whole of Jerusalem was intended.

      3. Underlines that it 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;

      Notice that that section refers to “Jerusalem”, not “East Jerusalem”. Does that mean that suddenly the WHOLE of Jerusalem is included? Of course not!! The previous phrase “changes to the 4 June 1967 lines” makes it crystal clear that only East Jerusalem is included, since Israeli jurisdiction over West Jerusalem is NOT a “change to 4 June 1967 lines.”

      Let’s look at another example:

      UN Resolution ES 10/13 asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to render an opinion on this question:

      What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

      Once again, it’s crystal clear that Occupied Palestinian Territory includes East Jerusalem, but not West Jerusalem.

      Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto
      annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall,

      Note again the reference is only to East Jerusalem–since it is that territory, not West Jerusalem, that involves a “departure from the armistice line of 1949.”

      Now, finally, check out this passage:

      Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

      Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting
      the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907′,

      Welcoming the convening of the Conference of High Contracting Parties
      to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention
      in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, at Geneva on 15 July 1999

      Note: the second reference to “Jerusalem” isn’t qualified by the adjective “East”. Does that mean that suddenly the WHOLE of Jerusalem is being referred to? Of course not!!

      The plain meaning of the texts of all these UN resolutions, as well as their documentary history, indicates that without a doubt they were concerned with territories occupied by Israel in 1967– which means they did not concern West Jerusalem.

      Your bizarre interpretation is absolutely untenable.

      Can you quote a single legal scholar that agrees with it?

      • Talkback
        December 24, 2016, 11:42 am

        Sibiriak, All of Jerusalem is de jure a corpus seperatum under Israeli occupation and the east part was occupied by Israel in 1967 which until then was under Jordan occupation. De facto the UN members have recognized that West Jerusalem belongs to Israel and East Jerusalem is a part of Palestine.

        That’s the reason why in older resolutions and with regard to the UN legal recognition of resolution 181 the territories are referred to the “Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967” on the one hand and “including Jerusalem” not “East Jerusalem” on the other. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about Jerusalem, if only East Jerusalem was meant, for example that it is null and void to change the status of Jerusalem (the status of a corpus seperatum) or that the Geneva Conventions are also applicable to Jerusalem, if Jerusalem wasn’t considered occupied, but only East Jerusalem.

        See the positive vote of the US in 1967:
        “4. Reaffirms, as in earlier recommendations, the desirability of establishing an international régime for the city of Jerusalem, to be considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-second session.”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/510EF41FAC855100052566CD00750CA4

        The Europe Union for example officially and explicitly considers the status of Jerusalem to be a corpus seperatum:
        “But the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a “corpus separatum” or separate body. This term is a direct reference to the 1947 UN resolution 181, designating Jerusalem an international zone.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/295001.stm

      • Sibiriak
        December 24, 2016, 1:24 pm

        talkback: the Europe Union for example officially and explicitly considers the status of Jerusalem to be a corpus seperatum

        I’ve already discussed that issue in a previous post:
        —————————-

        […]The July 29, 1980 Venezuelan embassy move from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv […] came on the heels of UN Security Council resolution 471 of June 5, 1980 (preceded by resolutions 465, 478, 469), which has explicit references to “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 .

        (See quotes here: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/#comment-821139)

        Another complicating factor is that the EU still officially supports the 1947 UN Partition Plan’s recommendation that Jerusalem be internationalized as a “corpus separatum.”

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/295001.stm

        Nevertheless, the EU clearly holds the pre-1967 borders, not the 1947 UN recommended partition borders, to be the dividing line between Israeli territory and occupied Palestinian territory and to be the basis for any final settlement.

        [The EU ]will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed between the parties. It has also called for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with the Road Map, in particular Orient House and the Chamber of Commerce,[45] and has called on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially concerning work permits, access to education and health services, building permits, house demolitions, taxation and expenditure.”[46]

        “The European Union set out its position in a statement of principles last December. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security. A viable state of Palestine in the West Bank,including East Jerusalem [but not West Jerusalem–Sibiriak], and the Gaza Strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines. A way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both Israel and Palestine.

        – Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union

        [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem#European_Union

        Keep in mind that if Jerusalem were to be a “corpus separatum”, then East Jerusalem couldn’t be under Palestinian sovereignty as its capital. Yet, Palestine has claimed East Jerusalem as its capital, and most countries, including EU countries, support that claim.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/park-slope-food-coop-puts-up-firewall-against-boycott-of-israeli-goods/#comment-823358

        ————————

        I’ll respond to the rest of your post ASAP–it’s getting very late in my time zone.

      • Talkback
        December 25, 2016, 4:05 pm

        “… which has explicit references to “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 …”

        Relevant was the resolutions explicit reference to “Jerusalem”. Not “East Jerusalem”! The Venezuelan embassy was located in West Jerusalem (in “Emek Refaim”/”German Colony”) and still moved to Tel Aviv.

        Allready in 1968, Resolution 252; “2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/46f2803d78a0488e852560c3006023a8?OpenDocument

        This resolution makes no reference to “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967”, because Jerusalem has a seperate legal status of its own.

        “Keep in mind that if Jerusalem were to be a “corpus separatum”, then East Jerusalem couldn’t be under Palestinian sovereignty as its capital. Yet, Palestine has claimed East Jerusalem as its capital, and most countries, including EU countries, support that claim. ”

        A claim or support for this claim/solution doesn’t touch the legal status. If this solution is negotiated between Israel and Palestine then this matter will be considered as resolved. Again, there is a difference between the recognition/proposal of claims/solutions and the actual legal status.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2016, 8:08 am

        Talkback: All of Jerusalem is de jure a corpus seperatum
        —————————–

        I appreciate your raising the “corpus separatum” issue. There is quite a bit of disagreement on that point, both among legal scholars and among various institutions and states. As has been pointed out, the EU still officially holds to the “corpus separatum” idea, but has for all intents and purposes backed the two-state/two-capitals- in- Jerusalem concept.

        The UN has taken contradictory positions as well, however most generally the UN considers East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory (not occupied international “corpus separatum” territory).

        This is evident in numerous resolutions. This latest resolution, for example, refers to “ Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem

        Likewise, the International Court of Justice its 2004 “Wall” refers to “Occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” (eg. Paragraph 96). Obviously, if East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, it cannot be international “corpus separatum” territory.

        In October 2009 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared that Jerusalem must be the capital of two States – Israel and Palestine –with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all.

        http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32762&Cr=jerusalem&Cr1#.WGEPhVyYKmo

        THE POINT UNDER DISPUTE

        But I think we need to back to the original point under dispute. I’ll repeat what I wrote to eljay:

        I wrote that Israel could legally build in West Jerusalem. I never said Israel had legally annexed West Jerusalem .

        You say, “ All of Jerusalem is de jure a corpus seperatum under Israeli occupation , suggesting that that means Israeli settlement and construction in West Jerusalem is as illegal as it is in East Jerusalem

        But you are overlooking a critical legal point: Israel is a belligerent occupying power only in East Jerusalem

        THE CRITICAL LEGAL POINT: TWO FORMS OF “OCCUPATION”

        Hostage:

        […] Under the terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the permanent status of Jerusalem can only be determined by mutual agreement after a fresh round of negotiations. That means that west Jerusalem is under a regime of armistice occupation, while east Jerusalem is under a regime of belligerent occupation. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/hundreds-of-soccer-fans-crowd-jerusalem-mall-death-to-arabs/#comment-437060

        KEY POINT: APPLICABILITY OF THE 4TH GENEVA CONVENTION

        **Neither the U.N. nor any UN member state ( as far as I know) has demanded that the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, be applied to West Jerusalem.

        **In contrast, numerous UN resolutions and the International Court of Justice do insist that the Fourth Geneva Convention be applied to East Jerusalem.

        Please recall that critical legal basis for declaring Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in Occupied Palestinian Territory is the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which inter alia provides that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” (Article 49, para. 6)..

        CONCLUSION

        Because West Jerusalem is NOT under belligerent occupation, Israelis can legally move there, take up residence, build homes etc.

        Because East Jerusalem IS under belligerent occupation, Israelis cannot legally move there, take up residence, build homes, etc.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2016, 8:41 am

        talkback: … there is a difference between the recognition/proposal of claims/solutions and the actual legal status. .

        Very true.

        But you have not made a convincing case that the legal status of Jerusalem is indisputably that of an international city, aka “corpus separatum.”

        As I pointed out above, the International Court of Justice holds that as a matter of law East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. That means it is NOT occupied international “corpus separatum” territory.

        Likewise, phrases in UN resolutions such as “ Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem ” are not compatible with the notion that East Jerusalem is part of an international “corpus separatum”. If East Jerusalem is included in Palestinian territory, it cannot be in international territory.

        More importantly, in regards to the question of whether Israelis can legally live and build in West Jerusalem , the crucial fact is not Jerusalem’s legal status as a “corpus separatum” but fact that West Jerusalem is NOT under belligerent occupation, while East Jerusalem is, and the fact that the Fourth Geneva Convention has been applied to East Jerusalem, making a transfer of Israeli population there illegal– but not to West Jerusalem.

        So even if you were right about Jerusalem’s de jure “corpus separatum” status (which remains to be proved), that would not make Israeli residence and construction in West Jerusalem illegal the way it indisputably illegal in East Jerusalem.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2016, 9:38 am

        talkback: Allready in 1968, Resolution 252; “2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status.”
        ————–

        Your missing the crucial point of that and similar resolutions: the “legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel” that tended to “change the legal status of Jerusalem” refer to actions Israel took AFTER 1967 when it occupied EAST Jerusalem.

        Israeli residence and building in West Jerusalem for decades before 1967 was never condemned as a “change in the legal status of Jerusalem”.

        During the years 1948-52, a number of debates took place at the UN on the future of Jerusalem, but from 1952 until war in 1967, no significant debates occurred.

        However, in 1967 Israel became a belligerent occupying power in East Jerusalem.

        http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf :

        As a result of the war, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. SINCE THEN, a number of demographic and physical changes have been introduced, and both the General Assembly and the Security Council, in several resolutions, have declared invalid the m e a s u res taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem . Security Council resolution 252 (1968) in particular is explicit in his re g a rd. In it, the Council considered “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including e x p ropriation of land and pro p e rties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status”. Israel was urgently called upon “to rescind all such m e a s u res already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any f u rther action which tend to change the status of Jerusalem”. The Security Council has re a ff i rmed these two positions many times.

        When Israel took steps to make a united Jerusalem its capital, the Security Council on 30 June 1980 adopted resolution 476 (1980) urgently calling on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. After Israel’s non-compliance with the resolution, the Council, on 20 August, adopted resolution 478 (1980), in which it reiterated its position that all actions altering the status of the city were null and void, and called upon States that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them. The General Assembly also considered Israel’s action to be a violation of international law that did not affect the continued applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This understanding, affirmed by the Assembly in December 1980, has been reaffirmed in subsequent years.

        During the 1980s, United Nations resolutions dealt with the Jerusalem issue in the wider context of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

        East Jerusalem has been considered, by both the General Assembly and the Security Council, as part of the occupied Palestinian territory.

        As the international community and in particular the Security Council continued to follow with concern developments affecting the question of Palestine, an important action was taken by the Council through resolution 672, adopted on 12 October 1990 following the violence that took place in Jerusalem at Haram Al-Sharif, where the Al-Aqsa mosque, the
        third holiest shrine in Islam, is situated. The Council, after condemning “especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life”, called upon Israel “to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967”. ETC. [emphasis added]

        ——————-

        So the whole slew of UN resolutions we have been discussing came into play only after Israeli’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and are a reaction to Israel’s attempt to change the status of Jerusalem by annexing East Jerusalem and making physical and demographic changes there.

        Israel has been a belligerent occupying power in East Jerusalem –but not in West Jerusalem–and the Fourth Geneva Convention became applicable to Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem—but not in West Jerusalem.

        That’s why Israeli building is ILLEGAL in East Jerusalem, but not in West Jerusalem.

      • Talkback
        December 26, 2016, 1:10 pm

        Sibiriak: “Your missing the crucial point of that and similar resolutions: the “legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel” that tended to “change the legal status of Jerusalem” refer to actions Israel took AFTER 1967 when it occupied EAST Jerusalem.”

        So what? It was after 1967 when Israel wanted to change the status of Jerusalem.The status of the whole city.

        “Israeli residence and building in West Jerusalem for decades before 1967 was never condemned as a “change in the legal status of Jerusalem”.

        Because they didn’t change the legal status of Jerusalem. The Security council condemend “all legislative and administrative measures” to change the legal status of Jerusalem.

        “… and are a reaction to Israel’s attempt to change the status of Jerusalem by annexing East Jerusalem and making physical and demographic changes …”

        Again, Israel’s legislative and administrative measures did not only concern East Jerusalem, but all of Jerusalem. I really don’t understand how you can read “East Jerusalem” into “Jerusalem”.

        From Israel’s Jerusalem law “1. Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”

      • Talkback
        December 26, 2016, 1:17 pm

        Sibiriak: “Because West Jerusalem is NOT under belligerent occupation, Israelis can legally move there, take up residence, build homes etc.”

        Why is there no embassy in West Jerusalem? Why did Venezuela move its embassy from West Jerusalem to Tel Aviv?

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2016, 1:30 am

        Talkback: Why did Venezuela move its embassy from West Jerusalem to Tel Aviv?
        ————————

        The only question we are debating is: can Israelis legally live and build in West Jerusalem?

        Venezuela’s decision to move its embassy from West Jerusalem to Tel Aviv had nothing to do with Israelis living and building in WEST Jerusalem.

        The move was a response to UNSC resolution 478 which condemned Israel’s annexation of EAST Jerusalem and Israel’s declaration that the whole of Jerusalem was its capital.

        Subsequent to UNSC resolution 478 , 13 countries (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela) which had maintained their embassies in Jerusalem, moved their embassies out of the city, primarily to Tel Aviv. Costa Rica and El Salvador moved theirs back to Jerusalem in 1984. Costa Rica moved its embassy back to Tel Aviv in 2006 followed by El Salvador a few weeks later. [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem#Location_of_foreign_embassies

        United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 , adopted on 20 August 1980, is one of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s attempted annexation of EAST Jerusalem . In particular, UNSC res 478 notes Israel’s non-compliance with UNSC res 476[1] and condemned Israel’s 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s “complete and united” capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.

        * * *

        The subsequent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice expressed the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation in and around EAST Jerusalem. [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

        FACTS:

        *States did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem

        * Jerusalem could still be considered de jure an international city (“corpus separatum”)

        * Israeli actions changing the physical and demographic character of East Jerusalem impacted the whole of Jerusalem (by definition), and were condemned by UN et al.

        KEY POINTS: :

        * None of the above facts mean it is illegal for Israelis to live and build in West Jerusalem.

        *Israel IS a belligerent occupying power only in EAST Jerusalem

        *The Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention applies to all occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, but not West Jerusalem. Article 49, para. 6 provides that “[t]he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” . It is that article which provides the basis for the UN’s and the ICJ’s condemnation of Israeli settlement in EAST Jerusalem as ILLEGAL.

        *Therefore, Israeli’s cannot legally settle and build in East Jerusalem the way they can in West Jerusalem.

        *Israel is not a belligerent occupying power in West Jerusalem.

        *The Fourth Geneva Convention has not been applied to West Jerusalem

        *Therefore, Iraelis can legally live and build in West Jerusalem.

    • pamj1900
      December 24, 2016, 10:03 am

      Exactly what the thought! Some of the responses from the various pro israel were nothing short of childish whining!

      • Misterioso
        December 24, 2016, 1:25 pm

        For the record:

        During late March and early May 1948, Jewish forces dispossessed and expelled 60,000 Palestinians from West Jerusalem.

        As already noted, Jerusalem, (i.e., both Old/East and New/West), Bethlehem and environs were designated as a Corpus Separatum in UNGA 181. It seems to me that whether or not West Jerusalem is currently occupied by Israel has not been finalized is demonstrated by the fact that no major country has located its embassy there. (As we all know, Trump has said he will.)

  6. ritzl
    December 23, 2016, 3:54 pm

    Well then…the era of the S part of BDS begins.

    The Israelis are never going to even slightly heed this giant neon red flag of a warning of what may/is to come so this paves the way for state sanctions (except by the US of course).

    Trump’s appointment of Friedman as US ambassador is just going to encourage Israel to behave this way and push them over the edge (increasing and increasingly obvious ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, and black-letter Apartheid/Hafrada) and propel the implementation of Sanctions.

    No more two state baloney. A convergence of powerful, formerly nascent forces propelling a raft of unintended (though inevitable) consequences dictate this. Self-inflicted this is, due to completely tone-deaf, cultish behavior/political inertia.

    Good news and public statements by the sponsors. They establish a basis for future sanctions

  7. lysias
    December 23, 2016, 4:05 pm

    The resolution (full text here) doesn’t explicitly call for sanctions, as far as I can see. But I wonder if any of its provisions can be interpret to authorize them.

    • ritzl
      December 23, 2016, 4:19 pm

      @lysias. While maybe no explicit calls for sanctions in the resolution itself, as far as I can remember there really haven’t been any statements about illegality and “righting wrongs” by state actors in support of a resolution on Israel that passed.

      This is new and seems like a required “Step 1” in the Sanctions process – with a rhetorical/political vector in that direction.

      FWIW

    • Sibiriak
      December 23, 2016, 5:56 pm

      Ali Abunimah:

      It is a clear declaration that Israel’s settlement activities are illegal, but as I explained in an analysis on Thursday, existing resolutions – that have been unenforced for decades – already do that.

      This resolution, like its predecessors, sets out no concrete consequences for Israel if it fails to comply. There are also key elements of the resolution – to do with the so-called two-state solution and the right of Palestinians to resist – that I argue actually erode Palestinian rights.

      But supporters of Palestinian rights will at least welcome the Security Council’s renewal of its longstanding condemnation of Israel’s ongoing theft of Palestinian land. This will give impetus to initiatives that aim to end all business with the settlements. [emphasis added]

      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/us-lets-security-council-pass-resolution-against-israeli-settlements

    • irishmoses
      December 23, 2016, 6:54 pm

      The resolution does mandate 90 day reports on compliance (or lack of) by Israel which could trigger sanctions motions where compliance is lacking and Israeli/Settler behavior toward occupied Palestinians is outrageous (i.e. the normal state of affairs).

      It seems to me that this ressolution is decidedly stronger than the Egyptian version, based on earlier reports I read. That should really stick in Netanyahu’s craw.

      What a Xmas present for me personally and for the Palestinian people. This is the first positive news I’ve heard in the last 8 years.

      Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary Kerry. I suggest you go out in a final flourish by rewarding the contemptible comments by Netanyahu, Bennett, et al, with full UN membership for Palestine and recognition by the US of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders.

      It would also be great to hear President Obama dedicate any entire speech to the I-P conflict, laying out the righteousness of the Palestinian cause and how supporting Palestinian self-determination is consistent with American values.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2016, 5:59 am

        @Irishmoses

        Agreed, completely! Great Christmas present to me & to the Palestinian people! I predict Trump will go so overboard supporting the Zionists at home and in Israel that even Dick and Jane Taxpayer might get hit with a touch of reality regarding Israel-Palestinian conflict. Let’s see what NYT says….

  8. gingershot
    December 23, 2016, 4:14 pm

    The evidence is now overwhelming that we are seeing a seismic transformation of Jewish power in America.

    Israel itself (and it has said so) regards these events as ‘existential’ and dispositive. Today’s UN Sec Co Resolution, the successfully advancing ICC cases, and the Iran Deal (preventing the Apartheid from ‘escaping’ by way the chaos created by triggering a major regional if not international war) constitute sufficient ‘existential’ events. Israel cannot and will not be able to continue in it’s current makeup as a state under these conditions.

    Today’s UN Sec Co Resolution ‘against Israel’ is only the latest in a stunning 5 yr string of major defeats and fiascos of Jewish political power in the US and in Israel itself. Out of a list of 7 major defeats, let’s look at the last 4

    1- In Sept/Oct 2012 President Obama, in coordination with Israeli generals (Diskin and others, ‘The 1st Israeli Generals Revolt’, later developing into the CIS by 2014) stopped an in motion Israeli attack on Iran, designed to tripwire the US into war with Iran.
    This constituted a clear and present danger to the United States of America which was successfully stopped by President Obama

    2- In August 2013 Obama threw out the ‘Blob’s Playbook’ for a fresh Clean Break-motivated war on Syria which the ‘Washington Foreign Policy Blob Playbook’ (where ‘the Blob’ is the Neocon/Israeli Lobby designation d’jour) with with decision to not attack the Assad regime with a major air war (Russia says there were over 600 targets in the near American attack) This was attempt to create a fresh Clean Break-planned war wholly supported, falseflagged, and ginned up by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby and Israel, amongst other players

    3- March – July 2015 President Obama stopped what amounted to a Israeli/Israeli Lobby putsch attempt (- what some have called ‘Bibi’s Putsch’) – over the United States and it’s political system, in a desperate attempt to thwart the successful finalization and implementation of the (existential) Iran Nuclear Deal.
    This also constituted a clear and present danger to the United States of America which was successfully stopped

    4- Today Dec 23 2016 President Obama’s greenlighting of the UN Sec Co Resolution designed to STOP Jewish annexation of Palestine (and the Palestine Annexation Law), over the political bodies of Netanyahu and the incoming President Elect Trump, is yet another instance of stopping a titanic exercise of Jewish political power at the UN over the last 50 yrs.

    Taken together these 4 events can be conceptualized together as ‘one set’ – one set of examples of attempted exercises of Jewish political power having been decisively stopped by President Obama, with enormous results for both the US and Israel.

    One step further, this set of events can be conceptualized as a ‘Successful 2nd American Revolution’, and certainly as abundant evidence of an American president who has been ‘Transformational for Jewish power in the US and Israel’

    Another way of looking at it is Obama has been using a different set of conversations, a different playbook, one that is revolutionary and anathema to the ‘Washington Foreign Policy Blob’s Playbook’. These instances listed above of stopping major exercises of Jewish political power are descriptions of the results of some of those conversations from Obama’s fresh playbook.

    We can call it the ‘Successful 2nd American Revolution Playbook’

    These reversals of Jewish power have decisively changed the present day world we live in – the world we live is a direct result of these listed 4 or 5 instances of successful exercise of Jewish power in America having been successfully reversed and thwarted by President Obama

    As far as American revolutions go, it’s only a ‘Club of 2’– George and Barack. Sorry Abe

    I prefer to call it ‘The Big Three’ – not bad for a legacy, either way

    Obama has been a transformational president specifically because he has STOPPED the exercise of aggressive ‘Kahanist’ Jewish political power in the US and Israel– and most Americans don’t even realize this yet, because the Media is so distorted by these very same actors.

    Obama has also opened up the floodlights for exposure of the Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons in the US, including the suppression of the media regarding them, which is long overdue as well, with great possibilities for the future.

    Truly a transformational and revolutionary American President. What an amazing day

    • Maghlawatan
      December 23, 2016, 5:12 pm

      Iraq and Syria were both lost. Hezbollah has fighting experience nobody in the IDF has.
      This vote shows the wider world is sick of Zionist victimhood and lies. None of the settlements are legitimate.
      Israel needs to think carefully. Trump will give it carte blanche but statehood is supposed to be forever.

      • hophmi
        December 23, 2016, 5:56 pm

        Oh please. Another anti-Semitic comment here talking about a ‘Jewish putsch.’. Disgusting reminder of how anti-Semitic Mondoweiss is.

        And for a resolution that says nothing new and means nothing. Only extremists like you people would fail to recognize that the resolution ensconced the two-state solution as the preferred outcome of the international community, said zero about Palestinian refugees, and condemned terrorism and incitement.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 23, 2016, 6:45 pm

        no you o please. the reference to a “putsh” (i’ve removed your double quotemarks since no one wrote “jewish putsch”) was march 2015 iran deal, and we know what happened there. speaking of “Israel lobby “Lobby putsch attempt (- what some have called ‘Bibi’s Putsch’)” what do you think of this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188201

        Noting the “personal attack” directed towards him by Netanyahu – who accused Lapid and Livni of leading a “putsch” from within the coalition – Lapid insisted on issuing a response of his own.

        “Yesterday you stood in front of the entire nation and announced that you were dragged the State of Israel into unnecessary elections that no one but you wanted, because you are detached. You live in your own aquarium,” Lapid fired.

        anti semitic? here’s more http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21635475-coalition-breaks-up-halfway-through-its-term-binyamin-netanyahu-still

        or isn’t it anti semitic when netanyahu says it?

      • eljay
        December 23, 2016, 8:24 pm

        || hophmi: Oh please. Another anti-Semitic comment here talking about a ‘Jewish putsch.’. Disgusting reminder of how anti-Semitic Mondoweiss is. … ||

        The fact that no-one but you said “Jewish putsch” is a disgusting reminder of how anti-Semitic you Zionists are for continually conflating Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel.

      • zaid
        December 23, 2016, 8:30 pm

        Somebody hand Hophmi a tissue please.

      • Kay24
        December 23, 2016, 10:21 pm

        Strange that Hoppy keeps accusing MDW of being an anti-semitic website, yet cannot help but make comments again and again. Maybe it is his job to spew the propaganda, but it could also be that he need MDW like a user needs his fix. :))

        Get over it Hoppy, you guys have been called out for breaking international laws, and cannot be getting away with it all the time.

      • CigarGod
        December 24, 2016, 3:04 am

        Hey Hophmi,
        Drop a couple Anti-Semite Seltzers to cure those illusions.
        Plop plop, fizz fizz,
        Oh what a relief it is.

      • Talkback
        December 24, 2016, 12:49 pm

        According to Hohmi only Nonjews are bad enough to putsch.

    • mcohen.
      December 23, 2016, 7:40 pm

      Gingershot….says “great possibilities for the future”

      What would they be.

    • Keith
      December 24, 2016, 11:08 am

      GINGERSHOT- “Truly a transformational and revolutionary American President. What an amazing day”

      It is easy to believe what is convenient to believe, and self-deception is the rule not the exception.

  9. Jasonius Maximus
    December 23, 2016, 4:50 pm

    “We are fighting for the free world…”

    Hahahahahahahhahaha! More like fighting for a free lunch, a free ride, free land, free water resources, free military aid packages and the freedom to create an Arab free West Bank.

    • Kay24
      December 23, 2016, 10:14 pm

      Strange then that they have not “freed” those they keep stealing the lands from, and who they have occupied for decades. Free world indeed.

  10. Keith
    December 23, 2016, 6:50 pm

    PHIL/ANNIE- “So nothing has changed in 34 years. And for five decades US presidents of both parties have opposed Israeli colonization.”

    Yes, for five decades US Presidents have opposed Israeli colonization by funding it. So yes, nothing has changed in 34 years. Why do so many commenters continue to believe that words speak louder than actions? This is President Smoothie engaging in hypocritical symbolism to bolster his legacy. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

    • broadside
      December 24, 2016, 11:57 am

      It’s not about the resolution per se, Keith. It’s about that great sleeping, non-thinking mass known as The American People. It’s a chink in the armor. To all those who haven’t been paying attention: this is what a US abstention caused? What power has this Israel lobby? Who are these senators and congressmen criticizing Obama? And, hopefully: you mean all those settlements, all this time, have been ILLEGAL??

  11. chinese box
    December 23, 2016, 6:51 pm

    I don’t know what practical effect (if any) this resolution will have, but surprising and welcome news.

    I should have known better, but I turned on national nightly news (NBC) to see their coverage of this. I think they spent less than 30 seconds on this story (all presented in the context of
    Trump, of course), and then on to Carrie Fisher. Turned to CBS and the same thing. I should have known the MSM would gloss over anything that makes Israel look bad.

    • CigarGod
      December 24, 2016, 3:08 am

      I do appreciate that the resolution is contrary to the Democratic Party platform.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2016, 6:20 am

      Yeah, Fox News is now ignoring informing the US public about those settlements , and how they have always been viewed as the biggest roadblock to peace and are illegal under international law–On Christmas eve now. Fox news has an “Israel Condemned” segment on now…of course Fox News says nothing about the innocent Palestinians–they don’t count, from Balfour to Truman to Trump, they are chopped liver. I view the UN SC resolution as saying, yes they do. I am too old to see it come to pass, but eventually, MLK’s arc of justice will come…

  12. oldgeezer
    December 23, 2016, 6:53 pm

    I would like to thank Nutty. Bennett. Liberman. Not to ignore the second stringers like Danon Dermer, Regev.

    Their in your face racism and public calls for the commission of further war crimes has made this all possible.

    Special thanks Lapid for showing that even the opposition had no intent on living within the law or seeking peace.

    Many have said, including myself that their arrogance would hasten the end.

    There is much left to do as Israel will not cease being a rogue state easily.

  13. Keith
    December 23, 2016, 7:13 pm

    “This simple act of omission–refusing to use the veto–may turn out to be Obama’s enduring legacy on Mideast peace.”

    Obama is a magician! We have been at war the entire 8 years of his administration, we continue to occupy Iraq, we destroyed Libya and Syria, we are helping Saudi Arabia destroy Yemen, yet by not vetoing a toothless Security Council resolution, Obama rescues his peacemaker image! Nobody controls the narrative like President Smoothie. Not even close. Slick Willie was good, but not like this.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2016, 6:27 am

      Nevertheless, Obama managed to do an abstinence vote. One step at a time–when U R boxed in by Zionist Lobby in plutocratic USA. One small step to advance Obama’s Cairo Speech, long left in the closet, and killed by Obama himself in 2011….resurrected, in a small way!

    • broadside
      December 24, 2016, 12:08 pm

      Wrong again, Keith. Obama has NEVER controlled the narrative. He’s the most pro-Israel president of all time. Has that been the narrative you’ve been reading? For two hours one afternoon he insisted Israel stop building settlements. Netanyahu told him to take a hike. Obama just rewarded Netanyahu w a check for $38 billion dollars, and asked not a single thing in return — yet he’s still cast as hostile to Israel.

      Hell — we’re still hearing constantly about Obama and the red lines in Syria — that’s surely not his narrative. In fact, the only times Obama has shown any guts — the Iran nuclear accord, and not bombing Syria — the narrative has been twisted to present this as his weakness. Of his caving in.

      The narrative is controlled by the same people who have always controlled it. The people who own the media. They can and do say whatever they want, facts be damned — most especially the facts about Barack Obama, almost all of which are negative.

      • Keith
        December 24, 2016, 1:59 pm

        BROADSIDE- “Wrong again, Keith. Obama has NEVER controlled the narrative. He’s the most pro-Israel president of all time.”

        Are you not aware that you have just contradicted yourself? Yes, his is the most pro-Israel administration, yet he is depicted as resisting Israeli settlement expansion, this abstention from vetoing the resolution a profile in courage. If that isn’t controlling the narrative to obscure the facts on the ground, then what is? Here we have a demonstrable warmonger lauded as a peacemaker. And yes, Obama has a huge role in the success of brand Obama. If it was solely a media phenomenon, then Hillary would have been seen as a female Obama and would have won the election with her massive media support. It was Obama’s decision to abstain, not the media’s.

    • Mooser
      December 25, 2016, 9:14 pm

      In two articles i read today, one by Josh Marshall, the other by Uri Avnery, attested to Obama saying that he was not going to expend all his political capital trying to get the Israelis to do what was good for them.

  14. Kay24
    December 23, 2016, 7:29 pm

    This is great news. Obama has (finally) sent Israel a strong message, one was long overdue, and that Israel deserved to hear. Israel is acting like a thief who whines that to criticize or condemn his actions is hurting, insulting, and preventing him from becoming a better man. It is sheer BS and we know it. It is amusing to hear that Nutty is threatening the nations that voted for this, it shows once again that he is a mean and vindictive man. Obama finally stood up to the bully, and it feels good. On CNN international they mentioned that Nutty has aligned himself with the Republicans, and has always gone against Obama. What bloody nerve. Nutty and Drumpf seems to be one of a kind – acting arrogantly like THEY are the President of the US, while we have a legit President in the WH.

    It is time the world stood up to Israel and addressed the years of criminal activity and war crimes. Supposedly the UN will never reverse this. YES!

    Aw, AIPAC and the other zionists entities are all disappointed about this, so are the Republicans and some shameless Democrats. Get over it.

  15. zaid
    December 23, 2016, 7:34 pm

    this vote shows that there is no international community, only the US matters.
    Look how everybody including the UK voted Yes.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2016, 6:31 am

      @zaid
      To the contrary, they voted yes, expecting from past custom, the US would veto! Obama gets a B grade for his abstention; Yes would be an A. A veto would be an F, formerly the customary US grade in this matter. Now, if only the resolution included some enforcement teeth…that would’ve earned US an A+

  16. Kay24
    December 23, 2016, 8:50 pm

    Israeli officials dump on Obama and claim he is abandoning Israel, and will most probably demonize him for the rest of his term, but this will be considered a bold step taken by the rest of the world, since this passed overwhelmingly. It is time the US stopped pretending that Nutty the man who boasted his government is the most PRO SETTLEMENT GOVERNMENT, is genuinely and sincerely interested in a 2SS (again he boasted this will not happen under his leadership), or that he will do the decent thing and give the Palestinians their freedom. He will keep extracting all the land their greedy hearts desire, defy the international community, and use us as tools to keep doing so. This should be the first step in holding this rogue nation accountable, and it is time some grown ups stepped in an made sure the “only” democracy and bested ally of the US, was finally made to do the right democratic action and give the Palestinians a statehood with the little territory they have left, or what their occupier has been kind enough to leave for them.
    It would serve the world well to ignore the temper tantrum Netanyahu, Dannon, and the rest of Israel, will surely display for days to come.

    Democratic congresspeople like Schumer and Blumenthal keep showing support for this rogue nation OVER the policies of their own President, and that is very unacceptable and even disgusting.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2016, 6:57 am

      Fox News, on Christmas Eve day, now, has Huckabee on saying we are screwing over our best ally in the world, Israel.

      • Kay24
        December 24, 2016, 8:13 am

        How delusional these zionist supporters of America are. Best ally indeed. Never mind they have disrespected, insulted the President, and tried to sabotage his policies, and they have forgotten that this best ally has spied on us (Jonathan Pollard) bombed the USS Liberty, killing and wounding so many, and has it’s agents threatening and bribing congress people, and that the media, US Intelligence considers Israel to be the Mideast’s biggest spy threat. But that seems to be okay with Huckabee, Schumer, Cuomo, Blumenthal, Melendez, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan, and other zionists loyalists, they do not find any of the above crimes disturbing. They rather “hurt” the President than hurt their idol Netanyahu, who gets away with anything.

        Amid Bids to Release Jonathan Pollard Former U.S. Officials Say CIA Considers Israel to Be Mideast’s Biggest Spy Threat
        U.S. intelligence agents stationed in Israel report multiple cases of equipment tampering, suspected break ins in recent years; CIA officials tell the Associated Press that Israel may have leaked info that led to the capture of an agent inside Syria’s chemical weapons program.
        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/former-u-s-officials-say-cia-considers-israel-to-be-mideast-s-biggest-spy-threat-1.454189

      • Kay24
        December 24, 2016, 8:32 am

        I wonder if Huckerbee is fine with an unarmed Santa being tear gassed by our “best ally” who will be welcoming Jesus Christ on behalf of all Christians. Maybe they have not heard but these dear allies of our show their love for Christians in strange ways. It seems not only Muslims have extremists.

      • just
        December 24, 2016, 9:04 am

        Again???

        MW has reported this particular brand of shameful violence before… in 2014 and 2015:

        “‘We want Christmas without occupation’: Israel attacks Bethlehem protesters dressed as Santa with tear gas”
        more @ http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/occupation-bethlehem-protesters/

        “Christmas in Bethlehem”
        more @ http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/christmas-in-bethlehem/

        I guess Israel doesn’t care that the world watches…

      • Kay24
        December 24, 2016, 12:11 pm

        Just, it must be an annual Santa bashing event for the IDF thugs.

      • just
        December 24, 2016, 12:38 pm

        “bashing” is the least of what the IOF thugs routinely do.

        Isn’t anyone in the GoI and their armed, privileged, and brutal citizen army aware of the optics?

        (dumb question, I know…)

        Every American parent should show this video to the kids today and explain it. Perhaps they would be forced to accept the truth about Israel~ the truth that many have allowed themselves to deny.

  17. talknic
    December 23, 2016, 8:54 pm

    The article … ” The resolution is historic, and represents the strongest rebuke President Obama has made of Israeli policy in his entire administration.

    Only Obama’s rhetoric was different. The US has abstained on almost every UNSC Chapt VI resolution on Israel. So no change.

  18. wdr
    December 23, 2016, 9:33 pm

    You are forgetting that on January 20th, what Obama says or does will be irrelevant. Trump will almost certainly be a gung-ho right-wing Zionst.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 23, 2016, 9:45 pm

      You are forgetting that ..

      huh? what he does on jan 20 may be irrelevant, but what he did on dec 23 won’t be, even on jan 20. and nobody forgot obama was leaving office.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 12:10 pm

        .” and nobody forgot obama was leaving office.”

        It’ll take about six months for Trump voters to figure out that Obama isn’t there any more, and Trump wasn’t elected for a reality show.

      • Kay24
        December 25, 2016, 12:03 am

        Mooser, maybe some brighter ones already realize it before he takes office next month.
        His picks for his administration, and the fact that he is already making noises about a nuclear armed race, must somehow penetrate deep into some minds and set off alarm bells. But hey, who knows they may also be interested in watching their orange jackass President make America “great” again in his crude fashion.

      • Mooser
        December 25, 2016, 11:48 am

        “watching their orange jackass President make America “great” again in his crude fashion.”

        In six months, the entire country will be in a rage with Obama for leaving the Presidency to Trump.

    • oldgeezer
      December 23, 2016, 11:02 pm

      @wdr

      He might be. He might back Israel’s crimes to the hilt. He might encuorage and embolden them to greater crimes.

      The result is the collapse of international law or destruction of the empire.

      Not something I would wish for if I was sane. Try shouting you were right from the midst of a mushroom cloud.

  19. yonah fredman
    December 23, 2016, 9:51 pm

    I am 1. For a two state solution based on the 67 “borders”, with agreed upon land swaps. 2. For the most part opposed to all settlements outside of the Jewish quarter in jerusalem and 3. Rooting for trump to be a one term president.

    Nonetheless this resolution seems feeble, particularly from a historic point of view, whereas the following historical events dwarf it: 1. The iran nuclear deal, the results of which will not be clear for ten to twenty years. 2. The iran versus Saudi Arabia conflict and its proxy wars. 3. The devastation in syria where russia has replaced the USA as the only power who really cares about the middle east enough to get down and dirty. 4. The mubarak to morsi to sisi revolution and counterrevolution in egypt. Compared to these headlines, a toothless un resolution approved by Obama in his last month in office seems like peanuts. Maybe in the future historians will see today’s action at the un as pivotal. It’s difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future, but from here it looks minor.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 23, 2016, 10:13 pm

      got it, feeble and minor. do you think the US should have vetoed it? if it’s so minor why are so many israel politicians and supporters seemingly going bonkers? are you out there on social media telling them all to relax and get over themselves — that this is really no biggie?

      why do you think israel reached out to trump to reach out to sisi and trump even mentioned it if it’s all so feeble? hmm. something doesn’t quite add up here. is it me? please explain. why the reaction over such a non issue?

      • Kay24
        December 23, 2016, 10:17 pm

        Good questions Annie, and I await with impatience the sound response to your questions….

      • Annie Robbins
        December 24, 2016, 12:55 am

        i wouldn’t hold my breath kay, the chance yonah will answer any of my questions is precisely zilch. he’s already answered below and not a word!

        do you think the US should have vetoed it?

        no, he didn’t answer that.

        if it’s so minor why are so many israel politicians and supporters seemingly going bonkers?

        no, he didn’t answer that.

        are you out there on social media telling them all [the israel politicians and supporters] to relax and get over themselves — that this is really no biggie?

        no, he didn’t answer that. and we all know he’s here instead, telling us.

        why do you think israel reached out to trump to reach out to sisi and trump even mentioned it if it’s all so feeble?

        no, he didn’t answer that.

        please explain. why the reaction over such a non issue?

        not a peep:

      • echinococcus
        December 23, 2016, 10:41 pm

        Reb Feldman,

        You forgot some important spots among the “historical events [that] dwarf it”: The 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull, the Fukushima earthquake-tsunami-nuclear catastrophe, the discovery that we’ll all die, etc.

        Also, was there a need to repeat that you support invasion, conquest, racial supremacism and genocide?

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2016, 11:25 pm

        Bibi is a drama queen.

        This resolution is as real as jimmy carter’s in 1980. What did that one achieve?

        People were talking about a resolution with specificity to turn ambiguities of 242 by specifying parameters and setting a time limit with forced arbitration if the deadline wasn’t met. Instead there is this statement. You’re impressed, I’m not. Sue me.

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2016, 11:32 pm

        BTW 2 p.m. xmas eve buries the story. America is too busy to pay attention to this.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 24, 2016, 9:19 pm

        BTW 2 p.m. xmas eve buries the story.

        no, i don’t think so. WSJ has a new story up and then there’s this:

        http://forward.com/fast-forward/358288/echoing-israel-trump-tweets-un-will-make-peace-much-harder/

        and this:

        story definitely not going away. plus i heard cruz claimed he was making sure congress would cut off aid to UN unless they reverse the resolution! it’s the talk of the town this holiday season.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 25, 2016, 1:57 pm

        and the hits just keep on comin’! http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/25/politics/israel-un-settlements-netanyahu-ambassadors/

        Israel summons US ambassador as Netanyahu lashes out at Obama
        By Michael Schwartz, Oren Liebermann and James Masters, CNN
        Updated 1828 GMT (0228 HKT) December 25, 2016

        Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned the US ambassador and launched a scathing attack Sunday …..

        The United States abstained on the resolution, allowing it to pass, rather than vetoing it — as it usually does with resolutions it sees as overly critical of Israel, leading to US Ambassador Daniel Shapiro being summoned, an Israeli official told CNN Sunday.

        The move comes hours after 10 other ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution were also called in and followed Netanyahu’s strong criticism of the Obama administration in his weekly cabinet meeting.

        this is the talk of christmas/hanukkah dinner tables all across the country, which was the intent i am sure. buries the story?? i don’t think so. netanyahu’s bleeding it for all it’s worth — and then some.

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2016, 11:49 pm

        The only reason this resolution was passed now and not earlier in the administration has to do with domestic politics warping foreign policy. You really think a lame duck toothless resolution unwarps that?

        Listen I hope trump is defeated in 4 years which will be by a democrat who will wave the banner of two states, whether its corey booker and aipac by his side or Elizabeth warren and j street by her side. In 4 years what will this resolution mean?

        Bibi has to make a choice. How adult is he willing to be re: settlements? With the adult (obama) in the room leaving one of the kids (trump) in charge, bibi must show how similar or dissimilar to bennett is he willing to be, or can he avoid choosing and find some halfway measure. Bibi on full throttle in opposition to obama is his natural position and is a play for support in the realm of Israeli politics. Please to realize: he’s been in office this time almost 8 years and almost 3 years last time, so this is primarily survival in Israeli politics that is paramount. One cannot overestimate the contempt right wing and indeed 65 to 85% of Jewish Israelis have towards the un, so vociferous opposition is just a given politically for bibi. From what I’ve read it didn’t add a jot or a tittle to the law. It will be up to corey booker or Elizabeth warren to figure out the next step if they or we can defeat trump in 2020.

      • Sibiriak
        December 24, 2016, 4:50 am

        yonah fredman:

        This resolution is as real as jimmy carter’s in 1980
        * * *
        From what I’ve read it didn’t add a jot or a tittle to the law.

        ———————

        It wasn’t intended to add to the law; it was intended to affirm the law.

        I think you are missing the huge import of this resolution.

        1) In 1980 there was only a small fraction of the illegal Jewish settlers that there are today. Expansionist Zionists believed that by creating seemingly irreversible “facts on the ground” the international community would eventually have to come around to accepting the new reality. This resolution was slapped that notion down hard, very hard.

        As Chaim Shalev wrote in Haaretz:

        Resolution 2334 shatters the government-induced illusion that the settlement project has been normalized, that it passed the point of no return, that it is now a fait accompli that will remain unchallenged.

        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.761042

        2)The powerful affirmation of the illegality of Israeli settlements across the Green line and the demand for corrective action sets the stage for future sanctions and other punitive measures.

        3) This resolution will have both a political and legal effect on the ICC and the impending cases being brought forward by the Palestinians.

        4) As the international condemnation of Israel approaches near-unanimity and assumes a new level of prominence and intensity, the notion that harsh criticism of Israel =antisemitism becomes increasingly untenable.

        Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, reportedly fulminated that “Obama has made it clear that he’s a Jew hating, antisemite.

        Ridiculous. Who’s going to believe that sht any more? The “antisemite” accusation is rapidly being drained of all potency.

        5) This resolution delegitimizes Israel in the eyes of the world–with far-reaching ramifications.

        6) This resolution legitimizes the BDS movement.

      • RoHa
        December 24, 2016, 5:20 am

        “the discovery that we’ll all die,”

        Not new. People have been claiming this for centuries, but no-one has proved it yet. Dyimg is, I admit, a trend, but I, for one, have no intention of following the fashion.

      • RoHa
        December 24, 2016, 8:05 am

        Though dying is an even more common practice than dyimg. I’ve no enthusiasm for that, either.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 12:18 pm

        “not a peep:”

        I think it is wonderful that Mondo allows “Yonah” to post his personal blog in the comment section of Mondo.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 24, 2016, 3:32 pm

        Yonah this vote is different to Carter 1980 cuz the goys have had 36 years to follow Israel in the intervening time and the goys know that Israel is not interested in peace. So leverage comes into play. The goys know that Zionists are ####s by now.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 8:25 pm

        “Though dying is an even more common practice than dyimg. I’ve no enthusiasm for that, either.”

        If I am not mistaken enlightened beings are exempt from reincarnation, too, after the sad event. So is it worth it?

      • RoHa
        December 24, 2016, 9:13 pm

        If I ever attain Enlightenment, I’ll let you know if it’s worth it. No sign in the offing of even the preliminaries to Enlightenment, so you may have to wait quite a few lives.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 9:39 pm

        “No sign in the offing of even the preliminaries to Enlightenment”

        Me neither. I took a few pre-med courses a long time ago, but that was it.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 23, 2016, 10:26 pm

      russia has replaced the USA as the only power who really cares about the middle east enough to get down and dirty.

      tell us more about how the US ever really cared about the middle east. how did we show our love and care? remind us how we’re so, like, humanitarian!

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2016, 11:28 pm

        Word choice regarding Russian involvement in syria was a bit loose. Could be Obama’s choice re syria was wise. It was historic. It dwarfs this event.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 24, 2016, 1:14 am

        so yonah, let’s try this another way… do you think obama should have vetoed this resolution?

        and if so, why?

      • yonah fredman
        December 24, 2016, 8:02 am

        Should obama have vetoed the resolution? No.

        Should obama be applauded? Yes, but tepid applause. (Two index fingers brought together three times would suffice.)

        Why are bibi and Bennett so upset? Because it is against their policy. Why am I not ecstatic? Because considering last acts of lame duck presidents is a depressing passive activity. Compare some previous lame duck moves: clinton parameters and reagan initiating talks with the plo. Clinton parameters before a change of party control over the white house is most comparable. That had the nature of a Hail Mary pass, if both sides had accepted maybe bush could have continued to pursue. Not that it worked out that way. This is enough to make bibi get upset and Annie robbins to celebrate.

        Is it a blow against the settler movement? More like a wagging finger than a blow. Will it be of use to liz warren when she is inaugurated on January 20th 2021? a small help. Will it increase the power of int’l bodies to take actions against israel? Maybe. Will it improve the footing or the potential for the bds movement? Maybe. If those two maybe’s are the basis of your euphoria, then don’t let me stop you. Do you think Palestinians are celebrating the victory? I doubt it. Bibi’s prolonged rule is weakened a tad and as drama queen he brooks no dissent. Since chemi shalev considers it a major defeat for bibi, I suppose your position must have validity. But what will Gideon levy and amira hass say about this: I can’t read their minds, but I predict that they will say, ho hum, not a big deal. Lame duck obama with one tiny step for the causes of peace.
        Is the two state solution closer today than yesterday? Yes. How much closer? The journey of a thousand miles is six inches closer.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 24, 2016, 9:56 am

        If those two maybe’s are the basis of your euphoria

        as i said, i think it’s wonderful and a big deal — however, your interpretation, of my so called “euphoria”, is noted. i won’t defend it because i am not euphoric, perfect strawman set up tho. your wet rag – ‘it’s such a non issue bla bla bla stance’ is sort of contradicted by your efforts to convince us it’s nothing.

        bye — have the last word.

      • yonah fredman
        December 24, 2016, 9:19 am

        Read aluf benn on the topic. He captures my reaction.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 12:28 pm

        “Read aluf benn on the topic. He captures my reaction.”

        Gee, you don’t think there’s any possibility that you captured Aluf Benn’s “reaction”?

      • broadside
        December 24, 2016, 2:44 pm

        Yonah, Liz Warren will never run for president. She’s a complete coward. Easier to be told you’re the savior than actually be the savior.

    • Sibiriak
      December 24, 2016, 2:11 am

      yonah: am 1. For a two state solution based on the 67 “borders”…
      —————-

      And yet you seem bent on belittling this resolution in every way possible.

      Why is that? This resolution is a big victory for the two-state consensus, and, yes, for liberal Zionism. Why aren’t you applauding it?

      Sure, it’s only a step. It has no power to compel Israel to change course. But it makes it absolutely clear that no matter how many settlements Israel builds, no matter how many “facts on the ground” Israel creates, they will always be deemed illegal by the international community; the annexation of East Jerusalem will always be deemed illegal; any further annexations of the West Bank will always be be deemed illegal; the Apartheid Wall will always be deemed illegal. Israel will never escape from under a huge dark and ominous cloud of illegality and moral condemnation.

      And that unequivocal judgment of illegality will provide a firm foundation for sanctions and other coercive actions against Israel if Israel does not reverse course, which no doubt, it will not.

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 12:26 pm

        “the annexation of East Jerusalem will always be deemed illegal; any further annexations of the West Bank will always be be deemed illegal; the Apartheid Wall will always be deemed illegal. Israel will never escape from under a huge dark and ominous cloud of illegality and moral condemnation”

        And remember, “Yonah” outside of Israel, people have the freedom to decide whether they will identify with Judaism or Zionism, and what they will do for it.

      • Talkback
        December 24, 2016, 3:13 pm

        Mooser: “And remember, “Yonah” outside of Israel, people have the freedom to decide whether they will identify with Judaism or Zionism, and what they will do for it.”

        Do people with Jewish heritage nowhere have the freedom to reject both?

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 6:45 pm

        “Do people with Jewish heritage nowhere have the freedom to reject both? “

        Okay, then take the “or” as an “and/or”. The point is; there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Zionism and/or Judaism can do to compel American Jews to do the things Zionism needs done.

  20. NorthCascadian
    December 23, 2016, 11:41 pm

    The scenario that I am fishing for is for Trump to say “you go Israel, but, oh, we really can’t afford that aid package anymore, oh so good luck!” The lobby is starting to buckle under their hypocrisy, Hops is sounding more and more like Groucho Marx!

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2016, 7:04 am

      Re aid to Israel. Trump sees F-35s as a boondoggle, but does not mention Israel is getting 50 of them for free, and he railed against foreign aid, but has said nothing about Israel’s lattest $38B. Trump has already established his own hypocrisy and he’s not even in office yet.

    • Mooser
      December 24, 2016, 7:13 pm

      “Hops is sounding more and more like Groucho Marx!”

      “Hophmi”? He’s always fighting for Israel’s honor, (which is more than Israel has ever done).

  21. Jackdaw
    December 24, 2016, 1:58 am

    Outgoing UN Sect., Ban Ki Moon, finally admits UN anti-Israel bias.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4894222,00.html

    Thanks Ban Ki, for telling us something we didn’t already know.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 24, 2016, 7:45 am

      jack, technically, he didn’t “admit” that. or if he did, they didn’t quote the admission. this is as close as he came to the so called admission (which, if one accepts, one also must accept there is no truth he “finally” admitted that which he’s argued before):

      “Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN,”

      either way, saying one argued UN members cannot have bias is not the same as arguing they do have bias. then, according to ynet, he goes on to say:

      “Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel. In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively.”

      so, rather than an admission of anti israel bias, his statement explains why there are a disproportionate number, which one could, if one were so inclined, to interpret as a reasonable explanation for the disproportion, vs evidence of bias.

      touche.

      • Jackdaw
        December 24, 2016, 9:26 am

        You seem to have a bias against capital letters. What’s up with THAT?

    • Talkback
      December 24, 2016, 3:20 pm

      Outgoing UN Sect., Ban Ki Moon, finally admits that the Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements is a ‘significant step’ and welcomes it.
      http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55874

      Thanks Ban Ki, for telling us something we didn’t already know.

  22. Marnie
    December 24, 2016, 2:00 am

    “In a fear-mongering speech prior to the vote Education Minister Naftali Bennett warned “everyone” on the Security Council “If you raise your hand or remain silent … you’re supporting the forces of terror, you’re supporting airplanes hitting buildings in New York and trucks killing people in Berlin, terror attacks in Brussels, Orlando and Dallas.” “Whoever gathers to condemn us for building here and does nothing to fight Molotov cocktails and murder has chosen the wrong side of history. Today the battle is between good and evil and Israel stands at the forefront of the good forces with Hezbollah and ISIS in the north and Hamas in the south. We are fighting for the free world, yet the free world is gathering to condemn us…”

    So very tired of the bombast from the likes of Bennett and Danon.

    – Israel is not fighting for the free world, but has been fighting against the free world since 1947.
    – Finally the u.s. has done the right thing and abstained from participating in the continuation of settlements in the corruption that is the zionist state.
    – Finally, but will it make any difference?

    I expect to see random acts of israeli terrorism posing as ISIS or Hezbollah, like the petulant spoiled children they’ve shown themselves to be. ‘Fighting for the free world?’ Fuck off.

    • Kay24
      December 24, 2016, 9:07 pm

      I am sure the majority in the world are amused at the use of the words “free world”, because they know the hypocrisy is unbelievable. Free for ALL but the Palestinians eh? These zionists make themselves look silly as they play to their supporters. Free world indeed.

  23. Maghlawatan
    December 24, 2016, 3:01 am

    Israel has spent $120bn on YESHA. Israel never had that kind of money. They could have spent $20bn modernising the Orthodox and bringing education up to first world standards. They could have spent $1 bn looking after Holocaust survivors. They could have spent $10 bn developing regional trade. But they were too cheap and too lazy.

    This vote is sanctions lubricant. The world has had enough.

  24. HarryLaw
    December 24, 2016, 4:32 am

    Poor Shmuley Boteach he had so much faith in Samantha Power [Mother Teresa] remember this “And in the presence of the leaders of our community, she suddenly became deeply emotional and struggled to complete her presentation as she expressed how deeply such accusations had affected her. Tears streamed down her cheeks and I think it fair to say that there was no one in the room who wasn’t deeply moved by this incredible display of pain and emotion”.
    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/education-samantha-power/ Now Samantha is on her way out and no longer needs ‘the lobby’, she slides the knife in like a good assassin or should I say scorpion. She is still a nasty piece of work, I can almost feel sorry for Shmuley. NAH.

  25. RoHa
    December 24, 2016, 4:32 am

    And a Merry Christmas to all!

    (Including, Yonah, if he isn’t too offended by the compliment.)

  26. Kay24
    December 24, 2016, 5:32 am

    Netanyahu is furious and openly attacking President Obama. Yeah, he and the other shameless zionists within Israel and the US simply want to continue stealing lands and building illegal housing for his squatters. According to CNN the pretense of having a civil relationship with Obama is gone, and he is whining about Obama letting poor little Israel down. But cheer up Bibi boy, you have already started to kiss up to the President Pretend, and you know he loves to be flattered, and he will be your partner in crime forever. The arrogant zionist leader has already stated he will not be complying with this resolution, but then who ever expected a devious and dishonest man to to do?

  27. Talkback
    December 24, 2016, 5:58 am

    Since Resolution 465 in 1980 all the 36 years of continous hasbara efforts to shift the perception from the view of international law into slowly accepting Israel’s illegal efforts and criminal views regarding Jerusalem and the illegal settlements just went down the drain. This is a major narcisstic wound for a self-righteous infantile which it can only explain away by accusing others of hating it while allowing or even supporting others of their wrong doings.

    The so called “Anti-Defamation League” has proven another time that it is a propaganda front organisation for Israel and specialized in defaming everybody who isn’t. Greenblatt is completely out of contact with reality, international law and opinio juris when he writes that “We know that Israeli settlement activity is of concern to the U.S. and many members of the international community …”,. “Activity”, not crime? Only beintg “of concern”, not condemning its illegality? Only “many” members, not everbody else but the criminal state in question and only one Security Council member abstaining the resolution? It’s just the hypocrit Greenblatt of all people accusing others of being biased.

    @ Internatonal Court of Justice and BDS: Your turn.

    Here’s a video of the Security Council session:

  28. Ossinev
    December 24, 2016, 6:10 am

    @YF
    “One cannot overestimate the contempt right wing and indeed 65 to 85% of Jewish Israelis have towards the un”

    Membership of the club is not obligatory as with the NPT. If Jewish Israelis despise it so much then they should pressure their leadership to hold a referendum on membership. Since their leadership has consistently ignored/defied UN Resolutions ( and the Yahoo has announced that he will do the same with the latest one ) it will be no great loss to the body and spare them the ongoing “contempt ” for their deliberations and decisions.

    I doubt that however that Zionist Israel has the cojones to leave the club. It will mean that they will no longer be able to whinge and whine about how unfair the other members are towards them (sob).

  29. just
    December 24, 2016, 8:45 am

    “Israel rejects ‘shameful’ UN resolution amid criticism of Netanyahu

    Israel orders steps against a number of countries that backed motion calling for halt to building of settlements in occupied territories

    Israel has responded furiously to a UN security council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, recalling two of its ambassadors to countries that voted for the motion and threatening to cut aid. …

    … The resolution also includes language calling for differential treatment of Israel within the pre-1967 borders, calling on states to “distinguish[ing], in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”, which could potentially pave the way for future sanctions.

    Israeli supporters in the US – both senators and lobby groups – used even stronger language. Morton Klein, president of the right wing Zionist Organization of America, railed in unequivocal terms: “Obama has made it clear that he’s a Jew hating, antisemite.”

    Leading pro-Israel Republicans also weighed in including House Speaker Paul D Ryan, who denounced the US abstention as “absolutely shameful,” and promised that “our unified Republican government will work to reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our alliance with Israel”.

    In Israel, however, questions were already being asked about Netanyahu’s handling of the vote. Writing in Haaretz, columnist Chemi Shalev was particularly scathing about Netanyahu’s diplomatic failure.

    “Resolution 2334 shatters the [Israeli] government-induced illusion that the settlement project has been normalised, that it passed the point of no return, that it is now a fait accompli that will remain unchallenged.

    “In recent years, after President Obama desisted from efforts to advance the peace process, Netanyahu, his ministers and settler leaders had behaved as if the battle was over: Israel built and built, the White House objected and condemned, the facts on the ground were cemented in stone.

    “You can have your cake and eat it too, the government implied: thumb your nose at Washington and the international community, build in the West Bank as if there’s no tomorrow and still get $38bn in unprecedented [US] military aid.””

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/24/israel-rejects-shameful-un-resolution-amid-criticism-of-netanyahu

    What “aid” are they threatening to “cut”?

    Happy Christmas Palestine! Happy Christmas to everyone! Thank you Annie and Phil.

  30. Steve Macklevore
    December 24, 2016, 9:02 am

    It’s sad that such a lukewarm halfhearted action (an abstention) is rightly regarded as so significant.

    Am I alone in wishing that Hilary Clinton hadn”t been owned so much by Jewish funders. If she weren’t so compromised, Obama could have done this at the start of his second term and had a whole four years to put the screws on Netanyahu.

  31. broadside
    December 24, 2016, 9:17 am

    Not surprisingly, the ever-dishonest, always-Israel-first NPR has repeatedly cast this resolution as condemning Jewish settlements on land Palestinians want as their future state. No. The resolution has nothing to do with that. The resolution condemns Israel for building settlements with no legal basis — for building settlements against international law. That’s the resolution.

  32. catalan
    December 24, 2016, 10:35 am

    I am thrilled to see all these large and important countries agreening unanimously on such a contentious topic. Now that peace in the ME is more likely, one can surely expect the same type of consent on some other big issues – notably pollution, overpopulation, disease, global inequality, and the various tyrannies and dictatorships that still plague us.
    No doubt an era of global peace is coming, just think if the two trillion dollars per year currently spent on armaments worldwide get instead spent on promoting reason and fighting disease. It’s a hopeful time to be alive. Finally, a world of harmony. Such agreement, such unanimity!

    • Sibiriak
      December 24, 2016, 10:43 am

      catalan: Finally, a world of harmony. Such agreement, such unanimity!
      ————

      Such strawmannery!!

      • just
        December 24, 2016, 10:54 am

        +10! Well done!

    • talknic
      December 24, 2016, 11:42 pm

      @ catalan December 24, 2016, 10:35 am

      “… Now that peace in the ME is more likely, one can surely expect the same type of consent on some other big issues – notably pollution, overpopulation, disease, global inequality, and the various tyrannies and dictatorships that still plague us.”

      Indeed. However, peace is only more likely if Israel adheres to its legal obligations and withdraws from all non-Israeli territories. UNSC res 242 was realized with the Egypt/Israel and Jordan/Israel Peace Treaties.

  33. catalan
    December 24, 2016, 11:05 am

    “Such strawmannery!!”
    Why, you mean they can only agree on stopping mighty Israel? Big and tough Obama can stand up to the scary Israeli lobby, but not the Chinese or the Saudies? That’s all? What a bummer for the two billion people without clean water, and those who need cures for deadly diseases. Ah well, I suppose this is still ok for millionaires in New Mexico though.

    • just
      December 24, 2016, 11:39 am

      And so you respond with more “strawmannery” You really can’t help it, can you?

      LOL.

      Bring on the sanctions!!!

      • Mooser
        December 24, 2016, 12:40 pm

        “and those who need cures for deadly diseases.” “catalan”

        “I am ashamed (although I don’t like that word) of a lot of things I have done personally. As the years go by and the end approaches, things have caught up with me.” “catalan”

        “Money is not everything mooser. Take it from someone that knows. You can’t buy life, health, meaning or happiness with money” “catalan”

        Oh jeez, “catalan”, I’m sorry. I hope things don’t go too badly for you. All the money in the world can’t cure some things.

    • rosross
      December 25, 2016, 9:48 pm

      @catalan,

      Are you seriously suggesting that apartheid Israel matters to the world in terms of cures for deadly diseases, or indeed matters to the world at all?

      The fact is, there are no cures for deadly diseases and if you trawl scientific research, Israel is just one tadpole amongst many in the pool of exploitative and profit-driven science-medical research. It’s loss would make not a whit of difference.

      However, since a one-state solution would mean the end of Apartheid Israel but not the end of a Democratic Israel, or whatever the new State will be called, one presumes that the scientists, capitalists, corporatists etc., can continue to function whatever their country is called, and for that matter, wherever they live. And if indeed Israeli research is of use, it would be as much use if it were Palestinian or Canaanite research, surely?

      As to clean water, it might surprise you, but Israel is not required for the supply of clean water. The knowledge to supply clean water was understood centuries ago, thanks to Anglo/European and mainly Christian engineers and scientists. When it comes to water, Israel is an ecological bankrupt, destroying the water table of Palestine and its neighbours, to fill it’s swimming pools and satisfy its farmers, trying to grow things which should never be attempted in a ‘water-precious’ region.

      Israel needs stopping as a matter of principle, if we are to support the civilized world. As the only country calling itself a democracy, fall about laughing, which maintains murderous occupation, colonisation and apartheid, it gives democracy a very bad name and that must end. Time for Israel to become a democracy and join the civilized world.

      • RoHa
        December 26, 2016, 6:51 am

        “The knowledge to supply clean water was understood centuries ago, thanks to Anglo/European and mainly Christian engineers and scientists. ”

        Pre-Christian Romans supplied plentiful clean water to their cities,for drinking, cooking, baths, laundry, industry, and to flush out the sewers. Ancient Chinese cities had pretty good water supplies as well.

  34. SonofDaffyDuck
    December 24, 2016, 11:08 am

    Enjoy the moment! The Donald is coming to town with Friedman and the Schumer (Shomer) is already there. Further, AIPAC and its minions in government cried out their fealty to Netanyahu even before Samantha Powers had finished speaking.

    And once again, Bibi has shown that he has the power to ignore a sitting American government and appeal directly to those politicians who owe him liege. He has shown once again that he – not our president – is the arbiter in American government with respect to our Middle East policy.

    One may express joy, but not optimism.

    This is probably the last act of conscience we will see before the Embassy opens in Jerusalem and plans are laid for the Final Annexation.

    • rosross
      December 25, 2016, 9:42 pm

      There have been very few, if any acts of conscience by the United States in regard to the apartheid State of Israel which is why it has continued on its path of military aggression to maintain occupation and colonisation and the murderous subjugation of the Palestinians for decades.

      If the United States had acted with conscience it would have tweaked the ‘money tap’ to Israel long ago and forced the only just solution, one state with equal rights for all.

      Zionist/Jewish/Israeli religious bigotry sourced in delusional paranoia has no place in a civilized world and the United States, if it had given a toss about integrity, let alone justice, would have hauled Israel into line long ago.

      The monster that is Israel exists because the world at large has enabled it to be, and none more than the United States, which, in the support for Israel has turned itself into a worldwide joke, everytime it talks about supporting freedom and democracy. The Hypocritical United States of America has given the world the monster apartheid state of Israel.

  35. James Canning
    December 24, 2016, 1:45 pm

    I assume Obama did so little to stop the growth of the illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, because he thought he could not achieve that object.

  36. Ossinev
    December 24, 2016, 4:29 pm

    The Yahoo who is all in a lather is already chucking his toys out of the bathtub:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtuBas3Ipw

    Seriously though it sounds eerily familiar ?
    http://www.upi.com/Archives/1933/10/14/Germany-withdraws-from-League-of-Nations-disarmament-pact/5411430087122/

  37. oldgeezer
    December 24, 2016, 10:12 pm

    If there was any UNSC member who had the slightest doubt about their vote it would have erased by the performance of Danon.

    Danon put the true face of zionism on display. A barbaric Betar punk.

  38. Kay24
    December 24, 2016, 10:28 pm

    Netanyahu throws yet another temper tantrum for not getting his way regarding the UN resolution, and who cares, really? CNN International reports that Israel (like all rogue nations do) is threatening to break away from the UN, and is now lashing out at the world, because it did not get its way, and succeed in twisting arms in an effort to prevent the UN and the US doing the only decent thing to help the occupied.

    All these threats, drama, anger, and insults at the US President, because the world has finally and officially condemned Israel’s blatant breaking of international laws, and bringing attention to it?
    Get over it Israel. You are not entitled to steal disputed lands belonging to indigenous people, even if an old religious books tells you so.

  39. just
    December 25, 2016, 7:54 am

    Gideon Levy:

    “UN Resolution Is a Breath of Hope in Sea of Darkness and Despair
    It’s now even more crystal clear: The world thinks the settlements are a crime. All the settlements and all the world …

    On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to establish a Jewish state (alongside an Arab state) in the Land of Israel. Sixty-nine years later, on December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council voted to try to save it. Resolution 2334 that was approved Friday is a gust of good news, a breath of hope in the sea of darkness and despair …

    Just when it seemed that everything was going downhill – the deepening occupation increasingly supported by America, with Europe galloping to the right – along came a Hanukkah resolution that lights a thin candle. When it seemed that the evil ones would remain victorious, along came New Zealand and three other countries and gave the world a Christmas gift.

    So thanks to New Zealand, Venezuela and Malaysia. True, the Christmas tree they’ve supplied, with all its sparkling lights, will soon be removed; Donald Trump is already waiting at the gate. But the imprint will remain. Until then, this temporary rejoicing is a joy, despite the expected hangover.

    We of course must ask U.S. President Barack Obama in fury: Now you’re doing something? And we must ask the world in frustration: What about actions? But it’s impossible to ignore the Security Council decision that rules that all the settlements are illegal by nature.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can call back his ambassadors, while his right-hand minister Yuval Steinitz can shriek that the resolution is “unfair.” (He has a sense of humor.) And opposition leader Isaac Herzog can babble that “we need to fight the decision with all means.” But there isn’t a person in the world with a conscience who won’t rejoice over the resolution.

    There also isn’t a decent Israeli who must fall for the propaganda that calls the resolution “anti-Israeli,” a definition that the Israeli media rushed to adopt – with its characteristic slavishness, of course.

    This decision has brought Israel back to the solid ground of reality. All the settlements, including in the territories that have been annexed, including in East Jerusalem of course, are a violation of international law. In other words, they are a crime. No country in the world thinks otherwise. The entire world thinks so – all Israel’s so-called friends and all its so-called enemies – unanimously.

    Most probably the tools of brainwashing in Israel, along with the mechanisms of repression and denial, will try to undermine the decision. But when the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia unite in such a clear statement, this will be difficult work.

    So you can say “the entire world is against us.” You can scream “anti-Semitism!” You can ask “What about Syria?” In the end this clear-as-crystal truth will remain: The world thinks that the settlements are a crime. All the settlements and all the world.

    True, the world doesn’t lift a finger to have the settlements removed, but maybe one day this will happen. Still, it will be too late by then, too late.

    Resolution 2334 artificially distinguishes between Israel and the settlements in that it is aimed at the settlements, not the occupation. As if the guilt of Amona were on its settlers and not all Israelis. This deception proves how much the world continues to treat Israel with leniency and hesitates to takes steps against it, as it did with Russia’s conquest of Crimea, for example.

    But Israelis who don’t live in Amona, who have never been there, who have no real interest in its fate – it seems most Israelis – have to ask themselves: Is it really worth it? All this for a few settlers they don’t know and don’t really want to know?

    Resolution 2334 is meant above all for Israeli ears, like an alarm clock that makes sure to wake you up on time, like a siren that tells you to go down to the bomb shelter. True, the resolution has no concrete value; true, the new U.S. administration promises to erase it.

    But two questions won’t let up: Why don’t the Palestinians deserve exactly the same thing that Israelis deserve, and how much can one country, with all its lobbying power, weapons and high-tech, ignore the entire world? On this first day of both Hanukkah and Christmas, we can enjoy, if only for a moment, the sweet illusion that Resolution 2334 will rouse these questions in Israel.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.761114

    Hope.

    • Mooser
      December 25, 2016, 12:19 pm

      “just” you know my memory is not too good. Are there 10 million settlers or 100 million?

      • rosross
        December 25, 2016, 8:39 pm

        I thought there was around 600,000 illegal Jewish settlers in Occupied Palestine and around 6 million probably legal although never tested in a court of law, colonist settlers in UN Mandated Israel, along with a couple of million non-Jews, indigenous to Palestine on which UNM Israel was set up, who were given citizenship.

      • Mooser
        December 26, 2016, 11:59 am

        “I thought there was around 600,000 illegal Jewish settlers in Occupied Palestine”

        My dear “rosross”, I think you are laboring under a misconception. 600,000 people is not even enough for a fair-sized city.

        Okay 6 million will fill one good-size city. But what about all the other cities in “Israel”?

    • rosross
      December 25, 2016, 9:32 pm

      @just,

      Did not a significant majority of Crimeans, and yes, many were of Russian ancestry but not all, vote to be a part of Russia?

      I doubt if the vote were put to the Palestinians, numbering in the millions, and the roughly 500,000 illegal Jewish settlers, a majority would vote to be a part of UN mandated Israel.

      Then again, Israel denies Palestinians all human rights, including a vote so it is meaningless.

  40. Kay24
    December 25, 2016, 12:21 pm

    This is an interesting article and it harshly criticizes Netanyahu for his disregard for international laws, and reminds us that this stunt of involving Trump to get one over Obama regarding the UN resolution has backfired, just like the Iran nuclear deal stunt. Netanyahu got his behind kicked very deftly by the rest of the world, and no amount of temper tantrums will erase that. Ron Dermer the despicable weasel has been criticized for the role he has played in both fiascos.

    Analysis Security Council Punch Knocks Netanyahu Down From Hubris to Humiliation
    The prime minister recruited Trump against Obama but the gambit blew up in his face, just as it did in the Iran deal.
    read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.761042

  41. Maghlawatan
    December 25, 2016, 4:09 pm

    France is organising another meeting in January to feed into a security council meeting before Jan 20. Squeaky bum time for Israel. I don’t think Obama approves of moving the embassy. And now is not the time to rile the Arabs. Israel has painted itself into a corner.

  42. jon s
    December 25, 2016, 4:23 pm

    I welcome the Security Council resolution, as should everyone who sincerely supports two states. Netanyahu’s hysterical reaction is pretty much to declare war on the rest of the world.
    Too bad that President Obama’s decision is too little, and way too late. He should have acted much more forcefully against the settlements, and not have waited until now.

    • Maghlawatan
      December 25, 2016, 6:05 pm

      It was a question of waiting for the politics to change. The Trump election opened up a split in Judaism. And Netanyahu over extended. YESHA was stupid from day 1 but the power dynamics had to iterate to the point where something was possible.

      • Kay24
        December 25, 2016, 9:47 pm

        According to some harsh articles in the Haaretz, Netanyahu has no one else but his own (arrogant) self to blame for this. True to Netanyahu style, he is raving and ranting and the biggest welfare queen in the world, is punishing some little nations by cutting projects with it (something we should have done long time ago to make Israel end the occupation and land stealing). Time for the next step….sanctions.

    • Talkback
      December 25, 2016, 8:03 pm

      jon s: “Too bad that President Obama’s decision is too little, and way too late. He should have acted much more forcefully against the settlements, and not have waited until now.”

      I agree. He should have attacked Israel by force, arrested all its war criminals and kept it occupied until all Palestinian refugees would have either returned or got compensated by Israel and then liberated the rest of Palestine, dismantled all settlements and evacuated all settlers. And then he should have set up a tribunal which would have punished Israel for all its wars of aggression, nearly half the century of belligerent occupation including its war crimes, collective punishments, crimes against humanity, violation of human rights, denial of Palestinians self determination and demand compensation for all of Israel’s destruction of villages, houses and private property since 1948.

      But like you said. It was too little and way to late.

      • rosross
        December 25, 2016, 8:35 pm

        @Talkbac,

        You mean Obama should have acted with integrity, in the best interests of the United States, as a force for justice, rule of law, human rights, democratic principles and common human decency, ignoring the power and pressure of the Israeli/Jewish/Zionist industry which manipulates the United States and its Government and which will stop at nothing to protect Israel.

        Ah yes, if only we had leaders like that. But we do not and that is why evil triumphs so often.

  43. rosross
    December 25, 2016, 8:31 pm

    I am not sure how the two-state solution could ‘slip away’ when it has been dead for decades and I doubt it ever existed. Every single act by Israel from the time it came into being as a UN mandate, has been to take all of Palestine, and as much of any other nearby country as it could. Greater Israel was always the goal, as was the complete removal, through death or dispossession of all Palestinians – well, all non-Jews really.

    The only way a two-state solution could ever have worked would have been with two completely independent states with contiguous borders and exactly the same rights – Jerusalem would have to be an international city, belonging to neither and Israel would never have allowed that to happen.

    The most Israel was prepared to give was a bantustan, semi-prison for Palestinians, with no power to defend themselves, no autonomy and no independence. It was a joke, a farce, a ridiculous ploy and the two-state solution has only ever been used by Israel as a distraction while it steals more of Palestine.

    Nothing has been lost because nothing ever existed.

    The only outcome ever has been that which all other colonisers have done – one state shared by indigenous and coloniser alike as equal citizens.

  44. jon s
    December 26, 2016, 3:28 pm

    The UN vote is proof that the entire international community has reiterated its commitment to two states. If you read the resolution, these are the main points: the settlements are illegal and are obstacles towards reaching a two state solution. And two states is really the only possible solution, the only game in town.
    In any case, anyone who thinks that one state is a solution, should not be too happy with the resolution.

    • Maghlawatan
      December 26, 2016, 3:58 pm

      If the settlements are not evacuated it is going to be 1 state.

    • Mooser
      December 26, 2016, 4:00 pm

      “these are the main points: the settlements are illegal and are obstacles towards reaching a two state solution”

      But Israel can’t possible move 60 million people out of the occupied territories, can they?

      .” And two states is really the only possible solution, the only game in town.”

      No, no, cheer up, “Jon s”. The way support for Zionism is collapsing, and considering the dwindling number of Jews willing to do what it takes, it’s more likely Zionism won’t be able to maintain any kind of a state at all. What numbers can you guarantee? How many people for how long, how much money, willing to work under the two-state conditions?
      I mean, if you want to have two-states, the Zionists must guarantee they will be able to maintain their state under those conditions, or else why support them?

    • Talkback
      December 26, 2016, 4:21 pm

      jon s: “In any case, anyone who thinks that one state is a solution, should not be too happy with the resolution.”

      Yep, see Israel. Maybe the Security Council resolution was mainly against Israel’s one state solution.

    • Maghlawatan
      December 26, 2016, 4:53 pm

      If the settlements are not evacuated it is going to be 1 state. It is Israel v the World. The only way to make a Jewish state was to brainwash the Jews in it. Israel isa failure

Leave a Reply