Arabs preparing to take 'settlements' to Security Council, US won't veto
I suppose that this was to be expected. Arab states and the Palestinian Authority are drafting a statement they plan to submit to the U.N. Security Council in the form of a resolution denouncing Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and calling for international pressure on Israel to halt construction.Israel's Foreign Ministry is doing its best to keep this out of the media. But what's behind it is actually something that's not such bad news for Israel.
Israeli officials fear that Washington will not rush to exercise its veto power against such a resolution.
According to a senior figure in the Foreign Ministry, representatives of the Arab bloc in the United Nations convened in New York on Friday and Saturday to start framing the resolution. The meetings are expected to continue and could produce a draft that will be distributed to Security Council members by the end of this week.
Some analysts believe the resolution will contain not only denunciations of Israel but also calls for international sanctions against the Jewish settlements, in the form of a boycott of businesses based there. Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that even if the resolution does not go that far, it could nonetheless encourage Western states to impose their own sanctions against the settlements.
"The Palestinian issue, which until recently was at the top of the administration's agenda in the Middle East has now become unimportant to them," one Palestinian official said. The officials said that last week's meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell was difficult and that the PA president was disappointed by the results.If the 'Palestinians' are complaining, things can't be that bad, can they?
Mitchell presented to the Palestinians a "non-paper," an unofficial document, related to the talks with Israel that shocked the Palestinians.
The Palestinians said that the positions in the non-paper constituted a step back and that even the previous administration of President George W. Bush had presented a more pro-Palestinian position. They were particularly incensed by a clause stating that the negotiations were to be over the borders of the Palestinian state with Jordan, Egypt and Israel - excluding the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley and the no-man's-lands from 1948, which they say the Bush administration had agreed to.
I would guess that the resolution passes - provided that it has no real teeth. No Chapter 7 sanctions. It wouldn't be the first time that the Security Council condemns us for allowing Jews to live in the liberated territories, and it probably won't be the last.
Labels: Barack Obama, boycott divest sanction, UN Security Council
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:57 AM
5 Comments:
The UN will condemn Israel - I'm not overly concerned about it and Israel's dhimmi Jewish leadership should take the advice of Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion who called the UN Um Shmoom back in the day. Its been an anti-Israel talk shop for a long time now and isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
Israel should get out of the UN. No Chapter 7 sanctions to ever worry about if Jerusalem has the courage to desert that den of visceral anti-Semites.
Just do it!
Its a shame the nations of the world have forgotten wot the Lord of the heavens declared to Abraham - And all the nations that bless ye wll be blessed & those that curse ye will be cursed. There are no ifs or buts, therefores or wherefores. He also knew that the UN would be here today & did not ask their permission. He means wot He says & says what He means & to this day has accurately fulfilled every one of His promises to the apple of His eye & will continue to do so. Hebrew brethren take heart & be of good cheer you will not be removed from your land that He has given to your forefathers in an everlasting covenant. THE DIASPORA IS FINISHED.
Has not our Lord been exceedingly kind to all Arabs – they have untold wealth & yet they envy the little that is given to the apple of His eye. And the ingrate gentile nations have forgotten that they have received much at the hands of our Lord too.
Incidentally silence/abstaining are all collusion. Let the nations take heed.
The first principle of the UN was, and remains, that acquisition and occupation of territory by military force is not permissible. That is Israel's problem. Your beliefs may well 'inform' you that there is e.g. a divine right to live in the Occupied Territories, but you stand alone on that. To have built and continue to build settlements on land that is not lawfully yours is unacceptable. The only people who should understand even more than you that seizure of other people's land for some perceived religious or political or other 'right' or 'mission' is unacceptable are the Germans.
Your people are living on land that lawfully belongs to others, you have taken it by force. To those dispossessed that must seem like theft by dint of might. That is how many see you. I read often how little you care about this. I read the New York Times alternate edition. But consider a similar edition where you are seen as the Nazis and the Palestinians as you. Uncomfortable but for them as true as your viewpoint.
The Palestinians may be about to declare Statehood. The UN cannot stop them, there is no veto on that, it will be down to who recognises that State of Palestine.
How can you deny them such a unilateral declaration considering the birth of Israel in 1948, an act so many people accepted because they felt it was right to do so? The Palestinians are not a people? Ethnologists would disagree. Many in the world see the justice of their claim for statehood. That would be a Two State solution.
I asked you before if you wanted to see this conflict continue down the generations, a question one would also put, and I have, to Palestinians. The price is upon the heads of all your children and theirs.
You will say you do not care if the Palestinians choose to accept the existence of Israel - the converse, of course, applies in like spirit.
The world will recognise a State of Palestine. What will Israel do? Try to suppress that by force?
The first principle of the UN was, and remains, that acquisition and occupation of territory by military force is not permissible. That is Israel's problem. Your beliefs may well 'inform' you that there is e.g. a divine right to live in the Occupied Territories, but you stand alone on that. To have built and continue to build settlements on land that is not lawfully yours is unacceptable. The only people who should understand even more than you that seizure of other people's land for some perceived religious or political or other 'right' or 'mission' is unacceptable are the Germans.
Your people are living on land that lawfully belongs to others, you have taken it by force. To those dispossessed that must seem like theft by dint of might. That is how many see you. I read often how little you care about this. I read the New York Times alternate edition. But consider a similar edition where you are seen as the Nazis and the Palestinians as you. Uncomfortable but for them as true as your viewpoint.
The Palestinians may be about to declare Statehood. The UN cannot stop them, there is no veto on that, it will be down to who recognises that State of Palestine.
How can you deny them such a unilateral declaration considering the birth of Israel in 1948, an act so many people accepted because they felt it was right to do so? The Palestinians are not a people? Ethnologists would disagree. Many in the world see the justice of their claim for statehood. That would be a Two State solution.
I asked you before if you wanted to see this conflict continue down the generations, a question one would also put, and I have, to Palestinians. The price is upon the heads of all your children and theirs.
You will say you do not care if the Palestinians choose to accept the existence of Israel - the converse, of course, applies in like spirit.
The world will recognise a State of Palestine. What will Israel do? Try to suppress that by force?
Post a Comment
<< Home