Israel Matzav

'Palestinians' present Security Council resolution, but no vote taken

With Lebanon introducing the resolution on their behalf in the UN Security Council, the 'Palestinians' have asked the United Nations to condemn all Israeli 'settlement building' - essentially a demand that Israel retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines (on the topographical map at left, only the green parts were under Israeli control on June 4, 1967). More than 120 countries co-sponsored the resolution - probably the only thing in the world on which that many countries could agree.

Sources said the proposal was brought to the table in order to show the Palestinians’ and Lebanese’ seriousness of intent on the issue of settlements, but with the idea that the resolution would not be brought to a vote until next month at the earliest.

It condemns “the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” as well as “all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.”

The matter was brought to the Security Council despite the opposition of the United States. America’s representatives have repeatedly asserted their belief that the Security Council is not the proper forum for discussions of the peace process, and that bringing the matter up would not be a “productive step.”

Those who believed that Zionism - and giving the Jews a state like every other nation - would bring about an end to anti-Semitism - have clearly been proven wrong. The only things that Zionism has accomplished when it comes to anti-Semitism is to focus it on the State of Israel and to encourage loosely affiliated Jews in the diaspora to join the anti-Semites.

In her remarks to the council on Wednesday, Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, the deputy US permanent representative to the UN, did not use the word “veto,” but spoke out in strong terms against the proposed resolution.

“As we have consistently said, permanent-status issues can be resolved only through negotiations between the parties – and not by recourse to the Security Council,” DiCarlo said. “We therefore consistently oppose attempts to take these issues to this council and will continue to do so, because such action moves us no closer to the goal of a negotiated final settlement. Rather, we believe it would only complicate efforts to achieve that goal.”

Yes, but the Obama administration has also consistently said that 'settlements' complicate efforts to achieve the nirvana of a 'two-state solution.' So when 'complication' comes up against another, which one will the Obama administration chose to confront? At present, no one knows the answer to that question.

Here's one of the expressions of support for the resolution.

“Such a measure would send the right signal to the parties that the international community is serious in its attempt to help ensure the long-term feasibility of the two-state solution,” Brazil’s UN Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said.

And to think that just yesterday, Israel agreed to sell Brazil some of our top-of-the-line unmanned aerial vehicles. Stupid Jews!

Labels: settlements are legal, UN Security Council, US veto

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:48 PM