Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThe Reason for Israel's Hysterical Response to the UN Security Council Resolution
Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2016, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-reason-for-israels-hysterical-response-to-the-un-security-council-resolution/ Since last week, we have seen a unique sequence of events, some unprecedented and others less so, that have brought the Palestine-Israel issue back to the fore. Last Friday, the United States abstained at the United Nations Security Council on Resolution 2334, thereby allowing it to pass when the 14 other members of the council voted for it.
The language of the resolution as it relates to settlements was nothing really new. The UNand the whole world, with the exception of the Israeli right winghas understood that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territory Israel occupied in 1967, and thus that civilian settlements are illegal. In fact, even the Israeli legal counsel understood this in 1967. The Israelis thought that if they could colonize the West Bank under the guise of the military, they could argue that it didnt put them in violation of the conventions statute against transfer of civilian populations. This is why they initially called them paramilitary settlements, which were set up through a division of the military. Once it became clear that the world would not press them on this, they dropped the disguise and openly violated international law by building, financing, and subsidizing scores of settlements, which would grow to include hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers.
What is unique in the language of Resolution 2334 is the utter desperation it reflects concerning the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict. That solution itself had not even made it into a Security Council resolution until the George W. Bush era. Now, at the end of his successors tenure, this resolution states plainly that such a solution is on the verge of death due to Israeli settlements.
The upcoming funeral of the two-state solution may account for the passion behind Secretary of State John Kerrys remarks in a speech today, in which he criticized the settlements and said Washington cannot allow a two-state solution to be destroyed before our eyes, arguing that there is no viable alternative. This was an attempt to get out ahead of the blame game in the history books. Kerry made clear that if the Israelis want to kill peace with settlements, that is their choice. Indeed, it is a choice they have already made.
The language of the resolution as it relates to settlements was nothing really new. The UNand the whole world, with the exception of the Israeli right winghas understood that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territory Israel occupied in 1967, and thus that civilian settlements are illegal. In fact, even the Israeli legal counsel understood this in 1967. The Israelis thought that if they could colonize the West Bank under the guise of the military, they could argue that it didnt put them in violation of the conventions statute against transfer of civilian populations. This is why they initially called them paramilitary settlements, which were set up through a division of the military. Once it became clear that the world would not press them on this, they dropped the disguise and openly violated international law by building, financing, and subsidizing scores of settlements, which would grow to include hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers.
What is unique in the language of Resolution 2334 is the utter desperation it reflects concerning the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict. That solution itself had not even made it into a Security Council resolution until the George W. Bush era. Now, at the end of his successors tenure, this resolution states plainly that such a solution is on the verge of death due to Israeli settlements.
The upcoming funeral of the two-state solution may account for the passion behind Secretary of State John Kerrys remarks in a speech today, in which he criticized the settlements and said Washington cannot allow a two-state solution to be destroyed before our eyes, arguing that there is no viable alternative. This was an attempt to get out ahead of the blame game in the history books. Kerry made clear that if the Israelis want to kill peace with settlements, that is their choice. Indeed, it is a choice they have already made.
(Note...it was The Nation's headline, not mine...I'd have gone with "Netanyahu's Hysterical Response". Netanyahu is not Israel incarnate).
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 3530 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Reason for Israel's Hysterical Response to the UN Security Council Resolution (Original Post)
Ken Burch
Dec 2016
OP
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2. Could somebody pm me and tell me what the auto-removed response was?
It clearly must have been memorable in its own twisted way.
Rhiannon12866
(221,051 posts)3. I don't know for sure
Since I'm not on MIRT this term, but yesterday there was a serious onslaught of racist disruptors, so I'm guessing it may have been one of them. I only saw two of them (jury duty) and, take my word for it, nobody here deserves to see what they posted. But MIRT took care of them in short order.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)4. I was on jury duty for one of those, too.
n/t.
Rhiannon12866
(221,051 posts)5. I really wish I could unsee the one I saw...