The United Nations and Israel

Documents showing Israel’s intransigence,
and its steadily increasing aiding and abetting by its chief enabler,
the Zionist States of America.

Future Government of Palestine

[See also Wikipedia, Google.

Here is an excerpt from the resolution;
emphasis is not that of the original, but that of the author of this blog.]

The General Assembly,

Having met in special session
at the request of the mandatory Power [the United Kingdom]
to constitute and instruct a special committee
to prepare for the consideration of
the question of the future government of Palestine

Considers that
the present situation in Palestine
is one which is likely to impair
the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power
that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948;

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine,
and to all other Members of the United Nations
the adoption and implementation,
with regard to the future government of Palestine,
of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union
set out below ....

Palestine -- Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator

[See also Wikipedia, Google.

This resolution is specifically mentioned in the Arab peace initiative.
Here is a part of the resolution dealing with the refugee problem:]

[T]he refugees wishing to return to their homes
and live at peace with their neighbours
should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,
compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return
and for loss of or damage to property which,
under principles of international law or in equity,
should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

S/RES/242 The situation in the Middle East (1967-11-22)

[An excerpt; emphasis had been altered from that of the original.]

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
and the need to work for a just and lasting peace
in which every State in the area can live in security,


1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles
requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East
which should include the application of both the following principles:
  1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces
    from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
  2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency
    and respect for and acknowledgement of
    the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence
    of every State in the area
    and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries
    free from threats or acts of force;

S/RES/338 Cease-Fire in the Middle East (1973-10-22)

[An excerpt; emphasis had been altered from that of the original.]

The Security Council


2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease­fire
[terminating the 1973 war]
the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967)
in all of its parts;

S/RES/465 Territories occupied by Israel (1980-03-01)
[Also available here]
Adopted unanimously at the 2203rd meeting

[An excerpt; emphasis added by the current author.
This is cited in, and one of the appendices to,
Jimmy Carter’s Palestine Peace not Apartheid.]

The Security Council ...

Affirming once more that the
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Time of War
of 12 August 1949
is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
including Jerusalem,

Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel
to officially support Israeli settlement
in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

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;

7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance
to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;


A/RES/44/42 Question of Palestine
Adopted at the 76th plenary meeting, 6 Dec. 1989
Adopted 151-3-1, 76th meeting

[An excerpt (most emphasis is added):]

3. Reaffirms the following principles
for the achievement of comprehensive peace:

  1. The withdrawal of Israel
    from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem,
    and from the other occupied Arab territories;
  2. Guaranteeing arrangements for security of all States in the region,
    including those named in resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
    within secure and internationally recognized boundaries;
  3. Resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees
    in conformity with General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,
    and subsequent relevant resolutions;
  4. Dismantling the Israeli settlements
    in the territories occupied since 1967;
  5. Guaranteeing freedom of access
    to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites;

Security Council resolution 1397 (2002)
The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question

Security Council resolution 1515 (2003)
The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
68th plenary meeting
3 December 2003
Adopted 160-6-5:
The text on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
was adopted by a vote of
160 in favour,
six against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, Uganda and the United States), with
five abstentions (Australia, Honduras, Nauru, Rwanda and Tonga)
(see Annex IV).

[An excerpt (emphasis is changed from the original):]

The General Assembly,

Convinced that achieving a final and peaceful settlement
of the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
is imperative for the attainment
of a comprehensive and lasting peace and stability in the Middle East,


Affirming the principle of
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,

the illegality
of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967

of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, and
affirming that the construction by Israel
of a wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem,
is in contravention of relevant provisions of international law,

Affirming once again
the right of all States in the region to live in peace
within secure and internationally recognized borders,


8. Stresses the need for:
  1. The withdrawal of Israel
    from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
  2. The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,
    primarily the right to self-determination
    and the right to their independent State;

9. Also stresses the need for
resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees
in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948;

Legal Consequences of
the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

International Court of Justice, 2004-07-09

This is the definitive web page for information,
ranging from a summary to the full text,
concerning this advisory (to the General Assembly) opinion.

ES-10/15. Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
including in and around East Jerusalem

Voting record:
Yes: 150, No: 6, Abstentions: 10,
Non-Voting: 25, Total voting membership: 191

No: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States

[An excerpt (but emphasis is altered from the original):]

The General Assembly,

the illegality of any territorial acquisition
resulting from the threat or use of force,

the Regulations annexed to
the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, [1]

Recalling also
the Geneva Convention relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, [2]
and relevant provisions of customary law,
including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, [3]

the permanent responsibility of the United Nations
towards the question of Palestine
until it is resolved in all aspects in a satisfactory manner
on the basis of international legitimacy,


Reaffirming also
the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
including their right to their independent State of Palestine,

Reaffirming further
the commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine,
living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders,
based on the pre-1967 borders,


its resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, in which it demanded that
Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem,

Recalling also
its resolution ES-10/14 of 8 December 2003,
in which it requested the International Court of Justice
to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following 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?",

Having received with respect
the advisory opinion of the Court on the
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
rendered on 9 July 2004, [7]

Noting in particular that the Court replied to
the question put forth by the General Assembly in resolution ES-10/14
as follows: [8]
  1. "The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power,
    in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
    including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime,
    are contrary to international law;
  2. "Israel is under an obligation
    to terminate its breaches of international law;
    it is under an obligation
    to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built
    in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
    including in and around East Jerusalem,
    to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and
    to repeal or render ineffective forthwith
    all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto,
    in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;
  3. "Israel is under an obligation to make reparation
    for all damage caused by the construction of the wall
    in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
    including in and around East Jerusalem;
  4. "All States are under an obligation
    not to recognize the illegal situation
    resulting from the construction of the wall and
    not to render aid or assistance
    in maintaining the situation created by such construction;
    all States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention
    relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
    of 12 August 1949
    have in addition the obligation,
    while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law,
    to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law
    as embodied in that Convention;
  5. "The United Nations,
    and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council,
    should consider what further action is required to bring to an end
    the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall
    and the associated regime,
    taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.",

Considering that respect for the Court and its functions
is essential to the rule of law and reason in international affairs,

1. Acknowledges
the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ,[7]
including in and around East Jerusalem;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power,
comply with its legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

3. Calls upon all States Members of the United Nations
to comply with their legal obligations as mentioned in the advisory opinion;

U.N. Condemns Israeli Offensive
U.S. Assails Rights Agency
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post, 2006-11-18

The U.N. General Assembly voted 156 to 7 on Friday
to condemn Israel for “indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force”
in its military offensive in Gaza,
during an emergency session
that provided scores of U.N. members with a familiar platform
to excoriate the Jewish state's policies in the region.
Six countries abstained.

The vote came less than a week after
the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution
criticizing Israel for launching a Nov. 8 missile strike
that killed 18 civilians in the town of Beit Hanoun.
Palestinian representative Riyad Mansour opened the session by calling for
“an end to this rampant Israeli campaign,
which intends to destroy an entire people.”

ES-10/16. Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory

[Click on 10th Session Resolutions.]

United Nations General Assembly Tenth Emergency Special Session 10/16, 2006-11-30

General Assembly Reaffirms Permanent Responsibility for Palestinian Question,
Adopting Six Resolutions on Palestine, Middle East, In Usual Voting Pattern

Settlement of Palestinian Question at Core of Arab-Israeli Conflict
United Nations, 2006-12-01

[Little attention is paid in the United States
to most of the actions of the United Nations.
But note the following pattern of votes:]

2006 Votes on General Assembly Resolutions Concerning Israel and Palestine, showing all countries which voted “No” and a selection of countries which voted “Yes” or abstained
22 23 24 25 26 27
GA Votes in Favor 101 101 157 157 157 107
Selected examples
Argentina 40M Y Y Y Y Y Y
Brazil 190M Y Y Y Y Y Y
China 1,300M Y Y Y Y Y Y
India 1,100M Y Y Y Y Y Y
Indonesia 230M Y Y Y Y Y Y
Mexico 110M Y Y Y Y Y Y
Nigeria 140M Y Y Y Y Y Y
Singapore 5M Y Y Y Y Y Y
South Africa 50M Y Y Y Y Y Y
GA Votes Against 7 7 7 7 6 6
All nations which voted “No”
Australia 21M N N N N A A
Canada 33M N N A A Y N
Israel 7M N N N N N N
Marshall Islands 0.07M N N N N N N
Micronesia 0.14M N N N N N N
Nauru 0.01M A A N N N A
Palau 0.02M N N N N N N
United States 300M N N N N N N
Abstentions 62 62 9 10 10 60
Selected examples
Denmark 5M A A Y Y Y A
France 64M A A Y Y Y A
Germany 82M A A Y Y Y A
Iceland 0.3M A A Y Y Y A
Italy 58M A A Y Y Y A
Japan 127M A A Y Y Y A
Norway 5M A A Y Y Y A
Russia 140M A A Y Y Y Y
South Korea 50M A A Y Y Y A
Sweden 9M A A Y Y Y A
Switzerland 7M A A Y Y Y A
United Kingdom 60M A A Y Y Y A

(For complete voting lists, see Annexes I through VI here.)

As can be seen from the table and its supporting data sheet,
the nations divide into four voting blocks:
  • About 100 nations,
    mainly drawn from the devoloping nations of what used to be called
    the “Third World”, Non-Aligned Block, or (global) South
    which voted consistently against the Zionists.
  • Precisely eight nations which ever voted with Israel.
    Of these eight,
    four are tiny island nations in the Western Pacific,
    three of whom (all but the tiniest, Nauru)
    are in formal association with the United States.
    Two are that inseparable duo, the United States and Israel,
    while the remaining two, Australia and Canada,
    voted about half the time with the Zionist entity.
  • About ten minor (sorry!) nations which abstained on all resolutions.
  • The swing vote:
    About 50 nations which comprise
    most of what used to be called the “First World” or (global) North
    (the glaring omissions are Israel/US/Australia/Canada).
    These voted against Israel half the time and abstained for the remainder.
    For whatever reason, on these resolutions
    they voted almost as a block.


General Assembly Approves UN Budget
The Associated Press, 2007-12-22

[An excerpt; paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]

The General Assembly approved
a two-year U.N. budget of $4.17 billion Saturday, with
the United States casting the only “no” vote
because of objections to funding for a follow-up to
a conference it considered anti-Israel.

The 142-1 vote [details in Annex X here]
in the 192-member world body
climaxed weeks of discussions and
an all-night session that failed to reach consensus because of the
U.S. objections that
the budget included $6.7 million
for a follow-up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism.

Forty-nine countries did not have delegates in the chamber for the vote.
[These are considered “Absent” rather than abstentions.
Israel was among the 49 absent.
There were no abstentions, just the 142 for and one against.]

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said
the insistence of some members of the Group of 77,
which represents 132 mainly developing countries and China,
to fund a follow-up conference from the U.N.’s regular budget
made it impossible for the United States to support the overall budget proposal.

The United States and Israel
walked out of the September 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa,
because of attacks on the Jewish state.
The European Union nearly walked out but stayed until the end.

[The above two paragraphs would lead one to believe that
those supporting the proposed conference were primarily this “Group of 77,”
and that the EU was reluctant.
However, if we consult the actual vote (Annex X here),
we find that among the 142 countries
that affirmatively voted for the budget, including the proposed conference,
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom,
i.e., all of the European Union (see the vote for the rest)
and (again consulting the vote) all of the developed world,
save the U.S and Israel.]

Several months later,
Israel’s then-deputy foreign minister, Michael Melchior,
said the Durban conference
“hosted the most racist speeches and proposals
to be heard in an international forum since World War II.”
He added that
“the conference
became the mouthpiece for a new and venal form of anti-Semitism.”

[So AP wants us to know what Israel thought of the Durban conference.
What did the 100-odd other countries that attended the conference think?
Why do we only hear Israel’s perspective?
Tell me again how it is anti-Semitism
to believe that the American media basically serves as a mouthpiece for Israel.

Note also how often
actions that Israel opposes are described as “the worst ever.”]

The budget is traditionally approved by consensus.
But the United States demanded a vote
in the General Assembly’s budget committee late Friday night
because of the insistence of key developing nations
that the conference be funded from the regular U.N. budget
rather than by voluntary contributions.

In the budget committee balloting,
the financial blueprint was approved 141-1
with only the United States opposing it.

[See Annex II for the vote;
note that every nation of consequence other than the U.S. and Israel
voted for the budget;
Israel was “Absent”]

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed regret in a statement “that
the resolution was not adopted by consensus,
marking a break with tradition after 20 years.”

“The secretary-general urges all member states
to return to consensus decision-making and
to demonstrate a greater sense of flexibility and compromise,
beyond individual national interests
and in the common cause of multilateralism for the good of humankind,”
the statement said.

Some thoughts and questions.
  1. Why does such a one-sided vote
    (it could not be more one-sided)
    not receive more attention from the media/political complex?

    Is there no politician or pundit
    who believes and is willing to say openly that
    for America to ignore the opinion of the world so totally
    can only harm America in the long run
  2. Ignoring world opinion may be worthwhile
    when it can be argued to be in the American national interest,
    such as when we refused to place our servicemen
    under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
    but refusing to support a UN conference
    simply because it might condemn Israel
    hardly seems to be a vital American concern.

    If Israel wants to thumb its nose at every country in the world,
    why does America have to join it in its arrogant intransigence?
  3. In the American political system,
    there are groups that decry American “unilaterism,”
    which they find in such actions as
    refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol and
    withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

    Why is it that they never seem to decry flagrant acts of unilaterism
    when they involve American support for Israel?
  4. We hear so much garbage from the media/political complex about
    the reasons for “why they hate us”
    as being either
    “because we are good” or
    “because they are poor.”
    Somehow 142 to 1 votes, such as this,
    never get pointed out as
    the clearest possible indication of America’s flouting world opinion.

    Why do the people who claim that
    we are hated “because we are good”
    or “because we are rich and they are poor”
    rule out such examples of America ignoring world opinion
    as being a causative factor for anti-Americanism?
  5. We frequently hear people decrying
    what they call American “isolationism.”

    But isn’t this vote a supreme example
    of America isolating itself?
  6. Isn’t this really a rather trivial issue to pick a fight over?
    I can understand the U.S. taking a strong and perhaps lonely stand
    over issues vital to Israel’s existence or its security.
    But over a conference?
    If Jews want to be hypersensitive over criticism of Israel,
    they have every right to take offense as often as they like,
    over every possible criticism,
    no matter how valid and without intent of malice.

    But does the United States have to stand alone against the whole world
    in support of their hypersensitivity?
  7. The editors of the American media have just taken us through
    one vast public humiliation of professors Mearsheimer and Walt
    for daring to suggest that something they call the Israel lobby
    causes the United States to take stands which are
    against America’s interest but in Israel’s.
    The reviews in American “elite” media were unanimous:
    Mearsheimer and Walt’s book was either
    • motivated by anti-Semitism,
    • muddled,
    • error-filled,
    • ignorant, or
    • all of the above.

    But isn’t this 142-1 vote a textbook example
    of Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis?
  8. The Zionist alliance
    shows an unfortunate (that is a mild word for it) unwillingness
    to talk to its adversaries and/or critics.
    America will not talk to Iran
    unless it meets American-defined preconditions.
    Israel will not talk to Hamas
    unless it meets Israeli-defined preconditions.
    That the American position vis-à-vis Iran
    is essentially the same as
    the Israeli one vis-à-vis Hamas
    raises the obvious question:
    is this a pure coincidence,
    or are much the same people calling the shots in each case?
    The case above,
    of the U.S. voting against the whole world on the issue of the U.N.’s budget,
    sheds light on this.
    Here we see the U.S. refusing to support a conference,
    otherwise approved by the whole world,
    purely because of Israel.
    It seems clear that Israel,
    and the American Jewish community which so slavishly support its policies,
    is opposed to any form of dialogue
    of which it does not totally control the agenda,
    and has the ability to ensure that Uncle Sam obeys its dictates.


U.N. Rights Investigator Expelled by Israel
New York Times, 2008-12-16

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]


Israeli authorities on Monday expelled Richard Falk,
a United Nations investigator of human rights in the Palestinian territories,
saying he was unwelcome because of
what the government has regarded as
his hostile position toward Israel.

Mr. Falk, an American, arrived in Israel on Sunday.
He was held at the airport and
placed on the first available flight back to Geneva, his point of departure.
A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that
Mr. Falk had been informed in advance that his entry would be barred.
Mr. Falk was not immediately available for comment.

Mr. Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton,
has the title of United Nations Human Rights Council
special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories.
He has long been criticized in Israel for
what many Israelis say are unfair and unpalatable views.

He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. Pointing to discrepancies between the official version of events and other versions, he recently wrote that “only willful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book.”

In his capacity as a United Nations investigator, Mr. Falk issued a statement this month describing Israel’s embargo on Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, as a crime against humanity, while making only cursory reference to Hamas’s rocket attacks against Israeli civilian centers. Israeli officials expressed outrage.

When his appointment was announced by the Human Rights Council last spring, the Israeli representative said it was “impossible to believe that out of a list of 184 potential candidates,” the members had made “the best possible choice for the post.”

The American and Canadian representatives also expressed concerns about Mr. Falk’s possible bias. The Palestinian representative said it was curious that Israel was “campaigning against a Jewish professor” and called the nomination “a victory for good sense and human rights.” Israel objects to the mandate of the special rapporteur on grounds that it ignores all human rights violations by Palestinians, either against Israelis or against other Palestinians. More specifically, it objects to Mr. Falk.

US and Israeli intervention led UN to reject Palestinian resolution
Binyamin Netanyahu and John Kerry called Goodluck Jonathan to ask Nigeria to abstain from crucial security council vote
by Peter Beaumont in Jerusalem
The Guardian (UK), 2014-12-31

The UN security council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years after Israel and the US crucially intervened to persuade Nigeria to abstain from voting.

Palestinian officials and other observers had thought Nigeria would back a Jordanian-tabled resolution, thereby delivering a nine-vote majority on the council which would have required a US veto to be blocked. Washington had been working strenuously to avoid having to use its veto.

Until shortly before the vote on Tuesday, council diplomats had expected the resolution to get nine yes votes. But Nigeria abstained, with its ambassador, U Joy Ogwu, echoing the US position in saying that the path to peace lay “in a negotiated solution”.

One Palestinian source involved in the negotiations told the Guardian: “Even half an hour before the vote, Nigeria indicated it was committed to voting for the resolution. We knew that Rwanda, South Korea and Australia would not back it, but we believed Nigeria was on board.”

The apparent change by Nigeria, which is a rotating member of the council, came after both the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the US secretary of state, John Kerry, phoned the country’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, to ask him not to support the resolution.

A State Department spokesman said on Tuesday that Kerry had called a number of senior foreign officials, including Jonathan, before the vote. Arriving at primary elections for leadership of his Likud party on Wednesday, Netanyahu confirmed he had spoken to both Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jonathan before the UN vote. “I spoke with both of them,” he told reporters. “They promised me personally that they would not support this decision and they stood by their words. That is what tipped the scales.”

Netanyahu had a private meeting with the Nigerian president – seen by Israel as a potential ally on the security council – during the latter’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem in October.

Only eight countries voted in favour of the resolution, with the US – which opposed the motion – not using the veto it is granted as one of the five permanent members of the council.

After the vote, the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, took a swipe at the European countries which backed the resolution. “The Palestinian disregard to the international community’s most important countries – particularly the US – stems from the backing they receive from certain European countries,” he said.

Palestinian and French officials indicated they would continue working to find a text to put to the council, perhaps within weeks.

Before the vote, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said the Palestinians could return to the security council, which, from Thursday, will have five new members who are viewed as more sympathetic to their cause.

The Palestinian leadership was due to meet on Wednesday evening to consider its response, including whether to apply immediately for membership of the international criminal court, a move the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has long been threatening to make.

However, despite the defeat for the Arab-supported campaign to gain security council backing for a move towards a Palestinian state, the vote held minimal comfort for Israel as it saw two European countries, France and Luxembourg, support the resolution. Only the US and Australia voted against it.

Palestinian officials had long believed the resolution was likely to be defeated by a US veto but had hoped to secure the nine votes to highlight what they argue is Washington’s partisan advocacy on behalf of Israel in the Middle East peace process.

The US, Israel’s closest ally, had made clear it opposed the set timetable in the draft resolution, insisting instead on a negotiated peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table,” the US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said.

[The simple fact is that
Israel has refused to offer to make those compromises
for the last 47 years, ever since the 1967 war.
The historical record is plain:
Israel has never offered to withdraw to the 1967 boundary,
which was only overrun by Israel's invasion of the West Bank.
It's a real shame that Power cannot recognize and acknowledge that reality.
More evidence of how America has become corrupted by Zionism,
corrupted into endless wars plotted by the Zionists.]


Labels: ,