In a break with all recent practice at the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power Friday merely abstained on a U.N. Security Council Resolution critical of Israel’s so-called “settlements’. Thus the Resolution—for which the other 14 Council members voted—was allowed to pass. This was in contrast to a previous Resolution in February 2011—similar but not identical, and narrower in focus—which drew from then-Ambassador Susan Rice the only veto cast at the U.N. in the whole eight years of the Obama Administration.
The issue had been “hanging fire” in the Security Council for quite some time. There was even talk of such an effort nearly three months ago, during the time of “General Debate”, in the first days of the 71st Session of the General Assembly in September. This was one of two “threats” hanging over Israel, the other being French efforts to convene some sort of Middle East Peace Conference in Paris, now said to be scheduled for January 15th.
Then came the whole issue of what has come to be known as the “Regulation Bill” or “Legalization Bill”, which would retroactively legalize towns and “outposts” never previously approved by the Israeli authorities. In particular, it would apply to the outpost know as Amona, which has been ordered by the Courts to be evacuated by 25 December. This has been widely criticized—in Israel as well as abroad—as it was “established” on what is said to be privately-owned Palestinian land.
The connection with this Bill is instructive, as it was cited by one or more speakers at Friday’s Security Council session. As such, the Bill may well have been—if certainly not the sole cause—at least a major impetus for the Resolution at this time. It provides certain protections for residents of communities “whose establishment the government was involved in” (This would appear to preclude so-called “outposts”.)
(1)
Amona, however, is such an “outpost”, and has been ordered to be evacuated. All this was conveniently ignored by the Security Council. At
this writing, the status of Amona is uncertain: As of 13 December, there appeared to have been a “deal” to evacuate the residents to one or two nearby locations (assumed not to be on private Palestinian land), but this does not necessarily seem to have been the very last word, as the case is still in the courts. Concurrently, the proposed Bill was the object of “concern” expressed by the U.N.’s High Commissioner of Human Rights, Prince Zeid bin Raad al-Hussein. Prince Zeid, who has been High Commissioner for several years, is well known to this correspondent for nearly a decade. A member of Jordan’s Royal family, he is a reasoned, rational (even soft-spoken) professional diplomat.
It was in the light of these events that the Resolution—which was said to have been “kicking around” the U.N. for some time—was formally introduced. Meanwhile, the Legalization Bill is going through the ponderous parliamentary process of readings, votes, re-readings, and re-votes, on its path to final passage or defeat.
On Thursday, 22 December, the Permanent Mission of Malaysia held a luncheon reception, to mark the end of its two-year term as a Non-Permanent Member of the Security Council. As it happened, most of the major players in what would be the coming vote and drama were there, and this correspondent took the occasion to speak to them with regard to the issue. It should be noted that at that moment, the afternoon meeting of the Council had just been postponed, “until further notice”. So it was not known if the meeting would be held later that day, on Friday, after the Christmas holiday, or at all. I spoke personally to the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Ramon Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain. He was—at that point—as much in the dark as anyone, and just a trifle shell-shocked at the sudden postponement that had been thrust upon him.
(2)
I had occasion to speak also with Ambassador Power of the U.S. While the [then-unknown] time of the Meeting was the important detail, the question of the hour was whether the U.S. would veto the Resolution or merely abstain…which would permit the Resolution to pass. I asked her if she could give me even a little hint of her intended action. She said simply “I can’t”.
I also spoke to my host, Ambassador Ramlan Bin Ibrahim of Malaysia. He [not unexpectedly] made it very clear that he was behind the Resolution—whenever it might be put to a vote. And I pointedly asked Ambassador Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian “Observer”, whether he thought the U.S. would veto. He replied simply “I hope not”.
At this point, some supposed background details emerged, of efforts by the Trump transition team to dissuade the Egyptians (who had been sponsors of the Resolution) to withdraw it. Trump—so the story went—had “leaned” on President al-Sisi of Egypt, and persuaded him to withdraw the Resolution. This reporter has been unable (despite repeated reports to that effect) to verify these exact details with the Transition office, but did obtain the very brief statement issued by them and datelined from Palm Beach:
“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council
regarding Israel should be vetoed.
As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis
and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between
the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations.
This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely
unfair to all Israelis”.
And so it stood, as of late afternoon on Thursday, 22 December. It appeared that Israel had dodged a bullet and been saved—possibly permanently, or at least until after the weekend. One Israeli source, quoted in the Times of Israel, even went so far as to say that “Trump
(3)
saved Israel from diplomatic ‘hit’ by Obama—a reference to the above alleged Trump—Sisi connection. Another source quoted in the same publication gave the first hint that “[The] U.S. was planning to abstain…”. But other forces were already at work. New Zealand, with the help of Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, decided to re-introduce the very same Resolution--to be put to a vote directly after meetings on several African crises—early Monday afternoon. When asked for the status of this effort, French Ambassador Francois Delattre said simply “You should ask those who are about to do it”.
The Resolution, as finally passed, was supported by all 14 Security Council members other than the United States, who abstained. Since this was not a veto, the U.S. abstention allowed the Resolution to pass.
The Resolution as passed (Security Council Resolution #2334, 12/23/16) is aimed primarily at halting Israeli activity in its so-called “settlements”. It does mention the Palestinians’ obligation to effectively confront all those engaged in terrorism, and it does condemn all acts of violence—by whomever committed—against civilians. It does acknowledge the “two-state solution” as the ultimate objective. And it does permit changes in the June 4, 1967 lines (on the eve of the Six-Day War, which are actually the 1949 Armistice lines), if “agreed by the parties through negotiations”. But its primary, overwhelming thrust is the cessation of all Israeli “settlement activity” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the expansion thereof.
After the vote—which actually took just a few minutes, with a vote by show of hands—all Council Members and other interested parties made statements, “in explanation of vote”. All but one of the Council members (Ukraine) spoke, to be followed by Ambassador Danny Danon of Israel, and Dr. Riyad Mansour, Ambassador/Observer of the “State of Palestine”.
Speaking first, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told of how President Ronald Reagan had advocated a so-called “settlement freeze”, nearly
(4)
three and one-half decades ago (A 10-month “freeze” was, in fact instituted in 2009, but yielded no results…or even any effort at negotiation on the part of the Palestinians.). The U.S. has opposed any further settlement activity by Israel, she said, since the time of President Lyndon Johnson, who was in office at the time of the Six-Day War in 1967. This policy has been consistent since then, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. She did mention the repeated U.N. hostility toward Israel (cited by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, just a few days before). And she even reminded the Council of the virulent and notorious “Zionism is Racism” Resolution, which was official U.N. policy by a vote of the General Assembly, from 1975 until its overwhelming repeal in 1991 (at which this reporter was present). It was because of this repeated bias that the U.S. had decided to abstain, rather that vote in favor of the measure. But the overwhelming thrust and effect of Resolution 2334 was for Israel to stop all “settlement activity”, in all “occupied territory”, including all parts of “East” Jerusalem conquered in 1967. Thus, this would apply to the Western Wall and its plaza and the Har Ha-Bayit (Temple Mount), and the entire Old City and beyond…but not, of course to the Hadassah-Hebrew University enclave on Mount Scopus, which was occupied as Israeli territory since 1948 (with periodic U.N.-escorted supply convoys).
The other Council members (save for Ukraine) all spoke after the vote, in their turns. Somewhat incredulously, they all asserted that this Resolution showed the way to peace(!), and that it and it alone was the only possible method to achieve the Two-State Solution, which they all claimed to support. After the Council Session, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a Statement, welcoming the passage of the Resolution, and expressing hope that it would “…create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations”.
Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon began on a somber note: Saying that it was a “dark day for this Council”, and warning that the Council had voted “no to negotiations”, “no to progress”, and “no to the possibility of peace”. Noting the approach of Chanuka, he told how the
Jewish people had restored their Temple on this Feast of Dedication.
(5)
Holding up a one-volume TaNach, he said “This holy book, the bible, contains three thousand years of history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel. No one. No one, can change or rewrite this history”.
The Palestinian Ambassador/Observer, Riyad Mansour, was the last of the interested parties to speak. In a longer and somewhat rambling address, he thanked the Council and the Resolution’s sponsors. He told how, in his words, “…the only bias taking place is that against the law”, and “the only bashing is being done by Israel”. He described the Resolution as a “necessary step” toward curing this “70-year open wound”. He claimed to favor an “…independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and with secure and recognized borders”.
The passage of the Resolution predictably unleashed a torrent of both compliment and criticism—some of the latter quite virulent. Arab nations and other supporters praised it, and clearly see it as the way forward. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called in the Ambassadors of the Resolution’s supporting states, as well as U.S. Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, for discussions and—no doubt—expressions of extreme displeasure. Accusations have been made—and categorically denied—that the U.S. conspired with the Palestinians to push the Resolution.
In the last analysis, what is the whole “settlements” issue really and truly about? It is about the administration and disposition of territory acquired by force of arms. Israel has made clear from the start that it is willing to trade “land for peace”. And the whole world, essentially, knows that there will be some communities kept, and others vacated by Israel. The so-called “settlements” are said to be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which speaks of “Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”. This correspondent is not an authority on the Laws of War. But I do have an historical memory: Where was the concern for “occupation” and “settlements”, after the Turkish conquest of Northern Cyprus in 1974? Where was the concern for those “Civilian Persons” massacred and “ethnically cleansed” in various locales in the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s? Where is the concern for the
(6)
Georgians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Where is the concern for the
Ukrainians (to say nothing of the Crimean Tatars) caught in the annexation of the Crimea? Once again, yet again, WHY is Israel singled out?
_________________________________
© Copyright 2016 George Alan Baumgarten
Inside the United Nations: The Full Story of the U.S. Abstention in the
Security Council
George Baumgarten, United Nations Correspondent
In a break with all recent practice at the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power Friday merely abstained on a U.N. Security Council Resolution critical of Israel’s so-called “settlements’. Thus the Resolution—for which the other 14 Council members voted—was allowed to pass. This was in contrast to a previous Resolution in February 2011—similar but not identical, and narrower in focus—which drew from then-Ambassador Susan Rice the only veto cast at the U.N. in the whole eight years of the Obama Administration.
The issue had been “hanging fire” in the Security Council for quite some time. There was even talk of such an effort nearly three months ago, during the time of “General Debate”, in the first days of the 71st Session of the General Assembly in September. This was one of two “threats” hanging over Israel, the other being French efforts to convene some sort of Middle East Peace Conference in Paris, now said to be scheduled for January 15th.
Then came the whole issue of what has come to be known as the “Regulation Bill” or “Legalization Bill”, which would retroactively legalize towns and “outposts” never previously approved by the Israeli authorities. In particular, it would apply to the outpost know as Amona, which has been ordered by the Courts to be evacuated by 25 December. This has been widely criticized—in Israel as well as abroad—as it was “established” on what is said to be privately-owned Palestinian land.
The connection with this Bill is instructive, as it was cited by one or more speakers at Friday’s Security Council session. As such, the Bill may well have been—if certainly not the sole cause—at least a major impetus for the Resolution at this time. It provides certain protections for residents of communities “whose establishment the government was involved in” (This would appear to preclude so-called “outposts”.)
(1)
Amona, however, is such an “outpost”, and has been ordered to be evacuated. All this was conveniently ignored by the Security Council. At
this writing, the status of Amona is uncertain: As of 13 December, there appeared to have been a “deal” to evacuate the residents to one or two nearby locations (assumed not to be on private Palestinian land), but this does not necessarily seem to have been the very last word, as the case is still in the courts. Concurrently, the proposed Bill was the object of “concern” expressed by the U.N.’s High Commissioner of Human Rights, Prince Zeid bin Raad al-Hussein. Prince Zeid, who has been High Commissioner for several years, is well known to this correspondent for nearly a decade. A member of Jordan’s Royal family, he is a reasoned, rational (even soft-spoken) professional diplomat.
It was in the light of these events that the Resolution—which was said to have been “kicking around” the U.N. for some time—was formally introduced. Meanwhile, the Legalization Bill is going through the ponderous parliamentary process of readings, votes, re-readings, and re-votes, on its path to final passage or defeat.
On Thursday, 22 December, the Permanent Mission of Malaysia held a luncheon reception, to mark the end of its two-year term as a Non-Permanent Member of the Security Council. As it happened, most of the major players in what would be the coming vote and drama were there, and this correspondent took the occasion to speak to them with regard to the issue. It should be noted that at that moment, the afternoon meeting of the Council had just been postponed, “until further notice”. So it was not known if the meeting would be held later that day, on Friday, after the Christmas holiday, or at all. I spoke personally to the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Ramon Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain. He was—at that point—as much in the dark as anyone, and just a trifle shell-shocked at the sudden postponement that had been thrust upon him.
(2)
I had occasion to speak also with Ambassador Power of the U.S. While the [then-unknown] time of the Meeting was the important detail, the question of the hour was whether the U.S. would veto the Resolution or merely abstain…which would permit the Resolution to pass. I asked her if she could give me even a little hint of her intended action. She said simply “I can’t”.
I also spoke to my host, Ambassador Ramlan Bin Ibrahim of Malaysia. He [not unexpectedly] made it very clear that he was behind the Resolution—whenever it might be put to a vote. And I pointedly asked Ambassador Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian “Observer”, whether he thought the U.S. would veto. He replied simply “I hope not”.
At this point, some supposed background details emerged, of efforts by the Trump transition team to dissuade the Egyptians (who had been sponsors of the Resolution) to withdraw it. Trump—so the story went—had “leaned” on President al-Sisi of Egypt, and persuaded him to withdraw the Resolution. This reporter has been unable (despite repeated reports to that effect) to verify these exact details with the Transition office, but did obtain the very brief statement issued by them and datelined from Palm Beach:
“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council
regarding Israel should be vetoed.
As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis
and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between
the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations.
This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely
unfair to all Israelis”.
And so it stood, as of late afternoon on Thursday, 22 December. It appeared that Israel had dodged a bullet and been saved—possibly permanently, or at least until after the weekend. One Israeli source, quoted in the Times of Israel, even went so far as to say that “Trump
(3)
saved Israel from diplomatic ‘hit’ by Obama—a reference to the above alleged Trump—Sisi connection. Another source quoted in the same publication gave the first hint that “[The] U.S. was planning to abstain…”. But other forces were already at work. New Zealand, with the help of Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela, decided to re-introduce the very same Resolution--to be put to a vote directly after meetings on several African crises—early Monday afternoon. When asked for the status of this effort, French Ambassador Francois Delattre said simply “You should ask those who are about to do it”.
The Resolution, as finally passed, was supported by all 14 Security Council members other than the United States, who abstained. Since this was not a veto, the U.S. abstention allowed the Resolution to pass.
The Resolution as passed (Security Council Resolution #2334, 12/23/16) is aimed primarily at halting Israeli activity in its so-called “settlements”. It does mention the Palestinians’ obligation to effectively confront all those engaged in terrorism, and it does condemn all acts of violence—by whomever committed—against civilians. It does acknowledge the “two-state solution” as the ultimate objective. And it does permit changes in the June 4, 1967 lines (on the eve of the Six-Day War, which are actually the 1949 Armistice lines), if “agreed by the parties through negotiations”. But its primary, overwhelming thrust is the cessation of all Israeli “settlement activity” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the expansion thereof.
After the vote—which actually took just a few minutes, with a vote by show of hands—all Council Members and other interested parties made statements, “in explanation of vote”. All but one of the Council members (Ukraine) spoke, to be followed by Ambassador Danny Danon of Israel, and Dr. Riyad Mansour, Ambassador/Observer of the “State of Palestine”.
Speaking first, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told of how President Ronald Reagan had advocated a so-called “settlement freeze”, nearly
(4)
three and one-half decades ago (A 10-month “freeze” was, in fact instituted in 2009, but yielded no results…or even any effort at negotiation on the part of the Palestinians.). The U.S. has opposed any further settlement activity by Israel, she said, since the time of President Lyndon Johnson, who was in office at the time of the Six-Day War in 1967. This policy has been consistent since then, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. She did mention the repeated U.N. hostility toward Israel (cited by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, just a few days before). And she even reminded the Council of the virulent and notorious “Zionism is Racism” Resolution, which was official U.N. policy by a vote of the General Assembly, from 1975 until its overwhelming repeal in 1991 (at which this reporter was present). It was because of this repeated bias that the U.S. had decided to abstain, rather that vote in favor of the measure. But the overwhelming thrust and effect of Resolution 2334 was for Israel to stop all “settlement activity”, in all “occupied territory”, including all parts of “East” Jerusalem conquered in 1967. Thus, this would apply to the Western Wall and its plaza and the Har Ha-Bayit (Temple Mount), and the entire Old City and beyond…but not, of course to the Hadassah-Hebrew University enclave on Mount Scopus, which was occupied as Israeli territory since 1948 (with periodic U.N.-escorted supply convoys).
The other Council members (save for Ukraine) all spoke after the vote, in their turns. Somewhat incredulously, they all asserted that this Resolution showed the way to peace(!), and that it and it alone was the only possible method to achieve the Two-State Solution, which they all claimed to support. After the Council Session, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a Statement, welcoming the passage of the Resolution, and expressing hope that it would “…create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations”.
Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon began on a somber note: Saying that it was a “dark day for this Council”, and warning that the Council had voted “no to negotiations”, “no to progress”, and “no to the possibility of peace”. Noting the approach of Chanuka, he told how the
Jewish people had restored their Temple on this Feast of Dedication.
(5)
Holding up a one-volume TaNach, he said “This holy book, the bible, contains three thousand years of history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel. No one. No one, can change or rewrite this history”.
The Palestinian Ambassador/Observer, Riyad Mansour, was the last of the interested parties to speak. In a longer and somewhat rambling address, he thanked the Council and the Resolution’s sponsors. He told how, in his words, “…the only bias taking place is that against the law”, and “the only bashing is being done by Israel”. He described the Resolution as a “necessary step” toward curing this “70-year open wound”. He claimed to favor an “…independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and with secure and recognized borders”.
The passage of the Resolution predictably unleashed a torrent of both compliment and criticism—some of the latter quite virulent. Arab nations and other supporters praised it, and clearly see it as the way forward. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called in the Ambassadors of the Resolution’s supporting states, as well as U.S. Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, for discussions and—no doubt—expressions of extreme displeasure. Accusations have been made—and categorically denied—that the U.S. conspired with the Palestinians to push the Resolution.
In the last analysis, what is the whole “settlements” issue really and truly about? It is about the administration and disposition of territory acquired by force of arms. Israel has made clear from the start that it is willing to trade “land for peace”. And the whole world, essentially, knows that there will be some communities kept, and others vacated by Israel. The so-called “settlements” are said to be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which speaks of “Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”. This correspondent is not an authority on the Laws of War. But I do have an historical memory: Where was the concern for “occupation” and “settlements”, after the Turkish conquest of Northern Cyprus in 1974? Where was the concern for those “Civilian Persons” massacred and “ethnically cleansed” in various locales in the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s? Where is the concern for the
(6)
Georgians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Where is the concern for the
Ukrainians (to say nothing of the Crimean Tatars) caught in the annexation of the Crimea? Once again, yet again, WHY is Israel singled out?
_________________________________
© Copyright 2016 George Alan Baumgarten
Email
Share
RSS
