Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...
Question: Recently, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution No. 2334, demanding the cessation of construction Israeli settlements behind the green line. 14 countries voted in favor of this resolution, with one abstention. It seems that the whole world is against Israel?
Answer: It has always been so. The whole world is always against it, since the time of the forefather, when the Jews left Ancient Babylon, and this split occurred: into the people of Israel and the rest of the world. From that moment on, there was hatred for Israel.
The point is that we must pass on the method of unification to all the people of Israel, and from them to the whole world. And this is what the world expects from us and desperately needs it. I really hope that next year we will really fulfill this mission.
Resolution No. 2334 is indicative of the fact that the whole world opposed us, no one supported us. All countries, all peoples of the world came out as a united front and unanimously adopted a resolution, uniting against Israel.
We have to think that maybe something is really wrong with us if all the nations, eight billion people, point at us with condemnation and say that we are behaving wrong, undesirable and have no right to be there.
Imagine what would happen if the UN proposed to vote for the existence of the State of Israel itself, as it once did 67 years ago? If there were a vote today on whether to let Israel continue to exist or not, the result would be just as negative. They would abolish our state.
And how would we exist after that? The UN would decide to completely cut ties with our country, and what would we do? AT modern world it is impossible to exist alone, such isolation will destroy the country even without any war. Therefore, we should take into account such a development of events as quite possible, and reveal the reason for the general hatred of Israel.
Why does everyone hate us so much? This hatred has accompanied the Jews for thousands of years. The great minds of mankind have searched for the cause of this hatred, and only gives the answer. The fact is that the Jews are obliged to unite the whole world, and until we do this, the world more and more unites in its hatred around us, not agreeing with our existence.
After all, we owe the world! Let's hope that in the future, in 2017, we will realize our duty and fulfill it in relation to the whole world. And then the whole world will calm down, and, as the prophets say, it will reach a beautiful, corrected state.
On December 23, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning the construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. 14 out of 15 members of the Security Council declared the construction and expansion of settlements a violation international law while the US, which traditionally blocks such resolutions against Israel, abstained.
Israel called the resolution a disgrace and threatened to take diplomatic action against the countries that allowed it to be passed and "United Nations institutions hostile to the Jewish state." Meduza explains what happened.
What are "Israeli settlements"?
it settlements in those Palestinian territories that came under Israeli control after the 1967 Six-Day War, that is, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Settlements have also been built in the Golan Heights, in the Sinai Peninsula and in the Gaza Strip (the latter were liquidated in 2005 under the Israeli unilateral disengagement plan).
Settlements began to emerge and continue to exist for a variety of reasons. The first were built for security reasons - after the 1967 war, many in Israel were waiting for a new attack. Part of the settlements arose for economic reasons: housing in Israel itself is very expensive. Among the settlers there are also radical religious activists who consider the occupied territories part of the Holy Land. Now in 140 settlements (some of them are quite small, others have the status of cities) about 500 thousand Israelis live.
Most UN countries consider the territories ceded to Israel after 1967 to be occupied, therefore, the deployment of the civilian population of the occupying country on them is contrary to the Geneva Convention. In 1979, this assessment was enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution No. 446. Israel defines the territories as disputed and supports the construction of settlements.
What is resolution 2334 about?
A new UN Security Council resolution states that Israeli settlements have no legal basis, lead to a change in the demographic composition of the population of the occupied territories and are a major obstacle to achieving peace in the Middle East. It demands that Israel stop all settlement activities. The resolution also enshrines the requirement to divide Israel within the pre-1967 borders and the occupied territories.
The resolution was put to a vote by the Egyptian delegation, but was soon withdrawn "under pressure from Israel and US President-elect Donald Trump." On 23 December, the text was brought up for discussion again at the initiative of New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal. 14 countries voted in support, including Russia. US Ambassador Samantha Power's decision not to use the veto was met with prolonged applause.
Why did the US abstain?
The United States traditionally considers Israel to be its key ally in the Middle East. Given that most UN countries are habitually anti-Israel, the American veto has played a key role in overcoming the diplomatic isolation of the Jewish state. Over the past 30-plus years, the United States has blocked resolutions condemning Israel in the UN Security Council more than 40 times, including in 2011, when a resolution very similar to the one adopted on December 23 was put to the vote.
This time, however, Washington chose to abstain - that is, in fact, allowed the Security Council to adopt resolution 2334. The administration of Barack Obama explained this decision by the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policy on settlements did not lead to any progress in the negotiation process. The resolution, according to a White House spokesman, "reflects the world community's views on Israeli settlements." According to US Secretary of State John Kerry, Washington "could not prevent the adoption of a resolution that calls on both sides to work for peace."
How did Israel and beyond react to the adoption of the resolution?
Majority governments Western countries welcomed the adoption of Resolution 2334, while in the United States a significant part of the establishment condemned it. In Israel, the resolution was called "shameful", the country's ambassador to the UN announced that "it's like forbidding the French to build in Paris."
Benjamin Netanyahu summoned to the Israeli Foreign Ministry the ambassadors of the states that voted for the adoption of the resolution, as well as the US ambassador. The Israeli ambassadors from New Zealand and Senegal were recalled. The Prime Minister also ordered a review of assistance programs for these states and cut funding for some UN institutions, which, according to him, are hostile towards Israel.
At the same time, not the entire population of Israel shares the position of the prime minister. The leftist and traditionally condemning settlement publication Haaretz published several texts claiming that by voting in favor of Resolution 2334, the world "attempted to save Israel from itself."
What will happen now?
The UN Security Council resolution does not imply any measures against Israel, including sanctions, in connection with which many claim its symbolic nature. Netanyahu has already announced that he does not intend to comply with the requirements of the resolution. Donald Trump tweeted that after January 20 (the date of his inauguration as President of the United States), "everything will change."
Yet the document may have a number of practical implications. For example, its adoption may affect the fate of the Palestinian complaint against Israel, which is now considered by the International Criminal Court. Israel is accused of committing war crimes during the operation in the Gaza Strip in 2014 and during the construction of settlements in 2015. Until now, the case was at the stage of preliminary consideration, but it is possible that now the ICC will reclassify it as a criminal proceeding.
Another shameful resolution of the UN Security Council was adopted just on the eve of the holiday of Hanukkah, symbolizing victory
light over darkness
The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, demanding that Israel stop building Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories that are considered occupied.
For the resolution prepared by Egypt, 14 members of the UN Security Council voted, only the US representative abstained.
Israel reacted angrily to the decision of the Security Council, and also lashed out at the administration of Barack Obama due to the fact that the United States did not use its veto power when voting on the resolution.
“The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel from this collusion at the UN, but also entered into it behind the scenes,” reads the text of a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, distributed by his press office.
The UN resolution calls for an "immediate and complete cessation of all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem."
Initially, the vote of the UN Security Council on the draft resolution was scheduled for Thursday, but a few hours before that, the Egyptian delegation, which submitted the document to the Security Council, postponed the vote. Later, four other members of the Security Council demanded that it be brought up for discussion on Friday.
The Israeli government refused to comply with the requirement of the resolution. "Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel UN resolution and will not abide by its requirements," the Israeli prime minister's office said in a statement. The statement also notes that Israel intends to work with President-elect Donald Trump to reverse the resolution.
In turn, Trump wrote on his Twitter page: “As for the UN, after January 20, everything will be different.” Earlier, Trump, who has repeatedly made statements in support of Israel, called for the outgoing administration to veto the resolution. On Thursday, he also held a telephone conversation with the President of Egypt, the details of this conversation were not disclosed.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that while the United States does not agree with all the points of the resolution, the document rightly condemns violence, incitement, and settlement activity and calls on both sides to take constructive steps to reverse current trends and move towards a solution based on a formula "two states for two peoples".
The United States, which has the power of veto permanent member Security Council, traditionally defended Israel from various condemning resolutions, invariably blocking the vote on them.
However, outgoing President Barack Obama and his administration have repeatedly made it clear that they object to the construction of Jewish settlements on lands that the UN considers occupied.
AP quotes a senior Israeli official as saying, "President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are behind this shameful move against Israel at the UN."
“The U.S. administration, on the sly, behind Israel’s back, concocted an anti-Israeli resolution with the Palestinians that will accelerate terror, boycott, and essentially give the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem the status of an occupied Palestinian territory,” continued the official, whose name was not released.
“President Obama could instantly express his desire to veto this document, but instead he is pushing it. This means that the United States has abandoned Israel, although for many decades it has been pursuing a policy of protecting it at the UN. This move also nullifies all prospects of working together with the next administration in promoting peace, ”concluded the agency interlocutor.
Later, a representative of the Obama administration said that Washington had nothing to do with the creation or promotion of the resolution, and also indicated that the United States did not share with any of the members of the Security Council how the American side was going to vote.
The fact that the US representative to the UN Samantha Power will abstain from the vote, the American media have been writing since the beginning of the week. Power herself said that the White House's position on settlements has not changed since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, and the current vote is fully consistent with it.
When the situation with the similar position of the Obama administration began to clear up, senators came out in support of Israel. For example, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham threatened the UN that the United States would cut its financial support if the organization passed this, as he put it, "fever resolution."
And future Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who will take office in January, has urged the Obama administration to exercise its veto power, saying that "a UN with only one side is not the right condition for peace."
... And at that time the sons of Ishmael will awake together with all the peoples of the world to go to Jerusalem, as it is said (3 Zechariah, 14: 1): "And I will gather all the nations to war against Jerusalem" ...
3oar, Bereshit, 119
So - it happened. The UN Security Council adopted another anti-Semite resolution.
Accepted because the US, at the behest of outgoing President Obama, did not veto it. Abstained.
Dramatic events preceded the adoption of Resolution 2334, condemning Israeli settlement activities in Judea and Samaria and requiring Israel to return "to the borders of Auschwitz".
Resolution 2334 (2016), adopted by the Council Security at its 7853rd meeting December 23, 2016 December 27th, 2016
Resolution 2334 (2016) adopted by the UN Security Council
at its 7853rd meeting on 23 December 2016
Resolution 2334 (2016) adopted by the Security Council at its 7853rd meeting on 23 December 2016
Security Council,
Reaffirming their respective resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 ( 2003) and 1850 (2008), Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming in particular the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Reaffirming the duty of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply scrupulously with its legal obligations and obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 9 July 2004,
Condemning all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the building and expansion of settlements, the displacement of Israeli settlers, the confiscation of land, the demolition of houses and the relocation of Palestinian civilians persons, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
Expressing grave concern that Israel's continued settlement activity seriously endangers the viability of the two-State principle based on the 1967 lines,
Recalling that, in accordance with the Quartet's road map, approved in its resolution 1515 (2003), Israel is obligated to freeze all its settlement activities, including "natural growth", and to dismantle all "forward settlements" established after March 2001 ,
Recalling also that, under the Quartet road map, the Palestinian Authority security forces are required to continue to implement effective action to counter all those who are involved in terror, and
neutralizing the capabilities of terrorists, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,
Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,
Reaffirming their vision of the region as a place where two democracies, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Emphasizing that the current situation is not sustainable and that serious steps must be taken urgently, consistent with the transitional arrangements envisaged in previous agreements,
so as to
i) stabilize the situation and reverse the negative trends on the ground that consistently undermine the viability of the two-state principle and perpetuate the reality of only one state, and ii) create conditions for successful final status negotiations and for moving towards a settlement in
in accordance with the principle of two-state coexistence within the framework of these negotiations and on the ground,
1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, is null and void and a flagrant violation of international law and one of the main obstacles to the achievement of a two-State settlement, and establishing a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
2. Demands again that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and fully comply with all its legal obligations in this regard;
3. Emphasizes that it will not accept any changes to the lines in force as of 4 June 1967, including with respect to Jerusalem, except those which are agreed by the parties through negotiations;
4. Emphasizes that the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activity is a necessary condition for maintaining the possibility of a two-State solution, and calls for immediate positive steps to be taken to reverse the negative trends on the ground that jeopardize the possibility of a two-State solution with the principle of coexistence of two states;
5. Calls upon all States to, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, distinguish, within the framework of their respective relationships, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;
6. Calls for immediate steps to be taken to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for respect for obligations under international law in order to strengthen ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including on the basis of existing security coordination mechanisms, and unequivocally condemn all terrorist acts;
7. Calls on both parties to act in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and commitments, exercise calm and restraint and refrain from provocative actions, incitement and belligerent rhetoric, in order, inter alia, to reduce tensions in places, to restore confidence, to demonstrate, both in their policies and in their actions, a genuine commitment to a two-State solution, and to create the conditions necessary to move towards peace;
8. Calls upon all parties to continue to make collective efforts to promote credible negotiations on all final status issues in the framework of the Middle East peace process and within the time frame agreed by the Quartet in its statement dated September 21, 2010;
9. Urges, in this regard, the intensification and intensification of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at the immediate achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, the Madrid Mandate, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet's road map and the end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and stresses, in this regard, the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the French initiative to convene an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as
the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;
10. Reaffirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of the relevant agreement;
11. Reaffirms its determination to explore practical ways and means to ensure the full implementation of its respective resolutions;
12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of this resolution;
13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
