Scandalous anti-Israeli resolution: What you need to know about the document of contention. UN resolution against Israeli settlements

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 the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, is null and void and a flagrant violation international law and one of the main obstacles to achieving a two-state settlement and 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.

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 right of veto as a permanent member of the Security Council, has traditionally protected 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".

The report provides a rationale for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016.

The arguments given in the work provide grounds for exposing the inconsistency of almost all resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in relation to Israel.

The international legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence presented in the report activates the collapse of the entire anti-Israeli UN dossier.

Abbreviations adopted in the report:

Charter - UN Charter

Sat - United Nations Security Council

GA - United Nations General Assembly

A striking example of hostility towards Israel was the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016, the content of which is aimed at damaging the security of the State of Israel.

This decision was condemned by a number of authoritative politicians, including the current US President Donald Trump. But despite this, today it continues to remain in force, and on its basis the next anti-Israeli attacks are being prepared.

Of particular concern is the absence of a legal mechanism to overturn such a resolution. Any initiative aimed at the adoption of a new resolution ( repealing Resolution 2334), is predictably blocked in the UN Security Council.

The current foreign policy situation requires the search for a non-standard solution that can break the growing negative.

Submitted report contains a solution, the implementation of which will not only completely nullify the entire anti-Israeli “legacy” of the UN, but also initiate a review of other UN decisions by states whose interests have been infringed in any way in this organization.

The report provides a justification for the illegality of UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334. The arguments given in the work provide grounds for exposing almost all Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to Israel as invalid.

The international legal formalization and further implementation of the facts and evidence presented in the report activates the collapse of the entire anti-Israeli UN dossier. The given justification of the illegality of the decisions of the Security Council, according to the domino principle, will also launch the process of delegitimization of the anti-Israeli resolutions of the General Assembly, which in most cases were adopted based on previously adopted documents of the Security Council.

The idea proposed in the report will undoubtedly receive political development. The shown mechanism of delegitimization of Security Council resolutions will undoubtedly be of interest to other states experiencing bias on the part of the UN. And this process will only grow.

Grounds for the illegality of the UN Security Council Resolution

UN Security Council Resolution No. 2334 of December 23, 2016 is obviously illegal, since its adoption was carried out in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter.

The requirements of the UN Charter are such that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only if all five parties voted for its adoption. permanent members Sat.

If at least one of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained from voting (as well as voted against or was absent from the meeting), then regardless of the number of votes cast for the resolution by non-permanent members of the Security Council, the adoption of such a resolution becomes impossible.

However, the Security Council announced its adoption. This happened because for many years the Security Council has been interpreting the conditions for the adoption of resolutions in its own way, and bases such an illegal interpretation on a norm distorted as a result of an official forgery.

This practice of SB has been going on for decades and has already become a kind of “established tradition”. Now, when it has begun to go beyond what is permitted, it must be stopped, and all the anti-Israeli legacy of the UN accumulated as a result of such activities should be delegitimized and collapsed.

The origins of the illegality of the UNSC Resolution

About half of all UN Security Council resolutions are invalid from the moment they are adopted.

At any time and any state may refuse to comply with the decisions of the Security Council, due to their inconsistency with the UN Charter.

It is immediately necessary to clarify that the justification for the illegality of the above-mentioned resolutions can only be carried out on the basis of the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the UN Charter, which are authentic among themselves, as well as with the English text.

The inconsistency and nullity of these resolutions comes from the results of voting on them in the Security Council, the results of which do not meet the conditions applicable to the adoption of such decisions.

Usage English text is not possible, since it has a very significant discrepancy with other texts of the UN Charter. Particularly alarming is the fact that such a discrepancy is present precisely in that article of the UN Charter, the content of which was called the basis, the foundation of the UN, and its inclusion in the UN Charter was preceded by colossal expert and explanatory work.

With such close attention to the content of the article on the part of the organizers of the San Francisco Conference of 1945, it is unlikely that the error could be the result of the negligence of the performers.

A comparison of Article 27 of the UN Charter in all four texts shows that Article 27, paragraph 3 of the English text does not contain the word "all". While in texts in other languages ​​this word is present.

In the Russian, French and Spanish texts of the Charter, the phrase in paragraph 3 of Article 27 has the following meaning - “ including matching votes all permanent members of the Security Council”, in the English text, due to the absence of the word “all”, the phrase takes on a different meaning - “ including concurrent votes of permanent members”, that is, not all permanent members, but, for example, two.

It is important to note that in other articles of the English text of the UN Charter (which will be discussed below), where the drafters obviously really needed all the permanent members of the Security Council to be understood by a certain phrase, the word "all" (all) is present and completely coincides with the texts UN Charter in other languages.

Whether there was an official forgery, and also why paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter should contain the word “all” (“all”) and what meaning was put into this article when forming the UN Charter, during the San Francisco Peace Conference of 1945 year, will become clear in the process of familiarization with this Report.

It should be pointed out that the discrepancy in the English text with the texts of the Charter in other languages ​​does not in the least complicate the process of exposing the illegality of a number of Security Council resolutions. Since, in accordance with Article 111 of the Charter, all its texts are authentic among themselves, the evidence will be given on the basis of French, Russian and Spanish texts.

Any attempts by the opponents to assert the priority of the English text of the Charter over texts in other languages ​​will be obviously null and void.

Conditions giving grounds to consider the UN Security Council resolution adopted

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter, a decision of the Security Council (with the exception of procedural matters) is considered adopted if nine members of the Council, including Council.

It is very important to pay attention to the phrase " concurring votes of all permanent members ”, since it is the key in this norm, and it is it that determines the main condition, the observance of which gives the Security Council the right to consider that the resolution has been adopted.

First, a minimum of nine votes of members of the Council.

Second, of these nine votes, five votes must be from the permanent members of the Security Council and, as stated in the UN Charter, the votes of these permanent members must be " coinciding". That is, all five permanent members of the Security Council must participate in the vote and all five must vote for the resolution.

But despite the requirement clearly formulated by the UN Charter, the Security Council interprets this rule in its own way.

Under such circumstances, it is not particularly surprising that there is a discrepancy in the texts of the UN Charter in this particular article.

The interpretation of the Security Council is illegal and absurd for two reasons, and all of these reasons are set out in the UN Charter.

Firstly, if the UN Charter implied that when voting in the Security Council, only the positions of the permanent members participating in the voting were taken into account, then its norms would unequivocally state this, just as it was done in relation to the GA.

Thus, Article 18 of the UN Charter, which describes the procedure for voting in the GA, clearly indicates another option for making decisions based on the results of voting, namely, not the total number of GA members is taken as the basis for the calculation, but only “ present and voting ».

With regard to the decisions of the Security Council, such a procedure is not established in the UN Charter, but it is clearly stated that when voting, the votes of all permanent members of the Security Council must coincide.

Secondly, what is under the phrase " all permanent members ” all five permanent members of the Security Council are meant (and not just those participating in the vote), proves the norm set forth in Chapter 13 of the UN Charter.

Article 108 states that " amendments to this Statute shall come into force for all Members of the Organization when they are accepted by two-thirds of the votes of the Members General Assembly and ratified, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two thirds of the Members of the Organization, ».

Also, paragraph 2 of Article 109 states, “ any amendment to these Statutes recommended by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Conference shall come into force upon ratification, in accordance with their constitutional procedure, by two-thirds of the Members of the Organization, including ».

In their content, Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter have a similar context. They explain the role of the permanent members of the Security Council in procedures requiring their participation in voting. Article 27 describes the actions of permanent members when voting in the Security Council, and articles 108 and 109 outline the role of permanent members in voting in the General Assembly when amending the UN Charter.

In all these articles (27, 108 and 109) there is the phrase " all permanent members of the Security Council ”, which, being in the text of one normative act, can have only one, the only meaning that applies to all articles of the document.

In Articles 108 and 109, under the phrase " all permanent members of the Security Council » refers to all five permanent members. This was clearly demonstrated during the activities aimed at amending the UN Charter.

On December 17, 1963, the GA adopted Resolution No. 1991, which amended Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the UN Charter. The voting results showed that of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only China supported these changes, the USSR and France voted against, while the United States and Great Britain abstained.

However, despite the fact that only one permanent member of the Security Council supported the changes introduced by the resolution, in order for these amendments to come into force, the UN had to wait until all five permanent members ratify these changes. That is, to wait until the conditions set out in Articles 108 and 109 are met, namely, when the ratification of " all permanent members of the Security Council ».

Despite the fact that two-thirds of ratifications have been accumulated, the changes to the UN Charter did not enter into force until the day when the United States, the last of the five permanent members of the Security Council, ratified these amendments.

By the described fact, while amending its Charter, the UN confirmed that the phrase " including all permanent members of the Security Council » , means only all five permanent members.

If this phrase had a different interpretation, for example, the one to which the Security Council illegally subjects paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter (it does not mean all five permanent members, but only the permanent members who voted “FOR”), then the UN would not need ratification of the amendments by abstaining permanent members of the Security Council - the United States and Great Britain. After all, it is the votes of the abstaining permanent members that are excluded from the concept of " all permanent members» when voting in the Security Council.

In order to definitively expose the illegality and absurdity of the Security Council's interpretation of paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter, one simply needs to compare the context of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter.

Having studied the comparative table, there is no doubt that the phrase “ including all permanent members of the Security Council" in its meaning, absolutely no different from the phrase " including matching votes all permanent members of the Council" written in Article 27 of the UN Charter.

But even against the background of such objective disarming evidence, the Security Council continues to interpret the same phrase in the articles of one normative act in different ways.

Perhaps the phrase “coinciding votes” found in Article 27 and absent from Articles 108 and 109 gives the Security Council some basis?

But here, too, legal and historical documents leave no opportunity for the Security Council to substantiate their illegal interpretation of the Charter.

What meaning and significance was invested in paragraph 3 of Article 27 when signing the UN Charter is clearly seen in the content of the documents of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco, held from April 25 to June 26, 1945, as a result of which the UN was created.

June 7, 1945, within the framework of the work of the Conference, was published Statement by the Delegations of the Four Inviting Governments on the Procedures for Voting in the Security Council (Statement). The content of this Statement formed the so-called "Yalta voting formula in the Security Council" and was included in Article 27 of the UN Charter.

This Statement was prepared by the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and China, for all other states-founders of the UN. It was an official commentary on the content and meaning of Article 27 of the UN Charter.

This document finally clarifies and proves that a Security Council resolution can be considered adopted only when all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for its adoption.

In the very first paragraph of this Statement, after a description of what should be understood by the first group of decisions, there should be an explanation of the procedure for voting in the Security Council, which is necessary for making such decisions.

In paragraph 1 of this document, it is written: « The Yalta formula provides that the first group of decisions will be taken by a qualified vote, that is, the votes of seven members , including the concurring votes of the five permanent members ».

Comparing this clarification with the language on voting set out in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter ...

... there is no doubt that in 1945, while developing Article 27 of the UN Charter, the phrase " including the concurring votes of all permanent members ”, the founding states understood it as it is set out in paragraph 1 of the Declaration, that is, “ including the concurring votes of the five permanent members».

Finally, such a statement is proved by paragraph 9 of the Statement, which specifies the content of the wording set out in paragraph 1. It says:

«… in order to enable majority decisions by the Security Council, the only practical method would be to provide for non-procedural decisions plus concurring votes of at least two non-permanent members.”

That is, this paragraph, developing the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Statement, confirms that the phrase " concurring votes of the five permanent members" stands for " unanimity of permanent members ».

Therefore, any non-procedural decision of the UN Security Council can be taken only on the condition that for its adoption all five permanent members will vote unanimously.

The UN Charter provides and this was explained in the Statement) only the only case when a permanent member who abstained from voting in the Security Council does not violate the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council.

This option is allowed when a permanent member of the Security Council is itself a party to the dispute on which the decision is made. To abstain from voting becomes his responsibility.

In all other cases, for a resolution to be passed, the vote must be unanimous ( i.e. all five) permanent members.

The former state of affairs will no longer be

The international legal formalization and subsequent implementation of the arguments set forth in the report will predictably give rise to a statement in the Security Council about the seventy-year practice of applying the existing procedure for adopting resolutions. In order to maintain the status quo, the parties concerned will hasten to invent arguments about the "uniqueness and immutability" of the existing "traditions" in the activities of the Security Council.

But the selected facts and the evidence presented will not only block such arguments, but will also put the Security Council in a “zugzwang” position, that is, in a situation where any of its actions aimed at justifying the ongoing arbitrariness will lead to a deterioration in its current positions.

The UN Charter is international treaty. And as mentioned above, the term used in the document can only have a single meaning that applies to the entire normative act.

The report highlights the facts of different interpretation by the Security Council of the phrase " all permanent members of the Security Council ».

This circumstance requires the Security Council to give an exact answer about which interpretation of the phrase is correct: in article 27 ( where the Security Council under this term understands only the permanent members of the Security Council participating in the vote) or in articles 108 and 109 ( where the SC agrees that this term means all five permanent members of the SC).

If the Security Council insists that the phrase " all permanent members of the Security Council"means only the votes of permanent members voting, as is illegally done in the application of Article 27 of the UN Charter, then the same interpretation would have to extend to Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter. And this means that from now on it will be possible to make changes to the UN Charter even without the mandatory ratification of such amendments by the five permanent members of the Security Council. That is, the Security Council will no longer be able to block amendments to the UN Charter.

If the Security Council agrees that the phrase " all permanent members of the Security Council " means all five permanent members of the Security Council, as follows from the practice of applying Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter, then by this circumstance he recognizes that the voting results in the Security Council are tabulated in violation of the UN Charter. This consent will mean that any resolution that is not voted unanimously by all five permanent members of the Security Council ( all five must vote YES) will be considered illegal from the moment of its adoption.

Whatever the reaction of the Security Council to the arguments set forth in the report, former position things will be gone.

Sooner or later, the questions posed in the report will launch reform processes and force the Security Council to make a decision on the further application of Articles 27, 108 and 109 of the UN Charter. He will have to make a choice in favor of one or another interpretation of the term « all permanent members of the Security Council» . And making such a choice, the Security Council will be forced to sacrifice something: the past or the future.

A victim of the past, and accordingly a bet on the future, will be the agreement that the term under discussion means all five permanent members of the Security Council. Such recognition will mean that about half of the Security Council resolutions lose their legitimacy and a huge part of the international legal dossier is reset to zero. Instead, the Security Council will retain control over the process of amending the UN Charter. The past is collapsing, but an influential future remains.

If the Security Council continues to defend the position that the phrase « all permanent members of the Security Council» does not mean the unanimity of the five permanent members in the voting, then the interested actors in world politics will demand that such an understanding of the term be extended to Articles 108, 109 of the UN Charter. This will mark the loss of influence of the permanent members of the Security Council on the procedure for amending the UN Charter, which will inevitably, through the introduction of significant changes to the UN Charter, lead to a review of the status of permanent members of the Security Council. Such a development of events will deprive the Security Council of the future, but will preserve the array of documents accumulated in the past.

Ignoring the facts set out in the report will give rise to a situation where any state that demands revenge in the international arena and is not satisfied with the result achieved in the UN will each time raise this topic, appealing to the circumstances indicated in the report.

The seeds of the UN reformation have already been planted in the soil and the seedlings will undoubtedly sprout.

Promotion of the initiative

The presented report contains the grounds for initiating the procedure for the cancellation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and the subsequent delegitimization of the entire anti-Israeli dossier of the UN Security Council.

Initially, it was assumed that the state structures of Israel would take care of this. But officials The Israeli Foreign Ministry ignored this report without even reading its contents. Obviously, the possible cancellation of Resolution 2334 violates someone's personal agreements.

In such circumstances, it is possible to promote this initiative only by acting within the framework of public diplomacy. The laws of democratic states allow public structures to initiate consideration of foreign policy issues in the state authorities of these countries.

It is possible to promote such an initiative only by non-standard methods, step by step reducing the room for maneuver for groups interested in maintaining the anti-Israeli status quo. Non-standard actions will block the legal possibilities of such groups, since their arguments are built mainly on the usual international legal clichés that are not able to withstand real arguments.

In order to start this process, it is necessary to carry out colossal work on the international legal formalization of the corresponding package of documents.

Independent promotion of the initiative will require a lot of effort and some expenses: professional translation of the prepared documentation into the relevant languages, payment of duties, fees, postage and various legal support.

e-mail: [email protected]

DO YOU LIKE THE MATERIAL? SUBSCRIBE TO OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTER:

Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday we will send you an email digest of the most interesting materials from our site.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) concerning Israel United Nations S/RES/2334 (2016) Security Council Distr.: General 23 December 2016

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.