SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A construction site in the Israeli settlement of Givat Zeev, in the occupied West Bank December 22, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)
Despite unusual diplomatic maneuvering involving President-elect Donald Trump, Israel, and Egypt on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council passed a historic resolution on Friday demanding an end to Israeli settlements. The United States abstained, effectively allowing the measure to be approved.
Egypt withdrew the original resolution on Thursday afternoon, reportedly "under pressure" from Trump--who tweeted on the matter Thursday morning--and Israel. Had this move worked, it could have punted the measure to the incoming Trump administration, which is seen as more friendly to Israel than that of President Barack Obama--especially after Trump's nomination last week of conservative hardliner David Friedman to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel.
But Reuters reported Friday that Security Council members New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal stepped in and the vote took place after all on Friday afternoon.
Al Jazeera explains:
The draft resolution would demand Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem", and says the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law".
Indeed, as Mohammad Alsaafin of Al Jazeera wrote on Twitter:
The U.S. abstention, which was expected, was described by Reuters as "a relatively rare step by Washington, which usually shields Israel from such action," and "as a parting shot by U.S. President Barack Obama who has had an acrimonious relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who has made settlements a major target of peace efforts that have proven ultimately futile."
In response to the vote, Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson declared: "There is an increasing understanding among U.S. political leaders, thanks to ongoing grassroots pressure, of the need to hold Israel accountable to international law. The U.S. abstention from this resolution is a welcome sign in that regard."
However, she added, "[w]ith President-elect Trump urging a veto of even this mild resolution, as well as his nomination of an extreme right-wing Ambassador to Israel, we are deeply concerned by increasing U.S. support for Israeli incitement, annexation, and control under his administration and will redouble our efforts to organize resistance to policies based in Islamophobia, racism, and disregard for even the most basic rights of Palestinians."
Trump wasn't the only one who called on the U.S. to veto the measure; a number of U.S. senators on Friday joined him by issuing statements to that effect. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, threatened to "reduce United States assistance to the United Nations" if the body "moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Despite unusual diplomatic maneuvering involving President-elect Donald Trump, Israel, and Egypt on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council passed a historic resolution on Friday demanding an end to Israeli settlements. The United States abstained, effectively allowing the measure to be approved.
Egypt withdrew the original resolution on Thursday afternoon, reportedly "under pressure" from Trump--who tweeted on the matter Thursday morning--and Israel. Had this move worked, it could have punted the measure to the incoming Trump administration, which is seen as more friendly to Israel than that of President Barack Obama--especially after Trump's nomination last week of conservative hardliner David Friedman to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel.
But Reuters reported Friday that Security Council members New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal stepped in and the vote took place after all on Friday afternoon.
Al Jazeera explains:
The draft resolution would demand Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem", and says the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law".
Indeed, as Mohammad Alsaafin of Al Jazeera wrote on Twitter:
The U.S. abstention, which was expected, was described by Reuters as "a relatively rare step by Washington, which usually shields Israel from such action," and "as a parting shot by U.S. President Barack Obama who has had an acrimonious relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who has made settlements a major target of peace efforts that have proven ultimately futile."
In response to the vote, Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson declared: "There is an increasing understanding among U.S. political leaders, thanks to ongoing grassroots pressure, of the need to hold Israel accountable to international law. The U.S. abstention from this resolution is a welcome sign in that regard."
However, she added, "[w]ith President-elect Trump urging a veto of even this mild resolution, as well as his nomination of an extreme right-wing Ambassador to Israel, we are deeply concerned by increasing U.S. support for Israeli incitement, annexation, and control under his administration and will redouble our efforts to organize resistance to policies based in Islamophobia, racism, and disregard for even the most basic rights of Palestinians."
Trump wasn't the only one who called on the U.S. to veto the measure; a number of U.S. senators on Friday joined him by issuing statements to that effect. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, threatened to "reduce United States assistance to the United Nations" if the body "moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution."
Despite unusual diplomatic maneuvering involving President-elect Donald Trump, Israel, and Egypt on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council passed a historic resolution on Friday demanding an end to Israeli settlements. The United States abstained, effectively allowing the measure to be approved.
Egypt withdrew the original resolution on Thursday afternoon, reportedly "under pressure" from Trump--who tweeted on the matter Thursday morning--and Israel. Had this move worked, it could have punted the measure to the incoming Trump administration, which is seen as more friendly to Israel than that of President Barack Obama--especially after Trump's nomination last week of conservative hardliner David Friedman to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel.
But Reuters reported Friday that Security Council members New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal stepped in and the vote took place after all on Friday afternoon.
Al Jazeera explains:
The draft resolution would demand Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem", and says the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law".
Indeed, as Mohammad Alsaafin of Al Jazeera wrote on Twitter:
The U.S. abstention, which was expected, was described by Reuters as "a relatively rare step by Washington, which usually shields Israel from such action," and "as a parting shot by U.S. President Barack Obama who has had an acrimonious relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who has made settlements a major target of peace efforts that have proven ultimately futile."
In response to the vote, Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson declared: "There is an increasing understanding among U.S. political leaders, thanks to ongoing grassroots pressure, of the need to hold Israel accountable to international law. The U.S. abstention from this resolution is a welcome sign in that regard."
However, she added, "[w]ith President-elect Trump urging a veto of even this mild resolution, as well as his nomination of an extreme right-wing Ambassador to Israel, we are deeply concerned by increasing U.S. support for Israeli incitement, annexation, and control under his administration and will redouble our efforts to organize resistance to policies based in Islamophobia, racism, and disregard for even the most basic rights of Palestinians."
Trump wasn't the only one who called on the U.S. to veto the measure; a number of U.S. senators on Friday joined him by issuing statements to that effect. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Senate Appropriations Committee, threatened to "reduce United States assistance to the United Nations" if the body "moves forward with the ill-conceived resolution."