Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[rooster59]

U.N. council mulls call for U.S. Jerusalem decision to be withdrawn

By Michelle Nichols

 

FILE PHOTO - A masked Palestinian pulls a burning tyre during clashes with Israeli troops at a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, near the Jewish settlement of Beit El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah December 16, 2017. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations Security Council is considering a draft resolution that would insist any decisions on the status of Jerusalem have no legal effect and must be rescinded after U.S. President Donald Trump recognised the city as Israel's capital.

 

The one-page Egyptian-drafted text, which was circulated to the 15-member council on Saturday and seen by Reuters, does not specifically mention the United States or Trump. Diplomats say it has broad support but will likely be vetoed by Washington.

 

The council could vote early next week, diplomats said. A resolution needs nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the United States, France, Britain, Russia or China to pass.

 

Trump abruptly reversed decades of U.S. policy this month when he recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, generating outrage from Palestinians. Trump also plans to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

 

After the decision, Arab foreign ministers agreed to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution. While the draft is unlikely to be adopted, it would further isolate Trump over the Jerusalem issue.

 

The U.S. mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the draft. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has praised Trump's decision as "the just and right thing to do."

 

The draft U.N. resolution "affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

 

It "calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council."

 

Israel considers the city its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all embassies based there. Palestinians want the capital of an independent Palestinian state to be in the city's eastern sector, which Israel captured in a 1967 war and annexed in a move never recognised internationally.

 

The draft council resolution "demands that all states comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognise any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions."

 

A U.N. Security Council resolution adopted in December last year "underlines that it will not recognise any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations."

 

That resolution was approved with 14 votes in favour and an abstention by former U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-16

 

 

[Get Real]

Isn´t it just better to let the stupid do the work. Let them be angry, let them burn down their shit. They have to live in it later, right?

[ezzra]

The UN can 'mull' as much as they like, the decision is here to stay, they angry at Trump for withholding 500 $ millions in contributions to the UN, And just as other nations have the right not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, the US has the right to do as it's pleased.....

 

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN can 'mull' as much as they like, the decision is here to stay, they angry at Trump for withholding 500 $ millions in contributions to the UN, And just as other nations have the right not to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, the US has the right to do as it's pleased.....

 

And to be judged by the international community for ill conceived actions. The Donald ran on the idea that he would overthrow long held ways of doing things within the US. I am happy to see if the international community rejects actions which are not thought out or do not seek to gain multilateral support.

[Kiwiken]

As long as the big five have the power of Veto what can possibly be achieved. Until the Big five give up their power of veto then the UN is a sterile cuckoo.

Israel has the right to exist. The Palestinians have a right to their own homeland. Jerusalem can be capital to both but should be demilitarised. I am sure many will object one way or the other. To condemn either Jewish people or Arab peoples is anti Semitism . Both have a right to their homeland but not at the expense of one or the other.

 

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The draft council resolution "demands that all states comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognise any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions."

The US will veto the resolution.

And effectively remove itself from any direct peace talks with the Palestinians.

On the plus side, peacemaker Kushner can go back to re-inventing US government or whatever.

[retarius]

The US doesn't make world laws. No country is under any obligation to follow the US's move. The US will veto this but it will make countries like the UK and France embarrassed if they abstain. The UN has a string of resolutions that Israel has ignored already related to land theft for settlement and wall building. The UN accords on Jerusalem are quite specific and easy to understand.....it is to be a demilitarized, international city with equal access for Palestinians, Jews and Christians. These accords date back to the inception of Israel at the UN. Israel has shredded these accords as well.

[Morch]

The UNSC veto system often attracts criticism, even if such is often partisan in nature. There are many, at least on this forum, calling for it do be scrapped, but little by way of opining on what alternatives ought to be. Would turning things over to the UNGC, with its bloc voting be a better option? Should each country's vote carry the same weight regardless of anything? Would posters be perfectly at home with global issues or those pertaining to their home country being decided by either extreme regimes or tiny ones?

 

As for the OP - the UNSC's views on Jerusalem are bound to be pretty much along those expressed internationally, if perhaps not as vehement as some other venues. So unless the USA manages to block a resolution by denying the required votes, it will probably use the veto right. Same as done by Russia when its actions are criticized in the UNSC.

 

This may further hurt the USA's international and diplomatic standing, but perhaps not more so than the other instances in which Trump's administrations contributes to that. As for the USA being "out" of the peace process - for all current high spirited talk, there aren't any concrete viable suggestions regarding alternatives, and my guess would be that all would wait until late March next year, when the fabled "ultimate deal" peace plan is supposed to be revealed. Should give enough time, in political terms, for things to cool off a bit.

 

 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, retarius said:

The US doesn't make world laws. No country is under any obligation to follow the US's move. The US will veto this but it will make countries like the UK and France embarrassed if they abstain. The UN has a string of resolutions that Israel has ignored already related to land theft for settlement and wall building. The UN accords on Jerusalem are quite specific and easy to understand.....it is to be a demilitarized, international city with equal access for Palestinians, Jews and Christians. These accords date back to the inception of Israel at the UN. Israel has shredded these accords as well.

 

No one said the USA makes "world laws". No one claimed countries have an obligation to follow the USA's move.

 

As for the apparent grasp regarding them "quite specific and easy to understand" "UN accords" - the relevant UN resolution which you go on about, was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side. Not vice versa. Access to Jews (and even Muslim citizens of Israel) was denied by Jordan during its illegal occupation and annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem, up until 1967. Claiming Israel "shredded" these "accords" without any reference to context or much accuracy is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Morch

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

And to be judged by the international community for ill conceived actions. The Donald ran on the idea that he would overthrow long held ways of doing things within the US. I am happy to see if the international community rejects actions which are not thought out or do not seek to gain multilateral support.

 

True. But didn't Obama, Bush and Clinton also pledge to do this when campaigning for the big cheese office? And then fail to deliver on it?

 

Seems they thought lying acceptable too.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True. But didn't Obama, Bush and Clinton also pledge to do this when campaigning for the big cheese office? And then fail to deliver on it?

 

Seems they thought lying acceptable too.

Campaigning? And upon reflection as President wiser heads prevailed causing them to back off of this idea as counterproductive. The Donald, having the past to learn from...ignored this and plunged ahead.

[Dumbastheycome]

No  empathy  for any of  the  participants  of dominative  assumption. 

[dexterm]

Neither West nor East Jerusalem has ever been recognised as part of Israel under international law.  The 1948 UN Partition Resolution 181 established Jerusalem as “a corpus separatum [separate body] under an international regime”.

 

This separation has remained to this day.  Neither Jordan’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 1950, nor Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, nor the unilateral 1980 Israeli law claiming “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”, has ever been accepted by the UN..they declared Israeli Jerusalem Law “null and void” (UNSC resolution 478).  

 

In other words, the status of Jerusalem is not something that Israel can illegally claim or that Trump can whimsically recognize, as a deflection from his personal political troubles or just to please his fan base.  It can only be changed by an internationally recognised legal agreement.

 

Although the current UN resolution will probably be vetoed by Washington
 “any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council”

It will be a reminder to all member states that the status of Jerusalem has not changed, and that Israel's and Trump's actions are illegal under international law.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

Got to love how nothing in your post or visuals mentions that the Partition plan was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side to begin with, and for many years to follow. If one was to adhere to the Partition plan, then the Palestinians do not have a claim on East Jerusalem, as well.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

Got to love how nothing in your post or visuals mentions that the Partition plan was rejected by the Arab/Palestinian side to begin with, and for many years to follow. If one was to adhere to the Partition plan, then the Palestinians do not have a claim on East Jerusalem, as well.

The Palestinians rejected the Partition plan because it was a lousy unfair deal.

They objected to foreign powers giving away 55% of their land to newcomer European Jewish immigrants, when Jews formed only 31% of the population and owned a mere 6% of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#British_censuses_and_estimations

 

No wonder the Zionists loved it.
If you were a Palestinian, would you have accepted such an atrocious deal?

 

And it looks like Trump is still at it .. a foreign power from 6,000 miles away giving away land to mainly European colonialists. That's why the Palestinians will reject his move too.

 

Both East and West Jerusalem remain legally the subject of a final status agreement. 

 

"United Nations Position on Jerusalem Unchanged, Special Coordinator Stresses, as Security Council Debates United States Recognition of City

Permanent Representative Defends Decision, as Delegations

Endorse Two-State Solution, Determination of Final Status Issues
The abiding position of the United Nations on Jerusalem was that the city remained a final status issue to be determined through a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to be negotiated between the two sides concerned on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions and other agreements, the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process told the Security Council today."

https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13111.doc.htm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Deflections aside, make up your mind which argument you field. It is not reasonable to whine about one side not adhering to a UN resolution which the other side rejected outright and failed to respect for years. Failing to even mention the rejecting side's reaction and following actions is simply misleading.

 

 

[dexterm]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Deflections aside, make up your mind which argument you field. It is not reasonable to whine about one side not adhering to a UN resolution which the other side rejected outright and failed to respect for years. Failing to even mention the rejecting side's reaction and following actions is simply misleading.

 

 

Learn to read. In my post which you failed to quote yet again thus distorting my position (against forum rules) .....

 

Both East and West Jerusalem remain legally the subject of a final status agreement. 

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Learn to read. In my post which you failed to quote yet again thus distorting my position (against forum rules) .....

 

Both East and West Jerusalem remain legally the subject of a final status agreement. 

 

 

I have not distorted anything, nor breached forum rules. You simply refuse to discuss or even address anything whatsoever which might reflect negatively on the Palestinian side - even to the point of failing to acknowledging or omitting pertinent facts.

 

Once more, going on about Israel and the USA not adhering to the relevant UN resolution, while ignoring or totally justifying the Arab/Palestinian side rejecting it, or failing to adhere to it as well - is disingenuous.

 

Either one holds that UN resolutions should be strictly adhered to or not. Doesn't do to apply this just when it suits.