Tobbaco

[webfact]

U.N. to vote Monday on call for U.S. Jerusalem decision to be withdrawn

Michelle Nichols

 

A Palestinian demonstrator uses a slingshot to hurl stones towards Israeli troops during clashes at a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, near the border with Israel in the east of Gaza City December 15, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations Security Council is due to vote on Monday on a draft resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, diplomats said, a move likely to face a Washington veto.

 

The one-page Egyptian-drafted text, seen by Reuters, does not specifically mention the United States or Trump. Diplomats say it has broad support among the 15-member council, and while it is unlikely to be adopted, the vote will further isolate Trump on the issue.

To pass, a resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the United States, France, Britain, Russia or China.

 

SPONSORED

 

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

 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has praised Trump’s decision as “the just and right thing to do.”

 

The U.S. mission to the United Nations was not immediately available to comment on Sunday.

 

Arab foreign ministers agreed to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution on the issue. The draft U.N. text expresses “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem.”

 

It “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status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”

 

The draft also calls upon all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

 

Israel considers the city its eternal and indivisible capital and wants all embassies based there.

 

“No vote or debate will change the clear reality that Jerusalem” is the capital of Israel, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, said in a statement on Saturday.

 

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 recognized internationally.

 

RELATED COVERAGE

 

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

 

A U.N. Security Council resolution adopted in December 2016 “underlines that it will not recognize 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 favor and an abstention by former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, which defied heavy pressure from longtime ally Israel and Trump, who was then president-elect, for Washington to wield its veto.

 

Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-18

[khwaibah]

And Washington will VETO it.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, khwaibah said:

And Washington will VETO it.

 

Yep. Waste of time, and money as usual. China and Russia will support it, France probably will and Britain might. But only needs the one veto.

 

 

[Morch]

 

Quote

The draft also calls upon all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

 

I guess the exact meaning would have to be sorted before sitting down to vote. As it stands, there are consulates in Jerusalem - some accredited to Israel, other handling affairs related to Palestinians and/or Jerusalem specifically.

 

Also, got to wonder if the resolution proposal will address the recent OIC position, recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. If the US is to withdraw its recognition announcement, would the same be required of OIC members? Further, Turkey's Erdogan stated that he wishes to open an embassy to accredited to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem - not that doing so would be possible without Israel's consent, but again, got to wonder if this will be addressed or even referenced in the resolution proposal.

 

As for the USA using it's veto right, quite probable. In the past, there were situations in which the USA could avoid this by mustering enough vote to prevent the required majority, these days and with this specific resolution proposal, guess not much chances of that. Another issue would be the protocol referred to by the resolution, most likely it would be a non-binding one, as to generate wider support.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

not that doing so would be possible without Israel's consent

Good overall analysis.

But what could Israel do to stop Turkey from opening an embassy accredited to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, assuming an existing facility is simply occupied? Israel's options might be limited and quite "messy."

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Good overall analysis.

But what could Israel do to stop Turkey from opening an embassy accredited to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, assuming an existing facility is simply occupied? Israel's options might be limited and quite "messy."

 

The current Turkish consulate in Eastern Jerusalem does operate de facto, more or less as as such an embassy. In theory, Turkey can officially claim this as an embassy and promote current staff accordingly. Not sure that diplomatic protocol allows that, but eh. On the other hand, if Turkey should wish to physically upgrade the facility, or send in new staff (like an ambassador), it would not be too hard or even "messy" for Israel to block. I would guess that if things come to a head, Erdogan might appoint an ambassador, which will (initially, at least) will remain in Turkey. Either way, its more of PR move.

 

The rationale would be faulty anyway, though. If the complaint against the USA is that Trump's announcement is that it goes against UN resolutions and international law, then countries objecting to it should not be emulating such actions, provided that objections are a matter of principal, rather than partisan. Further, as long as USA's embassy stays in Tel Aviv, such a Turkish move would be jumping the gun.

 

If Israel's interests are not internationally best served by the support of Trump, then the same could be said about Erdogan's support of the Palestinians. Not like either is particularly internationally popular, respected or trusted.

 

[Grouse]

As usual, The Economist is right!

 

The medieval Arab geographer, al-Muqaddasi, called the holy city “a golden bowl full of scorpions"

 

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21732113-if-he-must-shake-things-up-he-should-open-two-embassies-holy-city-not-one

 

OK, build an American Embassy in Jerusalem for the Israelis; and also build one for the Palestinians!

 

https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21732093-campaign-promise-kept-problem-aggravated-world-reacts-donald-trumps

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Grouse

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Not like either is particularly internationally popular, respected or trusted.

Turkey is a NATO member that can add complexity to the mix of Jerusalem politics.

Perhaps the best short-term outcome is that Turkey check's Trump's US embassy in Jerusalem.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Turkey is a NATO member that can add complexity to the mix of Jerusalem politics.

Perhaps the best short-term outcome is that Turkey check's Trump's US embassy in Jerusalem.

 

I don't know that the Jerusalem thing is key with regard to Turkey's relations with the USA, the EU or NATO. A bunch of other stuff going on - investigations into Iran sanctions violations possibly implicating Erdogan himself, Turkey's military presence in Syria, Turkey's connections with Russia, Erdogan's many quarrels with the EU over refugees, human rights and whatnot.

 

Doubt that there is a "solution" when it comes to Erdogan, about as volatile as Trump, and about as bound to revert to role on the slightest pretext. If it won't be that, it will be something else. Not sure how you meant "check", but actually setting a Turkish embassy (or attempting to do so, at any rate) in East Jerusalem goes a step further than what the Trump administration actually went for. Plus there's this matter of diplomatic inconsistency, but obviously not an obstacle for the likes of Erdogan.

 

Could be wrong, but doesn't seem there's a whole lot of stress about Erdogan's threats. More like resignation to the fact that his threats and tantrums are a given. Nobody looking forward to dealing with it, but it is what it is.

[dexterm]

OP...
It “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.”

 

To understand what the draft resolution means by "compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

 

Neither West nor East Jerusalem has ever been recognised as part of Israel under international law.  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 it “null and void” (UNSC resolution 478).  

In other words, the status of Jerusalem is not up for grabs by Israel or the Palestinians or Erdogan or within the whimsical populist gift of Trump. It can only be changed by internationally recognised agreement.

 

OP...
"The draft also calls upon all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

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

 

Although the current UN resolution will probably be vetoed by Washington thus isolating itself from the majority world opinion even more, it will be a reminder to all member states that the international status of Jerusalem has not changed, and that to move their embassies there would be illegal too under current international law. I don't think they would like to create any more hassles for themselves and others than Trump has already caused.

Edited December 18, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Going on about compliance with relevant resolutions is all very well. Ignoring the bits of history pertaining to the Arab/Palestinian side rejecting the core resolution, is not. If one wishes to complain about one side not complying with relevant resolutions, one ought to have enough honesty to address that the other side rejected it outright.

 

[dexterm]

Bottom line is the only valid international law applying to the status of Jerusalem at the moment, as the draft UN resolution points out,  is that it is an international city, until an internationally agreed upon legal change. That change in international law may be a two state division of the city or a single sharing of Jerusalem in a one state solution. It could of course remain an internationally administered city too.

 

I would prefer the different religions living together in peace sharing the city, but if it's divided, well .. good fences make good neighbors. But if it is dominated by one religious group lording it over the others, then they will never have permanent peace... the only kind of peace worth having.

Edited December 18, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Bottom line is the only valid international law applying to the status of Jerusalem at the moment, as the drfat UN resolution points out,  is that it is an international city, until an internationally agreed upon legal change. That change in international law may be a two state division of the city or a single sharing of Jerusalem in a one state solution. It could of course remain an internationally administered city too.

 

I would prefer the different religions living together in peace sharing the city, but if it's divided, well .. good fences make good neighbors. But if it is dominated by one religious group lording it over the others, then they will never have permanent peace... the only kind of peace worth having.

 

Just to be clear - in your expert view a peace agreement will require a UNGA or UNSC vote, then?

 

As for the second phrase - seem to recall a whole lot of strong views against fences and walls, not so many issues with one religious group having control of them holy places and advocating various dubious partial truces and agreements. 

 

[Srikcir]

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

Not sure how you meant "check"

Keep Trump from actually opening an embassy by Turkey "proposing" to do the same. I didn't say Turkey would actually do so.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Keep Trump from actually opening an embassy by Turkey "proposing" to do the same. I didn't say Turkey would actually do so.

 

Ah. Well, I don't think Trump will do so anytime soon anyway, and can't see Erdogan having the focus and patience for such a diplomatic angle. Considering his moves are also aimed at promoting his regional and Muslim world standing, what Trump does or doesn't do is just part of his motivation. It's not like this is the first time he talks himself into a pointless crisis, which takes weeks, months or even years to mend.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Morch

[DeaconJohn]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

OP...
It “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.”

 

To understand what the draft resolution means by "compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

 

Neither West nor East Jerusalem has ever been recognised as part of Israel under international law.  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 it “null and void” (UNSC resolution 478).  

In other words, the status of Jerusalem is not up for grabs by Israel or the Palestinians or Erdogan or within the whimsical populist gift of Trump. It can only be changed by internationally recognised agreement.

 

OP...
"The draft also calls upon all countries to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

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

 

Although the current UN resolution will probably be vetoed by Washington thus isolating itself from the majority world opinion even more, it will be a reminder to all member states that the international status of Jerusalem has not changed, and that to move their embassies there would be illegal too under current international law. I don't think they would like to create any more hassles for themselves and others than Trump has already caused.

Thanks for that concise legal explanation of the international status of Jerusalem.

It proves the utter falsity of the hasbara narrative.

[dexterm]

As expected the US vetoed the UN resolution demonstrating yet again that the Israeli tail is still wagging the US dog and how out of touch the Trump administration is with the rest of the world.

One might well ask what planet is their UN ambassador Haley living on when she says "It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli Palestinian conflict,"
"Today, for the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the United States was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did so proudly."         
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42394264

 

Another example of Zionist apologists calling black white, and that Trump and Haley are on the wrong side of history. Not for the first time. Yes, I'm sure the world will remember that the US ignored the advice of all its real friends in order to support an apartheid state 6,000 miles away.

 

There's nothing simple about Trump's disingenuous alternative facts at all, when the reality is that Trump's so called "simple act" is peace destroying and illegal and the UNSC has just told him so with a resounding 14-1 vote.

 

Even the UK and France were honest enough for a change having spent the last 50 years spouting 'we support a two state solution' while doing absolutely nothing to make it happen. They could trump Trump tomorrow with sanctions rather than mere words.

Anyway I suppose it's a start. Politicians come and go. Only outside pressure will one day make Israel come to its senses to help it join the family of civilized democracies.

 

The truth will out...it always does.

Edited December 19, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Apparently some cannot address topics without going on slogan rich, worn tirades.

 

To point some a fact ignored - it is widely asserted that one of the main motivators of Trump's announcement was playing to his Evangelist supporter base. And yet, here's another of them standard issue rants spinning it all as a "Zionist" conspiracy.

 

And, of course, anyone not seeing things your way is an "apologist", whereas your one-sided view and wholesale justifications of any mistake or wrong committed by the Palestinian side are righteous. Just another one of thedm disingenuous displays.

 

The same goes for sanctifying UN resolutions (or even parts of UN resolutions) one favors, while ignoring those that do not support the pushed narrative. Can't recall any such vehemence directed at the Palestinians for outright rejecting a core resolution or much support for those resolutions reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side.

 

Rather than going on about the UK and France not making the two state solution "happen", perhaps a more pertinent question would be Arab countries and the Palestinians not doing much themselves, while supposedly being more invested in such. As for citing 50 years of "not making it happen", may want to consult the 1967 Arab League Conference and the infamous Khartoum Resolution (aka The 3 No's: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel). That you still fantasize about sanctions, while going on about US representatives being out of touch with reality, is quite telling.

 

Outside pressure is not a set-in-stone prescription for solving the conflict. And if it was, a more honest poster would at least offer an explanations (as opposed to some emotive plea) as to why it should not be directed at the Palestinian side. Just another one of them disingenuous inconsistencies often pointed out

 

But do...do go on about "alternative facts", or "truths that will out".

[dexterm]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Apparently some cannot address topics without going on slogan rich, worn tirades.

 

To point some a fact ignored - it is widely asserted that one of the main motivators of Trump's announcement was playing to his Evangelist supporter base. And yet, here's another of them standard issue rants spinning it all as a "Zionist" conspiracy.

 

And, of course, anyone not seeing things your way is an "apologist", whereas your one-sided view and wholesale justifications of any mistake or wrong committed by the Palestinian side are righteous. Just another one of thedm disingenuous displays.

 

The same goes for sanctifying UN resolutions (or even parts of UN resolutions) one favors, while ignoring those that do not support the pushed narrative. Can't recall any such vehemence directed at the Palestinians for outright rejecting a core resolution or much support for those resolutions reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side.

 

Rather than going on about the UK and France not making the two state solution "happen", perhaps a more pertinent question would be Arab countries and the Palestinians not doing much themselves, while supposedly being more invested in such. As for citing 50 years of "not making it happen", may want to consult the 1967 Arab League Conference and the infamous Khartoum Resolution (aka The 3 No's: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel). That you still fantasize about sanctions, while going on about US representatives being out of touch with reality, is quite telling.

 

Outside pressure is not a set-in-stone prescription for solving the conflict. And if it was, a more honest poster would at least offer an explanations (as opposed to some emotive plea) as to why it should not be directed at the Palestinian side. Just another one of them disingenuous inconsistencies often pointed out

 

But do...do go on about "alternative facts", or "truths that will out".

7 paragraphs personally flaming me without addressing a single point in the OP. My posts must be hitting a raw nerve of truth. 

 

Better reread the topic: U.N. to vote Monday on call for U.S. Jerusalem decision to be withdrawn.

 

UN Ambassador Haley called the 14-1 UNSC vote against the US an insult...one well deserved!

 

And she's at it again. There is to be another vote on Thursday in an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly on the same issue: Trump's illegal official decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This time she has threatened "The US will be taking names." Some diplomat! Looks like the whole US admin has now descended to schoolyard bully tactics. Israel and Trump admin...like peas in a pod.

Edited December 20, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

9 hours ago, dexterm said:

7 paragraphs personally flaming me without addressing a single point in the OP. My posts must be hitting a raw nerve of truth. 

 

Better reread the topic: U.N. to vote Monday on call for U.S. Jerusalem decision to be withdrawn.

 

UN Ambassador Haley called the 14-1 UNSC vote against the US an insult...one well deserved!

 

And she's at it again. There is to be another vote on Thursday in an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly on the same issue: Trump's illegal official decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This time she has threatened "The US will be taking names." Some diplomat! Looks like the whole US admin has now descended to schoolyard bully tactics. Israel and Trump admin...like peas in a pod.

 

I have actually addressed the OP in my reply to your post, in several previous posts on this topic,  and on previous and parallel running topics covering pretty much the same issue. More of them "alternative facts" you go on about, I guess. And no, criticizing your posts is not flaming.

 

The one who shies away from directly addressing any factual commentary on your posts or anything that does not fall in line with the narrative pushed or the complies with your vehemence, is you. If you can't help but posts "alternative facts", that's too bad - whining when these are pointed out is very Trumpian, though.