8

UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334 (2016) 14-0 condemning the construction of Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. The resolution called continuing construction in the Palestinian territory a “flagrant violation” of international law, and it called on Israel to halt all settlement activities in order to salvage a two-state solution.

The U.S. abstained from the vote, in a departure from past U.S. diplomatic practice of vetoing such a resolution in support of Israel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-n-security-council-votes-14-0-to-condemn-israeli-settlement-construction/

The US did not use its veto power during the vote and allowed a censure. New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who were co-sponsors of the draft resolution, have requested the vote, which diplomats said was to take place at 1900GMT.

Does this UN resolution have any binding consequences for Israel?

  • 3
    Can you please clarify your question? (1) "What does this mean?" — seems to be too broad; and (2) "Will Israel stop...?" — we can't foretell the future. – bytebuster Dec 24 '16 at 16:38
  • I think what you actually mean to ask (and what would be a valid question) is if this UN resolution has any binding consequences for Israel. – Philipp Dec 24 '16 at 23:36
  • @Philipp, Yes. and also want to know if Israel would be more cautious about any future resettlements – Noah Dec 25 '16 at 2:28
  • @Philipp The UN definition of "settlement" is anything that had Jews move in after 1928 as well as any area that the Arabs removed Jews from at any time in the past (including Jerusalem). – sabbahillel Dec 25 '16 at 3:39
  • Various comments deleted. Please note that comments are for clarifying and improving the question, not for stating your political opinion about the matter of the question. – Philipp Dec 25 '16 at 9:53
7

No, this resolution has no direct binding consequences for anyone. UN resolutions can contain instructions UN members are obligated to follow. But this one is merely a statement of opinion and intent without defining any actual actions or concrete threats of actions.

Politically it can be seen as a declaration of which countries' governments stand on which side of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

But Israel has already taken consequences from this resolution by cancelling all foreign aid to Senegal, one of the countries which co-sponsored the resolution.

The future will tell if any of the countries which voted for this resolution will take any concrete measures with the goal to hinder the Israel settlement programs and if and how Israel will react to this.

  • 2
    Comments deleted. As I said, the backgrounds of this resolution are not part of this question. So please post this somewhere else. We are a Q&A site, not a debate club. – Philipp Dec 26 '16 at 19:10
-6

The agreement enshrined in international law that all Israeli settlements are illegal in the West Bank, land that Israel owns thanks to the 1967 borders. Furthermore, countries can pursue sanctions against Israel as a result, which if enacted can destroy Israel, putting an end to Zionism, and forever denying Jews a right to exist, especially in Jerusalem, land they first settled 3000 years ago. For more on this topic I would point you to Charles Hill, a foremost expert on Israel, at Powerlineblog.com for a full length explanation on this issue.

Note, the U.S. will defund, they pay 22 percent of the total, UN budget unless the vote is changed. If the U.S. leaves the U.N. the whole house of cards will likely collapse.

Edit: This is probably the referenced assertion - Charles Hill - What Obama Has Done

  • 9
    Putting sanctions on Israel to prevent it from building settlements beyond the Green Line doesn't destroy Israel or deny Jews the right to exist. And the 3000 years argument is irrelevant; by that argument America belongs to the Native Americans. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 26 '16 at 16:32
  • 1
    Well, first of all I don't think that's true, and second of all if Israel is in danger of ceasing to exist due to sanctions, I assume the Israeli government would agree to stop settlements beyond the Green Line in order to get the sanctions lifted. So I don't think there's any serious possibility that Israel will be destroyed. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 26 '16 at 16:40
  • 6
    Source on that this enshrined anything in international law? Because many UNSC resolutions have no binding effect, and a country could justify sanctions on any basis it wants (including the many, many UNGA resolutions). – cpast Dec 26 '16 at 16:49
  • 1
    The green line is fiction. The 67 borders should never be abandoned – K Dog Dec 26 '16 at 16:50
  • 2
    even accepting the bold premise calling threatening Israel's existence "denying Jews a right to exist" is pretty far fetched. – user9389 Dec 30 '16 at 4:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.