Obama rhymes-with-bucks Israel (2)

The resolution adopted by the Security Council with the abstention of the United States yesterday goes beyond the usual anti-Semitic gibberish proclaimed by other United Nations bodies. It has potential legal and/or practical ramifications. Lee Smith alludes to these ramifications in his Tablet column on the Security Council vote, which I excerpted here. Elliott Abrams emphasizes the point in his Weekly Standard column denouncing what Obama has done:

Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This may turn both settlers—even those in major blocs like Maale Adumim, that everyone knows Israel will keep in any peace deal—and Israeli officials into criminals in some countries, subject to prosecution there or in the International Criminal Court. The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Now add this wording to the previous line and it means that even construction in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City is “a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

Responses