Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
JORDAN HAS WELCOMED the UN Security Council resolution demanding a halt to Israeli settlements, saying the momentous vote paved a way for a two-state solution.
The 15-member council passed the resolution yesterday, despite efforts by Israel and US President-elect Donald Trump to block the text.
In a rare and momentous step, the United States instead abstained, enabling the adoption of the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy. New Zealand has defended its role in tabling the motion.
Jordan’s information minister Mohammad al-Momani said today:
This historic decision expresses the consensus of the international community on the illegality of Israeli settlements and reaffirms the Palestinian people’s historic right (to live) in Jerusalem and its historic lands.
Some 430,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank and a further 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as the capital of their future state.
The resolution demands that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”
It states that Israeli settlements have “no legal validity” and are “dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-state solution”.
Momani said the resolution reinforced the historic position of Jordan – one of the few Arab states to have diplomatic ties with Israel – on the need for a two state solution.
The Middle East peace process has been comatose since a US initiative to re-launch peace talks collapsed in April 2014.
New Zealand
New Zealand said the resolution condemning Israeli settlements should have come as no surprise to the Jewish State. Israel retaliated by recalling its ambassador to Wellington.
There was applause in the UN chamber when the first resolution by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in more than 38 years to condemn Israel over its settlement policy was passed 14-0.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Ofir Gendelman tweeted that their ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal, who co-sponsored the resolution, were to return to Israel immediately.
“These steps are taken against countries that have tabled the draft resolution to the UNSC and have diplomatic relations with Israel,” he added.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully said the decision should have been no surprise to Israel which knew Wellington’s position long before the UN vote.
McCully told AFP:
Israel has informed us of their decision to recall their ambassador to New Zealand for consultations.
Repercussions
The resolution could spur moves toward new terms to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it also poses dangers for the United Nations with the incoming Trump administration.
It also may harden Israel’s attitude toward concessions.
The Obama administration’s decision to abstain and allow the UN’s most powerful body to approve a long-sought resolution calling Israeli settlements “a flagrant violation under international law” was a sharp rebuke to a longstanding ally.
America’s Irish-born UN ambassador Samantha Power said:
It is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with US policy across Republican and Democratic administrations throughout the history of the state of Israel – that the United States did not veto it.
She cited a 1982 statement by then-President Ronald Reagan that the United States “will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements” – and that:
settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel.
Friday’s Security Council vote was anything but routine for Washington, however, which traditionally vetoes all resolutions related to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict on grounds that differences must be solved through negotiations.
Icy
It was the first resolution on the conflict approved during President Barack Obama’s nearly eight years in office and shone a spotlight on his icy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The decision followed months of intensely secret deliberations in Washington, a spate of fresh Israeli settlement announcements that sparked anger from American officials, and recent attempts by Israel to legalise thousands of homes built on privately owned Palestinian land.
After Egypt postponed a scheduled vote on the resolution on Thursday, reportedly under pressure from US President-elect Donald Trump, four new sponsors pushed it through – Malaysia, New Zealand, Venezuela and Senegal, each representing a different region, reflecting wide support for the measure.
Trump demanded that Obama veto the resolution and tweeted after the vote, “As to the UN, things will be different after January 20″ — when Trump takes office.
Consequences
For Trump to overturn the resolution, it require a new resolution with support from at least nine members in the 15-member Security Council and no veto by Russia, China, Britain or France, all of whom supported Friday’s vote.
Republicans threatened consequences.
Senator Lindsay Graham said he would “form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or significantly reduce” funding for the UN.
He added that countries receiving US aid could also be penalised for supporting the resolution. Under UN rules, failure to pay dues leads to the loss of voting privileges in the General Assembly.
Israeli-Palestinian issue
The vote on settlements sparked behind-the-scenes discussion in the usually divided Security Council on what else might be achieved on the Israeli-Palestinian issue while Obama is still in the White House.
New Zealand has been pressing for the council to consider a resolution that would set out the parameters for a settlement of the conflict, and its draft ideas remain on the table.
But Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon warned the council after the vote that the resolution would not spur peace efforts. He said:
By voting ‘yes’ in favor of this resolution, you have in fact voted ‘no’. You voted ‘no’ to negotiations.
You voted ‘no’ to progress, and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians. And you voted ‘no’ to the possibility of peace.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately retaliated against some of the nations that proposed Friday’s resolution.
He recalled his nation’s ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal for consultations, cancelled a planned January visit to Israel by Senegal’s foreign minister and ended Israeli aid programs to the West African nation.
In a statement, Netanyahu’s office said:
Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the U.N. and will not abide by its terms.
The Israeli leader blamed Obama for failing to “protect Israel against this gang-up at the UN” and even colluding with its detractors.
He said:
Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat hailed the result as a “victory for the justice of the Palestinian cause.”
He said Trump’s choice was now between “international legitimacy” or siding with “settlers and extremists.”
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN ambassador, urged the Security Council to “stand firm by this decision” and “not be cowed by negative threats or spin”.
© – AFP, 2016 with reporting from AP.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I still didn’t get a bloody tan.
My grandfather said the same in the 1900′s
“The North and South Poles are not melting.” In that report, oceanographer Ted Maksym noted that polar ice “is much more stable than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Al Gore , the Guru,said al the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014. He was wrong.
As a result of this global warming/climate change hysteria and it’s attendant scams every aspect of your life has been interfered with and has become more expensive. Old people have died in Ireland and the UK and on the Continent as a result of having to choose between food and heat. Further afield people are starving as food is turned into fuel. People like Al Gore make millions while having the ‘carbon footprints’ of small towns and all the time carbon is nothing more than plant food NOT the poison the alarmists make it out to be and yet we are force fed articles like this written by the useful idiots of the green religion. Wake up folks, you are being taken for a very expensive ride.
I fully agree with Uncle Mort, the biggest rip off in history, set to destroy western values and way of life and when the warmers do that they will walk off into the sunset leaving us with the mess
In before the anti-science brigade claiming that all this talk of global warming is just a conspiracy cooked up by a secret cabal of climate scientists which has been exposed by a plucky bunch of amateur oil billionaires and venture capitalists.
One of the main causes of global warming is the destruction of Rainforests …
One of the driving forces behind the economics that have driven this is none other than Peter Sutherland and his GATT arrangement…..
This is undeniable economic and historical fact .
Does Peter Sutherland want to kill trees – probably not. Are his policies destroying trees -definitely .
That will help you distinguish between fantastical theories and economic and historical facts Robin …
Or to put it simply fats buck in third world resources is destroying the planet and the beauty of it all is that no-one is to blame – “It’s just business !” …
*fast – but fats works just as well actually …
Re Robin
You mean cooked up by 2-3% of scientists. That 97% of scientists agree has been rubbished.
No one who is 18 years old or younger has experienced global warming.
As I said, in before the tinfoil hat brigade!
*sheesh*
Sorry, I forgot to provide link to backup my statement on the 97% of scientists agree rubbish.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
Here’s that 97% figure from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, rather than a crank website:
http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Re Robin
Well the fact you are referencing this site shows you believe in AGW as defined by the IPCC which is that it is solely caused by man made co2 emissions.
It’s hard to have debates with people devoid of reason and bought off scientists. All the factors that can contribute to climate change(natural anyway), hundreds of them, and you believe that man made co2 emissions is the sole cause. Good God.
Man made co2 emissions make up 2-3% of all co2 emissions with planet Earth providing the other 98-97%. And you believe man made co2 emissions are solely to blame…
As I said above, innit great that all these thousands of climate scientists, bought off by bearded, nasal hippies and voluptuous earth mother types, have been exposed by a tiny group of amateur oil billionaires and venture caps?
Makes me proud to be human, it does!
So libertarian bloggers are henceforward the sole determiner of Climate Change, got it.
Congratulations Robin. Straw Men, Ad Hominum, Appeals to authority – three fallacies in one sentence. That takes some doing. None of the fallacies of course actually mean anything.
Even if you don’t believe in climate change you cannot deny green energy is the best way to power a society. Cheap, clean and doesn’t run out
“The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.”
The only conclusion to be drawn from the addition of 2014 data is that the post-1997 standstill seen in global annual average surface temperature has continued for one more year making it now about 17 years in duration. This is the opposite of what is claimed in the Nasa press release.
It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions.
@stephen lane, Hilliard and co are masters of the sneer and jeer and little else. The Climategate 2 emails showed the nastiness behind the climate fraud.
Not if you actually read the stolen emails, Mort.
Which I suspect you didn’t.
Robin,
What was the volcanic activity like in 2014 compared to other years ?
When you find that out then you can talk about Glowbull Warming.
“Even if you don’t believe in climate change you cannot deny green energy is the best way to power a society. Cheap, clean and doesn’t run out”
Absolute rubbish on all accounts. You cant design a grid around “green” energy – its all but useless without fossil fuel. And btw, it takes copious amounts of fossil fuel to build and install wind turbines.
So they are a complete waste of resources :
http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-renewables-drain-our-resources-1-3659067
Let’s just have a bit of perspective here.
It’s hotter by four one-hundreths of a degree. This is within the margin of error that the reports provide, so basically we don’t know if it was a hot year as the temperature rise was too small.
Try read that bit again there young Horgay:
“For the year, the average temperature was 0.69 degree Celsius above the 20th century average, beating the previous record-holding years of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04 C.”
Don’t be too harsh, Horgay has reading difficulties.
It appears, that even in Ireland , we have some Bible thumping, ‘world is flat’ , in denial , GOP – Tea Party types, who just haven’t even noticed – the weather changes , the ice melts , the extremities of heat and cold weather !
Well in the REAL World, in my 63 years , there has been a remarkable change in our weather and environment .
Speak to anyone – who is prepared to be truly honest . But unfortunately honesty is somewhat sadly lacking – where there is conflict of interest , or a narrow minded outlook !
Differing daily measured values from the old and new sensors for temperature measurement spurred the author [Hager] to conduct a comparison spanning from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2006 at Fliegerhorst Lechfeld (WMO 10856) 8-1/2 years long, daily without interruption, among other comparison tests of mercury maximum glass thermometers in a Stevenson screen and a Pt 100 resistance thermometer inside an aluminum enclosure, both unventilated. The 3144 days yielded a mean difference of +0.93°C; the Pt 100 was higher than the mercury thermometer. The maximum daily difference even reached 6.4°C! Klaus Hager
@An Ciarraioch, your anecdotal opinion on climate is not exactly scientific , climate always changes.
Remarkable change in you 63 years? Really?
So 1947, 1963,1976 & 1977 were not extreme years? If a slight increase in temprature is in fact global warming then I’m all for it. Anyway, as soon as it does warm up we won’t have to burn as much oil and gas to warm our homes so it is all good really!
@Jack Delaney, I can give better anecdotal evidence than our friend for 47, 63, etc and recall going up to Blessington in 63 where the snow reached the phone wires and the army Auster plane was dropping fodder to sheep :-)
BTW the records show that 1934 was the warmest decade in the last 100 but NASA/GISS seem to have misplaced the data when the ecoloon Hansen retired.
Uncle Mort, you just prompted my memory of 1963 because although I was a small boy I do recall that Christmas, on a vist to relatives in the countryside, getting stuck in snow. My uncle had just purchased a new MF 35 tractor the year before and came to rescue us by towing the car to his yard. I think that 1973 was also a funny year when we lost a 200 year old tree from wind in early January of that year.
Yes Jack – We won’t have to Worry ? – most of our homes will be under water ??????????
You’ll need more oil Jack, if the temperature goes up the Gulf Stream will slow down and our weather will be closer to Canada’s
Always worth familarising oneself with a new religion. The Church of Global Warming has its dogma (“97% of scientists yadadada”) , its Prophets (Michael Mann, Al Gore), its Priests (Climate (ahem) “scientists”), Its Holy Books (IPCC annual reports). It preaches that sinning will result in damnation. etc etc etc – you get the drift. Basically its all bollox.
As I said above hours ago, in before the tinfoil hat brigade.
Insult is the scraping of the bottom of the barrel
The tinfoil hat brigade are the ones who dont even understand the first thing about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics but lecture to others on “globull warming”.
Do us all a favour Robin – go and borrow a book on physics please.
Global warming is just another excuse for more carbon tax
Most sensible comment yet.
Very very very very very very sensible comment
Man made climate change is a fact. Climate change deniers fall into the category of evolution deniers. Scientists overwhelmingly agree and the evidence comes from a multiplicity of sources, peer reviewed articles and so on. Thankfully intelligent people understand this.
However, reversing this and acting on it, of course, are 2 different things. However it doesn’t help having people who don’t understand the basics of how to determine reality from fiction. The usual reference to articles in bogus journals rather than esteemed journals subjected to peer reviews.
It is an arms race now between science backed by political will embarking on solutions to negate the warming amongst the depletion of biodiversity and the impact of long term climate change effecting a tipping point. Long odds in my view that correction will happen in time.
What is it exactly that the 97% of ‘climate scientists’ agree?
PS no warming for how many years now?
Currently standing at zero years there, Mort.
As the article title, and all the science, clearly indicates.
I wonder how did the British grow grapes in the 1400s?
Satellite measurement shows that September 2014 was a mere 0.195°C above normal, at least 7 or 8 other satellite-era years were warmer, such as 2003.
There are several so-called reliable measurements of global temperatures and all you see these people doing that are making, screaming and yelling of the hottest temperature ever, is using one of the least reliable datasets. Their very own NCEP reanalysis shows something very different. So, again, there’s a lot of controversy in this. And what happens is that they scream this stuff out, and then they walk it back.” When alarmist climate institutes roll out papers claiming global warming is going to cause severely cold winters, then you have to wonder if they know something is up and are acting preemptively to salvage their crumbling climate science, which not long ago predicted with high confidence balmy snowless winters.
In 2000 a leading UK climate change “scientist” said that the babies of the day will never see snow in their lives on UK soil. Yawn.
2014 was NOT the hottest year on record (in Ireland)
http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2015/02/2014-was-not-hottest-year-on-record-in.html
The hottest year in 218 years – on a planet that is 4,000,000,000 years old.
have your say