RE: Settlements
※→ abi, et al,
I believe that Resolutions like S/RES/2334 (2016) are feel-good devices, like a life vest in the ocean. Such devices make you glad you have it --- keeping you from on the edge, but it is not going to drag you ass out of the water.
They are FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 14 to zip!
Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
(COMMENT)
1. Oh, I'm quite aware of what the Security Counsel demanded. But under customary law ⇒ what common law precedent or authority is this based on ⇒ where an earlier Armistice results were enforced by the UN in favor of a party that was not a party to the Armistice?
2. In August 1988, when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, by what authority does the UN take away the effective control of the West Bank (abandon into the hands of the Israelis) and the hand it to a future government (2012) that would not exist for another quarter of a century ⇒ into the future.
3. The UN can take any action it wants. And any such military or economic actions/sanctions taken will only serve to damage and ultimately destroy the interest of the Regions most successful and developed democratic government. And handing it over to the worst of the failed states in the Region ⇒ serving only makes the region worse-off.
4. Such implied of military or economic actions/sanctions does nothing to advance the prevention and removal of Palestinian Terrorist threats to the peace
(Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters), or act to reverse the failed military aggression by the Regional Arab Influences that could not
(in more than a half century) bring about an Arab solution that would destroy the original intent of establishing a Jewish National Homeland to insure their preservation and security of that culture and people. They will achieve the destruction of Israel UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW where they could not achieve that goal by either the three prior military aggressive actions or previous diplomatic and political approach - all of which ultimately failed.
5. There is a very great risk that it would cause "the military expansion in the scope of the conflict with the Arab Palestinian failed state, and present a new set of donor nation liabilities. It may even allow the Salafi jihadist militant group in the Region an opportunity to secure some of their goals and objectives while the Arab Regional government dump resources into the enforcement of impossible demands by the security council.
6. It may also set the conditions for the envelopment of the entire region into a conflict - that could involve major interests --- the destruction or infliction of heavy damage to the Regional Capitals, as well as, oil/gas production facilities. power facilities, and desalination Plants. It could even result in the destruction of iconic locations as Mecca and Medina
(as well as Jerusalem, the Capital of both the Arab Palestinians and Israel). No one, except maybe the political dissidents and insurgents that are looking for ways to topple Kingdoms and Emirates.
7. When the UN says 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; do they include the Oslo Accords, signed by Mahmoud Abbas? Those accords created Area "C", placing Area "C" under which --- the Israeli settlements are encapsulated and, is administered by Israel. When the Arab Palestinians refuse to negotiate because of irreconcilable differences, does this mean the Israelis are a fault?
I am not sure that such demands are even enforceable. They are based on the condition that Israel stop settlements in the Area "C"
(an area under an agreement with the Palestinians where full Israeli civil and security control). Israel has no such demands, except the demand that there be no demands. Well the Balfour Declaration is now a century old. Maybe when it is two centuries old, the "Question of Palestine" will be resolved.
Most Respectfully,
R
