UN's security council votes against Israel's settlements, US refuses to veto...

[The Larch]

...and diplomatic shitstorm ensues. Apologies if it had been posted already.

US abstention allows UN to demand end to Israeli settlements
Donald Trump and Israel had urged Washington to use its veto to stop historic security council resolution

The United Nations security council has adopted a landmark resolution demanding a halt to all Israeli settlement in the occupied territories after Barack Obama's administration refused to veto the resolution.

A White House official said Obama had taken the decision to abstain in the absence of any meaningful peace process.

The resolution passed by a 14-0 vote on Friday night. Loud applause was heard in the packed chamber when the US ambassador, Samantha Power, abstained.

All remaining members of the security council, including the UK, voted in support. Egypt, which had drafted the resolution and had been briefly persuaded by Israel to postpone the vote, also backed the move.

Friday's vote was scheduled at the request of four countries – New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela – who stepped in to push for action a day after Egypt put the draft resolution on hold.

Israel recalled its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal in protest on Saturday.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas's office said the vote was "a big blow" to Israeli policy and a show of "strong support for the two-state solution".

The resolution says Israel's settlements on Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have "no legal validity" and demands a halt to "all Israeli settlement activities," saying this "is essential for salvaging the two-state solution".

The resolution reiterated that Israeli settlement was a "flagrant violation" of international law.

The United States vetoed a similar resolution in 2011, which was the sole veto cast by the Obama administration at the security council.

The abstention decision underlined the tension between Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who had made furious efforts to prevent such a move.

A resolution requires nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the United States, France, Russia, Britain or China in order to be adopted. Among those who welcomed the resolution was UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon.

"The secretary general takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations," said his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric.

Explaining the US abstention, Power said the Israeli settlement "seriously undermines Israel's security", adding : "The United States has been sending a message that the settlements must stop privately and publicly for nearly five decades."

Power said the US did not veto the resolution because the Obama administration believed it reflected the state of affairs regarding settlement and remained consistent with US policy.

"One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One had to make a choice between settlements and separation," Power said.

The US decision to abstain was immediately condemned by Netanyahu's office as "shameful" which pointedly referred to Israel's expectation of working more closely with Donald Trump.

"By voting yes in favour of this resolution, you have in fact voted no. You voted no to negotiation, you voted no to progress and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you voted no to the possibility of peace," Danon told the council.

The vote will, however, be seen as a major defeat for Netanyahu, who has long had a difficult relationship with the Obama administration.

Netanyahu had tried to prevent the vote by appealing to Trump, who will not be sworn in until late January, and to the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatal al-Sisi.

While the resolution is largely symbolic, it will be seen as empowering an increasingly tough UN over Israel and will give pause to international companies who have interests in the occupied territories.

Originally drafted by Egypt, the original version of the resolution had been supposed to go to a vote on Thursday night, but was withdrawn by Sisi under pressure orchestrated by Israel.

Following the vote Trump, tweeted: "As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20."

Commenting on Trump's attempted intervention, a White House official insisted that until Trump's inauguration on 20 January there was one US president - Obama.

Pro-Israel senators and lobby groups also weighed in following the vote. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential lobby groups, said it was "deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations security council".

It also pointedly thanked Trump for his attempts to intervene: "AIPAC expresses its appreciation to president-elect Trump and the many Democratic and Republican members of Congress who urged a veto of this resolution."

The United Nations maintains that settlements are illegal, but UN officials have reported a surge in construction over the past months.

About 430,000 Israeli settlers 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 imperiling the viability of the two-state solution".

Netanyahu's charm offensive came afterwards.

Israel summons ambassadors for dressing down over UN resolution
Benjamin Netanyahu issues 'personal reprimand' to diplomats from security council nations who voted for settlements rebuke

Benjamin Netanyahu has summoned the ambassadors of all UN security council members which backed a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to "personally reprimand" them.

According to Israeli media reports the ambassadors summoned on Sunday for the Israeli prime minister's dressing down include all those from security council members with permanent missions in Israel: Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, France, Britain, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay and Spain.

The resolution, which passed on Friday with 14 votes in support and only the US abstaining, condemned Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as constituting a flagrant violation of international law.

It also demanded that states "distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the state of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967".

Netanyahu also accused the US president, Barack Obama, of directly coordinating the resolution at the morning cabinet meeting. "We have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated its versions and insisted upon its passage," he said. Washington has denied this.

The rebuke came as Israel continued to retaliate against countries that supported the motion, cutting aid to Senegal, cancelling forthcoming official visits – including by the Ukrainian prime minister – and recalling two of its ambassadors.

Netanyahu also ordered the Israeli foreign ministry to "re-evaluate all of our ties to the UN within a month".

Netanyahu is under renewed political pressure to bring forward controversial legislation to legalise dozens of currently illegal outposts in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Significantly, the US ambassador was not summoned, despite the Obama administration's decision not toveto the resolution – an abstention described by Netanyahu as an "underhanded and anti-Israel manoeuvre".

Later on Sunday, however, the US state department said its ambassador would meet the Israeli prime minister.

"We can confirm Ambassador Shapiro will meet with PM Netanyahu this evening," the state department said in a brief statement to Agence France-Presse.

A senior diplomat quoted by the Haaretz newspaper suggested irritation in the diplomatic community with Netanyahu's Christmas Day summons. "What would they have said in Jerusalem if we summoned the Israeli ambassador on Yom Kippur?" the diplomat told the paper.

The ambassadors' dressing-down comes amid mounting criticism of Netanyahu from Israeli politicians and the media. Some prominent columnists have blamed Netanyahu's poor relationship with Obama and his prioritisation of Jewish settlers for the UN resolution.

Israel has continued to condemn Obama and Friday's resolution, which demanded a halt to settlements in Palestinian territory – the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy.

By deciding not to use its veto, the US deeply angered Israel, which has accused Obama of abandoning its closest Middle East ally in the waning days of his administration.

The text was passed with support from all other members of the 15-member security council. Applause broke out in the chamber when the vote results were read out.

The landmark vote came despite intense lobbying by Israel and calls from the US president-elect, Donald Trump, to block the text.

While the resolution contains no sanctions, Israeli officials are concerned it could widen the possibility of prosecution at the international criminal court. They are also worried it could encourage some countries to impose sanctions against Israeli settlers and goods produced in the settlements.

Netanyahu called the resolution a "shameful blow against Israel at the United Nations".

"The decision that was taken was biased and shameful, but we will withstand it," the Israeli leader said on Saturday evening. "It will take time, but this decision will be annulled."

Singling out New Zealand and Senegal, he added: "Two countries with which we have diplomatic relations co-sponsored the resolution against us at the UN; therefore, I ordered yesterday that our ambassadors be recalled from Senegal and from New Zealand. I have ordered that all Israeli assistance to Senegal be halted, and there's more to come.

"Those who work with us will benefit because Israel has much to give to the countries of the world. But those who work against us will lose – because there will be a diplomatic and economic price for their actions against Israel."

Netanyahu said Obama had broken a longstanding US commitment not to "dictate the terms of peace to Israel" at the UN. The resolution, Netanyahu said, was "part of the swansong of the old world that is biased against Israel, but, my friends, we are entering a new era", referring to Trump's imminent presidency.

Trump reacted after the vote by promising change at the UN. "As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20th," he tweeted, referring to the date of his inauguration.

"The big loss yesterday for Israel in the United Nations will make it much harder to negotiate peace. Too bad, but we will get it done anyway!" Trump tweeted later.

The US has traditionally served as Israel's diplomatic shield, protecting it from resolutions that Israel opposes. It is Israel's most important ally, providing it with more than $3bn (£3.1bn) a year in defence aid. That number will soon rise to $3.8bn per year under a new decade-long pact – the biggest pledge of US military aid in history.

The Obama administration has grown increasingly frustrated with settlement building in the West Bank, which Israel has occupied for nearly 50 years. There have been growing warnings that settlement expansion is fast eroding the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the basis of years of negotiations.

Settlements are built on land the Palestinians view as part of their future state and seen as illegal under international law.

"We cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our longstanding objective of two states living side by side in peace and security," said Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN. "The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution."

After the vote, Israel's justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, of the far-right Jewish Home said Israel needed "to talk about annexation" of the West Bank.

About 430,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank, and a further 200,000 Israelis live in annexed East Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as the capital of their future state.

Israel to 'reassess' ties with UN, says Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime minister stops funding to some UN bodies, after security council resolution demanding end to Israeli settlement building in occupied territories

Israel will reassess its ties with the UN following the adoption by the security council of a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has announced.

The vote was able to pass the 15-member council on Friday after the US broke with a longstanding approach of diplomatically shielding Israel and did not wield its veto power as it had many times before – a decision that Netanyahu called "shameful".

"I instructed the foreign ministry to complete within a month a re-evaluation of all our contacts with the United Nations, including the Israeli funding of UN institutions and the presence of UN representatives in Israel," Netanyahu said on Saturday.

"I have already instructed to stop about 30m shekels (£6.3m) in funding to five UN institutions, five bodies, that are especially hostile to Israel ... and there is more to come," he said.

The Israeli leader did not name the institutions or offer any further details.

Defying heavy pressure from longstanding ally Israel and the president-elect, Donald Trump, for Washington to use its veto, the US abstained in the security council decision, which passed with 14 votes in favour.

Netanyahu snubs May over UN settlements vote, Israeli media says
Israeli PM said to have told ministers two will not meet at Davos, but his office denies a meeting was ever scheduled

Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has apparently snubbed Theresa May over the UK's support of a highly critical UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement building.

The move is the latest in a series of diplomatic retaliations by Israel against the countries that supported a UN security council resolution describing Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as a "flagrant violation" of international law and an obstacle to peace.

Reports in the Israeli media said Netanyahu had told ministers at his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday that he did not intend to meet May in Davos at the forthcoming World Economic Forum.

Responding to the reports, the UK's deputy ambassador, Tony Kay, said he regretted the decision. "It is a disappointment that the Israeli government has announced that Prime Minister Netanyahu does not want to have a conversation with Theresa May," Kay told Israel Army Radio on Monday.

Kay had been called in with other ambassadors and senior diplomats of the other members of the security council who voted for the motion or abstained, including the US ambassador Dan Shapiro, to be reprimanded for supporting a resolution that reiterated the view of the international community that Jewish settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.

"I'm sure there will be many conversations between the two prime ministers moving forward and we look forward to having those conversations, and we'll certainly continue to have those conversations in Tel Aviv," Kay said.

In response to the reports, Israeli officials said no meeting had been scheduled with May. "No meeting with the UK prime minister had been set therefore no meeting was cancelled," a spokesperson said.

However, the Israeli media later reported that – despite the official denial – there had been discussions about May and Netanyahu speaking in Davos, although Britain had not been officially informed of the cancellation.

The prime minister is regarded as one of the most pro-Israeli leaders in Europe, recently describing it as "a remarkable country" and "a beacon of tolerance".

Kay's comments came as the fallout from Friday's vote continued to reverberate, amid growing fears in Israel that the US and the security council may be considering further moves against Israel before Donald Trump is inaugurated as US president on 20 January.

That has included speculation over a second security council resolution and reports that the US secretary of state, John Kerry, may be considering a speech outlining potential parameters for a two-state solution in the dying days of the Barack Obama administration.

The moves come against the background of reports that Israel is to approve hundreds of new houses in occupied Jerusalem.

The moves by the Obama administration, including the abstention in the security council vote on Friday, appear designed to leave a legacy of acts that can be used by the EU, the international criminal court and other institutions to continue to pressure Israel over settlement and the moribund peace process even if Trump – as appears highly likely – pursues a one-sided and vigorously pro-Israel foreign policy.

The comments came as Israel continued to warn of further retaliation against the UN and countries that supported the resolution. That includes the emergence of further details on the UN agencies Israel is considering sanctioning as part of its diplomatic blitz, including cutting funding.

Among the reported targets is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has long been in Israel's sights and runs schools and provides housing and facilities in refugee camps in the occupied territories.

It is also being suggested that Israel will promote its own UN resolution that would set rules of conduct for UN employees so they would be made accountable for any statements regarded as being anti-Israel – although it is unclear what support if any that could muster given last week's uncontested vote.

Despite the loud noises from Netanyahu it remained unclear how much of it was bluster, designed to placate rightwing sentiments within his own Likud party and far-right coalition partners such as Jewish Home, and how much would have concrete consequences.

In contrast to the recent harsh statements, Netanyahu has also reportedly warned ministers to avoid making calls for annexation of the occupied territories for fear of promoting further moves aganist Israel.

The latest planned reported moves also come amid evidence of a mounting backlash against Netanyahu's handling of the situation.

On Monday Yesh Atid, the party of one of Netanyahu's biggest rivals on the right, Yair Lapid, urged the Knesset to summon Netanyahu to explain the "dangerous deterioration in Israel's foreign relations" following the vote.

Israeli columnists also continued to damn Netanyahu's handling of the fallout with Ben Caspit, of the Maariv, describing his "campaign of chastisement" as the "most unwarranted and looniest in the world of diplomacy in modern history".

[CountDeMoney]

It's not common, but not out of the realm,to abstain on a vote, for a number of reasons.

As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2016

Skerry!

Ted Cruz: Cut US funding to UN until reversal of Israel vote

[Phillip V]

We should support our ally Israel.

[Admiral Yi]

Nah, cut 'em loose.

[Razgovory]

I have no problem with supporting Israel, but it shouldn't be unconditional.  We should have done this a long time ago.  The settlements in the West Bank are not inline with our goals.

[citizen k]

Nah, cut 'em loose.

The U.S.S. Liberty agrees.

[DGuller]

I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.

[Admiral Yi]

I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.

This is Trump approach to international relations.  Serious people don't make it personal.

[DGuller]

I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.

This is Trump approach to international relations.  Serious people don't make it personal.

Maybe they don't, but you probably shouldn't treat serious people you rely on like shit and bank on them not taking it personally.

[Eddie Teach]

I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.

Forget Obama. Their settlement policy is just plain counterproductive and not in line with US interests.

[Valmy]

Yeah. Every American administration has grumbled about the settlements and made their wishes known to Israel.

The striking thing is that Israel is less than a month away from getting an American administration that may finally back them on this. Then this happens. Not sure how much this changes things over the next four years.

[Valmy]

I have no problem with supporting Israel, but it shouldn't be unconditional.  We should have done this a long time ago.  The settlements in the West Bank are not inline with our goals.

Yes. It has been pretty embarrassing to be supporting this country and they just keep flaunting our interests and forcing us to go further and further out on a limb for them.

[The Brain]

Without Israel as an ally the Middle East might become a mess.

[Phillip V]

Without Israel as an ally the Middle East might become a mess.

Agree.  Let's get real.  Israel is the best partner that America has and the most progressive, stable country in the Middle East.  The people of the Golan Heights are super happy that they are no longer part of Syria and its war/genocide.  The Palestinians (and Arabs) lost.  They will never get Palestine back this century.

[Admiral Yi]

How is Israel a partner?  When have they had our back?

They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.