Some say UN resolution could pave the way for US Embassy move
The Jerusalem planning commission is expected to announce that 600 new homes will be built in several Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, in the part of the city that Israel annexed in 1967. While the new homes have been planned for a while, and were not a direct response to last week’s UN Security Council Resolution condemning Jewish settlements in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the Israeli government is expected to add to the continuing storm surrounding the resolution.
Acting and Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and Chairman of the Local Planning and Building committee Meir Turgeman, told the press he is “not intimidated by the UN or by any other entity trying to dictate to us what to do in Jerusalem. I hope the new US Administration will give us a push to continue replenishing the housing stock which was reduced during the eight years of the Obama Administration.”
The 600 new homes are only the first stage of what is expected to be thousands of homes in neighborhoods such as Gilo in southern Jerusalem and Ramot, to the north.
Israeli officials continued to respond harshly to the Security Council Resolution, which passed 14 – 0, with one abstention, the US. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is furious that the US did not veto the resolution as it has similar ones in the past, but allowed it to pass.
Netanyahu, saying that Israel “will not turn the other cheek” has cut off aid to several countries, including Angola and Senegal, which voted in favor of the resolution, and has ordered his government to limit ties the others including Britain, France and Russia.
That has caused a storm in Israel that reflects the current wintry weather. Some have sharply criticized the Prime Minister for overreacting, saying he will only increase Israel’s diplomatic isolation.
“I think it’s a huge mistake and that the assumption that the whole world is against us is incorrect,” Ami Ayalon, a former director of Israel’s Shin Bet security service and a founder of Blue-White Future, a group that calls for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank, told The Media Line. “The countries on the UN Security Council do not approve of our behavior in the West Bank and that is their right. It is pure occupation.”
While the resolution is clearly a diplomatic setback for Israel, the legal ramifications are not clear. There have been dozens of anti-Israel UN General Assembly resolutions, which Israel has brushed off as not being legally binding. Security Council resolutions, in contrast, are seen as legally binding.
In this case, however, the legal implications are not clear. The resolution, like previous anti-Israel resolutions, was passed under Chapter 6 of the UN charter, says Alan Baker, a former Israeli legal advisor to the foreign ministry. Chapter 6, which calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes, allows voluntary sanctions. Chapter 7 deals with threats to international peace or security, and calls for immediate sanctions.
“This resolution doesn’t mean anything different,” Ambassador Baker told The Media Line. “It acknowledges the viewpoint of the international community which has been known for many years. They consider Israel’s settlement policy to be incompatible with international law. This does not order any specific action. It recommends that states distinguish between Israel proper and the territories.”
The resolution also comes just weeks before US-President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. Unlike his predecessors, he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, a move Palestinians have vehemently opposed.
One former Israeli Knesset member, Einat Wilf, offered a different take on the UN resolution. If it says that Israel’s control of east Jerusalem is illegal, that means that Israel’s control of west Jerusalem, the site of the parliament and Supreme Court, is legal. Until now, the prevailing international opinion has been that the future of all of Jerusalem must be part of a negotiated solution with the Palestinians.
“I read this resolution as the most resounding affirmation of Israel within the cease-fire lines (pre-1967 borders) to date,” Wilf told The Media Line. “By highlighting what is illegal, and being very firm on that, it is saying that everything before 1967 is legal, not at all controversial, not at all in dispute and not occupied.”
The decision, she said, should pave the way for the US to move its embassy to west Jerusalem as President-elect Trump has promised.