Indictment by abstention

Indictment by abstention

In what is yet another diplomatic blow for the two-state principle, the UN Security Council, on Friday, passed a resolution with a 14-0 majority urging Israel to halt its illegal settlements programme in the occupied Palestinian territories. The vote is notable as Israel’s pre-eminent backer, the United States, chose to abstain (मतदान में भाग नहीं लेना/से अलग रहना) . By doing so, the Barack Obama administration bucked its earlier record of vetoing a similar resolution in 2011. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump was prompt (तात्कालिक/शीघ्र) in promising a different response once his tenure (कार्यकाल) commences (शुरू होना/प्रारम्भ होना) on January 20. He had sought to work behind the back of Mr. Obama in trying to scuttle (विफल कर देना/बिगाड़ना) this resolution by reaching out to Egypt, which originally drafted it but backed down from its nomination due to “intense pressure”. But it will be difficult for the Trump administration to have this resolution overturned, passed as it was without a veto. That said, the resolution, by way of its adoption under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, is not binding and comes only with recommendations. It therefore does not affect the status quo (the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.) in the occupied territories. Even so, its unambiguous (स्पष्ट/सीधी/ साफ़) language stating that the settlements constitute a violation of international law offers hope for the Palestinians who have filed a suit (that includes the construction of settlements) against Israel in the International Criminal Court.

Israel’s reaction has been predictable. It has refused to comply with the terms of the resolution. It has repeatedly sought to create “new facts on the ground” by continuing to build settlements, imposing a blockade on Gaza, forcing international censure (आक्षेप करना/दोषी ठहराना) to only keep apace (with rapid movements) with its latest violations. This outrageous (अपमानजनक/सख्त) behavior has been made possible by the unrelenting (निरन्तर) support provided by the U.S. in the past. While Mr. Obama has had a testy (खराब/क्रोधप्रवीणता) relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his administration continued to fund and arm Israel despite, for example, the atrocities (अत्याचार/क्रूरता) in Gaza. The U.S. had also recently worked out a deal that provides $38 billion in military aid over 10 years to Israel, cementing long-established strategic ties. Seen in this light, the administration’s decision to abstain in the most substantive resolution on Israeli settlements since 1980 is even more remarkable. It is also a possible parting shot by the outgoing administration before the unambiguously partisan (पक्षपातपूर्ण) Trump team takes charge. Either way, it is up to the international community to take the cue and find ways to check and censure Israel’s brazen rule-breaking, and forge a fair solution for the Palestinians.