http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-israels-response-unsc-hysterical
Noam Chomsky: Israel’s Response to the United Nation's Resolution on
Palestine Is 'Hysterical'
A victory for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
By Ken Klippenstein / AlterNet
December 28, 2016
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution 14-0
condemning all Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as having “no
legal validity” and amounting to “a flagrant violation under
international law.” The resolution goes on to note that Israeli
settlements pose “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living
side-by-side in peace and security.”
This represents the first UNSC resolution in almost eight years
concerning Israel and Palestine, and the first in over 35 years
regarding the issue of Israeli settlements. Typically the U.S. would
veto resolutions critical of Israel, but in this case, the Obama
administration opted to abstain, in effect allowing the resolution to pass.
For comment, AlterNet contacted Noam Chomsky, famed linguist, dissident
and professor emeritus of MIT. Chomsky said of the resolution, “The UNSC
resolution is essentially the same as UNSC 446, March 1979, passed
12-0-3. The main difference is that then two countries joined the U.S.
in abstaining. Now the U.S. stands against the world; and under Trump,
in even more splendid isolation, on much more crucial matters as well.”
Following the UNSC resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
quickly responded by announcing a halt to his government’s funding
contributions to numerous U.N. institutions. Netanyahu called the
resolution “a disgraceful anti-Israel maneuver” and blamed it on an
“old-world bias against Israel.” Furthermore, he vowed to exact a
“diplomatic and economic price” from the countries that supported it.
Shortly thereafter, Netanyahu made good on his threats by personally
refusing to meet with the foreign ministers of the 12 UNSC members that
voted for the resolution and ordering his Foreign Ministry to limit all
working ties with the embassies of those 12 nations. He also summoned
the ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for a personal reprimand over
the vote—including, in a highly unusual move, the U.S. ambassador.
Asked about Netanyahu’s response, Chomsky told AlterNet, “The hysterical
reaction in Israel and in Congress (bipartisan) reflects their sharp
shift to the right in the years since, and the whole incident
illustrates quite interesting shifts in world order.”
Palestinian rights advocates have quipped that Israel’s suspension of
relations with the UNSC member nations that voted for the
resolution—powerful countries including the U.K. and France—has
effectively realized a goal of the boycott, divestment and sanctions
movement. AlterNet contacted Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the
BDS movement, to see what he thought of this assessment. Barghouti
replied, "This unanimous resolution, despite its many flaws in
addressing basic Palestinian rights, has dealt Israel's colonial designs
a serious blow that will inadvertently, yet significantly, enhance the
impact of the BDS movement in isolating Israel academically, culturally,
economically and otherwise."
"Israel's delusional hubris and surreal threats to punish the U.N. and
the world indicate above everything else how deeply alarmed it is at
fast becoming an international pariah, as apartheid South Africa once was."
Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American founder of the Electronic
Intifada, told AlterNet that Israel’s use of diplomatic sanctions
against the UNSC member states contradicted its vocal opposition to
sanctions advocated by the BDS movement. Abunimah said, “It’s sort of
amusing to Israel try to impose sanctions and punish the whole world for
this decision…Israel claims that sanctions are illegitimate as a tool
except of course when Israel is the one wielding them, whether it’s
against Iran or whether against the countries that displeased it.”
Though Israel’s heavy-handed response may concretely impact its
diplomatic standing internationally, the resolution itself is largely
symbolic and, as professor Chomsky pointed out, a reiteration of an
earlier UNSC resolution. However, experts like Richard Falk, professor
emeritus of international law at Princeton University and former U.N.
Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights from 2008-2014, don’t
think the resolution’s symbolic nature means it isn’t important.
As Falk told AlterNet, “The SC resolution at this stage is symbolic.
Israel has already announced plans for thousand additional units, and
the government has indicated its refusal to comply with the resolution.
Nevertheless, it is of great psychological and potentially political
support for the Palestinian struggle to end the occupation and achieve a
sustainable and just peace. The fact that aside from the United States'
notable abstention, all 14 other members of the Security Council voted
in favor of the resolution, is indicative of the encouraging reality
that the world is not ready to forget the Palestinians, that Israel
faces a renewed experience of diplomatic isolation, and that the growing
international solidarity movement, including the BDS campaign, will be
strengthened and encouraged.”
Asked how the resolution could move from symbolic to something with more
concrete effects, Falk responded, “much depends on the future, and
whether the commitment in the resolution to have reports from the U.N.
Secretary General every three months on implementation will lead to any
tangible results beyond a reiteration of censure remains to be seen.”
Though the Obama administration’s unusual decision not to veto a U.N.
resolution critical of Israel might be start toward accountability, many
Palestinian rights advocates remain cynical about Obama. Abunimah told
AlterNet, “Obama has done more than any other president in history to
assure Israel’s impunity.”
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution 14-0
condemning all Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as having “no
legal validity” and amounting to “a flagrant violation under
international law.” The resolution goes on to note that Israeli
settlements pose “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living
side-by-side in peace and security.”
This represents the first UNSC resolution in almost eight years
concerning Israel and Palestine, and the first in over 35 years
regarding the issue of Israeli settlements. Typically the U.S. would
veto resolutions critical of Israel, but in this case, the Obama
administration opted to abstain, in effect allowing the resolution to pass.
For comment, AlterNet contacted Noam Chomsky, famed linguist, dissident
and professor emeritus of MIT. Chomsky said of the resolution, “The UNSC
resolution is essentially the same as UNSC 446, March 1979, passed
12-0-3. The main difference is that then two countries joined the U.S.
in abstaining. Now the U.S. stands against the world; and under Trump,
in even more splendid isolation, on much more crucial matters as well.”
Following the UNSC resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
quickly responded by announcing a halt to his government’s funding
contributions to numerous U.N. institutions. Netanyahu called the
resolution “a disgraceful anti-Israel maneuver” and blamed it on an
“old-world bias against Israel.” Furthermore, he vowed to exact a
“diplomatic and economic price” from the countries that supported it.
Shortly thereafter, Netanyahu made good on his threats by personally
refusing to meet with the foreign ministers of the 12 UNSC members that
voted for the resolution and ordering his Foreign Ministry to limit all
working ties with the embassies of those 12 nations. He also summoned
the ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for a personal reprimand over
the vote—including, in a highly unusual move, the U.S. ambassador.
Asked about Netanyahu’s response, Chomsky told AlterNet, “The hysterical
reaction in Israel and in Congress (bipartisan) reflects their sharp
shift to the right in the years since, and the whole incident
illustrates quite interesting shifts in world order.”
Palestinian rights advocates have quipped that Israel’s suspension of
relations with the UNSC member nations that voted for the
resolution—powerful countries including the U.K. and France—has
effectively realized a goal of the boycott, divestment and sanctions
movement. AlterNet contacted Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the
BDS movement, to see what he thought of this assessment. Barghouti
replied, "This unanimous resolution, despite its many flaws in
addressing basic Palestinian rights, has dealt Israel's colonial designs
a serious blow that will inadvertently, yet significantly, enhance the
impact of the BDS movement in isolating Israel academically, culturally,
economically and otherwise."
"Israel's delusional hubris and surreal threats to punish the U.N. and
the world indicate above everything else how deeply alarmed it is at
fast becoming an international pariah, as apartheid South Africa once was."
Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American founder of the Electronic
Intifada, told AlterNet that Israel’s use of diplomatic sanctions
against the UNSC member states contradicted its vocal opposition to
sanctions advocated by the BDS movement. Abunimah said, “It’s sort of
amusing to Israel try to impose sanctions and punish the whole world for
this decision…Israel claims that sanctions are illegitimate as a tool
except of course when Israel is the one wielding them, whether it’s
against Iran or whether against the countries that displeased it.”
Though Israel’s heavy-handed response may concretely impact its
diplomatic standing internationally, the resolution itself is largely
symbolic and, as professor Chomsky pointed out, a reiteration of an
earlier UNSC resolution. However, experts like Richard Falk, professor
emeritus of international law at Princeton University and former U.N.
Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights from 2008-2014, don’t
think the resolution’s symbolic nature means it isn’t important.
As Falk told AlterNet, “The SC resolution at this stage is symbolic.
Israel has already announced plans for thousand additional units, and
the government has indicated its refusal to comply with the resolution.
Nevertheless, it is of great psychological and potentially political
support for the Palestinian struggle to end the occupation and achieve a
sustainable and just peace. The fact that aside from the United States'
notable abstention, all 14 other members of the Security Council voted
in favor of the resolution, is indicative of the encouraging reality
that the world is not ready to forget the Palestinians, that Israel
faces a renewed experience of diplomatic isolation, and that the growing
international solidarity movement, including the BDS campaign, will be
strengthened and encouraged.”
Asked how the resolution could move from symbolic to something with more
concrete effects, Falk responded, “much depends on the future, and
whether the commitment in the resolution to have reports from the U.N.
Secretary General every three months on implementation will lead to any
tangible results beyond a reiteration of censure remains to be seen.”
Though the Obama administration’s unusual decision not to veto a U.N.
resolution critical of Israel might be start toward accountability, many
Palestinian rights advocates remain cynical about Obama. Abunimah told
AlterNet, “Obama has done more than any other president in history to
assure Israel’s impunity.”
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel