How the New U.S. Administration Can Negate the Anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution

(Washington Post) Eugene Kontorovich - The U.S. decision to allow a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements to pass was met with bipartisan condemnation, including from leading players in efforts to achieve a two-state solution, such as Democrats Dennis Ross and George Mitchell. The new U.S. administration cannot directly reverse the resolution, but the President and Congress can take action to negate its ideas, and to create a different reality from the one Resolution 2334 seeks to promote. The U.S. must clearly declare that whatever the political merits of Israeli settlements, they do not violate international law. The Security Council's condemnation of any Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank is a unique rule invented for Israel. What is being demanded of Israel in its historical homeland has never been demanded of any other state, and never will be. Congress can pass legislation making clear that Israel does not violate international law by permitting Jews to live in territories under its control. The U.S. should move its embassy to the location of the current U.S. Consular Section in the Arnona neighborhood of Jerusalem. This location is a few hundred meters over the imaginary line across which the UN says Jews may not go. Moving the embassy there would be the most tangible rejection of the resolution's "1967 lines" policy. The U.S. must clarify that all its treaties or laws applicable to Israel apply fully to all areas under Israel's civil jurisdiction. For example, the President could immediately rescind Treasury regulations that require Israeli goods from the West Bank to be labeled "Made in West Bank," and instead direct that they be labeled "Made in Israel." Moreover, Congress should also pass anti-boycott legislation specifying that it applies to boycotts of territories under Israeli jurisdiction. The writer, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, is an expert on constitutional and international law.

2017-01-03 00:00:00

Full Article


Visit the Daily Alert Archive