On Israel, A Resolution To Repudiate

"On Dec. 23, 2016, the United States abstained and allowed the Security Council to adopt Resolution 2334 demanding that Israel stop all settlement activity. This resolution, unlike the 25 or so anti-Israel General Assembly resolutions passed each year, has real consequences.

It provides legal authority under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter for the Security Council or individual states to take Israel to the International Court of Justice, and sets the basis for the Council to enforce its commands by imposing sanctions under Chapter VII - including even the use of force. The incoming U.S. administration will veto any such effort. But the resolution will be invoked by states, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and every anti-Israel public and private group in the world to justify lawsuits, boycotts, trade restrictions and outright acts of terror.

President-elect Trump condemned the resolution and promises things will be different at the U.N. after Jan. 20th. He cannot be faulted for trying to keep the Obama administration from allowing adoption of so ill-considered and potentially damaging a resolution. Mr. Trump should respond with a plan of action that guts the resolution of its authority.

Mr. Trump will hear from diplomats, foreign ambassadors and others that he cannot undo a Security Council resolution. That is nonsense.

He can, as president, repudiate any international agreement. It will be easier to accomplish this objective, in fact, than it was for Secretary James Baker to convince the General Assembly to repeal its resolution equating Zionism and racism in 1991. John Bolton's effective effort under Secretary Baker's leadership drove a stake through the heart of that evil doctrine.

A vehicle for President Trump's action in this regard is operative paragraph 12, requesting the secretary-general to report to the Council 'every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution.'

President Trump should inform the Secretary-general before his first report on March 23, 2017, that the U.S. repudiates Resolution 2334 - that the U.S. will veto any effort to enforce its conclusions. He should also seek legislation imposing trade sanctions on states that rely on the resolution to discriminate against Israel, as the U.S. did successfully against the Arab boycott...

The arguments advanced to support the U.S. position are perverse. Ambassador Samantha Powers claimed U.S. presidents have all been against expanding settlements. But no administration has ever supported calling all Israeli settlements 'flagrant violations of international law,' not even the Obama administration, which vetoed a similar resolution in 2011.

President Reagan regarded the settlements as 'legal,' and most other presidents have refrained from relying on inapposite principles of international law, shunning such ineffective hectoring. No administration has ever claimed Israel, as an 'occupying power' during 'war' must treat Palestine as a state..."