Sunday, July 09, 2017

First They 'Took' Jerusalem, Then They 'Took' Hebron

With apologies to the great Cohen.

-     -     -    -    -

I fully understand my Hebron friends, from the Prime Minister to the Mayor of Hebron, the Jewish Mayor, that is.

But let us recall, last week's Hebron UNESCO resolution was enabled back in  when the previous Jerusalem-centered resolution passed and also United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 (2016), - thanks to Barack Obama*and in fact, last Thursday's resolution included this reference before getting to Hebron.

And it detailed this regarding Jerusalem:

30.I Jerusalem

...5. Reminding that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith,

...7. Regrets the failure of the Israeli occupying authorities to cease the persistent excavations, tunneling, works and projects in East Jerusalem, particularly in and around the Old City of Jerusalem, which are illegal under international law and reiterates its request to Israel, the occupying Power, to prohibit all violations which are not in conformity with the provisions of the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions;

...9. Stresses again the urgent need to implement the UNESCO reactive monitoring mission to the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, and invites the Director-General and the World Heritage Centre, to exert all possible efforts, in line with their mandates and in conformity with the provisions of the relevant UNESCO conventions, decisions and resolutions, to ensure the prompt implementation of the mission and, in case of non-implementation, to propose possible effective measures to ensure its implementation;

Letting UNESCO getting away with that, not consistently following up and demanding some sort of a recall process, led straight to Hebron.

President Obama had to make that decision. And one of the factors in that decision was, if he vetoes it, does it somehow give his approval to this big party going on about annexation and legalization and widespread settlement construction and the death of the two-state solution? That was a factor. So it was a judgment call.”

No comments: