US allows UN denounce Israeli settlements

United Nations, Dec 24: Defying heavy pressure, the US today allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution demanding Israel to halt settlements in Palestinian territory as it abstained from wielding its veto in the powerful world body.

israel The 15-nation Council adopted yesterday the resolution by a vote of 14 in favour and with one abstention from the US.

In a rare step, the United States instead abstained, enabling the adoption of the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy.

The resolution had been put forward by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela.

In the resolution, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard".

As the resolution, which had more symbolic value and is unlikely to change the situation on ground between Israel and Palestine, was adopted, the Council broke into a huge round of applause as envoys of the permanent and non-permanent members lauded the decision.

The adoption of the resolution and Washington's abstention was seen as a huge rebuke to Israel, which has traditionally been a staunch US ally.

Trump had put pressure on the Obama administration to veto the UN resolution critical of Israel.

A day before the vote, Trump said in a post on social network Facebook that the resolution being considered at the UN Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed.

"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis," he had said.

Following the adoption of the resolution, Trump made his displeasure clear, tweeting "As to the UN, things will be different after January 20," referring to the day when he is sworn in as the next US President.

"There is one president at a time," Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, told reporters, dismissing Trump's criticism.

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, in Washington's explanation of vote on the resolution, said the vote for US was "not straightforward" because of "for as long as Israel has been a member" of the UN, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.

She said it is America's commitment to Israel's security that makes the United States believe it cannot stand in the way of this resolution as it seeks to preserve a chance of attaining the long-standing objective: two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

"The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution. The number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has increased dramatically.

Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution's sponsors to bring it before the Council," she said.

Power added the US did not veto the resolution because it reflects the facts on the ground and is consistent with US policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel.

Outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the adoption of the resolution which stated that the establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, have "no legal validity", constitute a "flagrant violation" under international law and are a "major obstacle" to a two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

"The resolution is a significant step, demonstrating the Council's much needed leadership and the international community's collective efforts to reconfirm that the vision of two States is still achievable," the UN chief's spokesperson said in a statement.

"The Secretary-General takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations," the spokesperson added.

Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon responded harshly to the American decision not to veto the UN Security Council resolution: "Neither the Security Council nor UNESCO can sever the tie between the people of Israel and the land of Israel".

Danon added that it was "expected" that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that "we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution".

"I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel," he said.

Leading human rights group Human Rights Watch lauded the adoption of the resolution saying the US abstention is a welcome shift away from past practice of "using its Security Council veto to shield Israel from criticism despite longstanding US policy opposing settlements".

The Council vote "rebukes" those seeking to reverse universally accepted international law on the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

UN Director at Human Rights Watch Louis Charbonneau said indications that Trump may change US policy on settlements "reinforces" the need for a steadfast Security Council position, adding that Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela should be commended for pushing this resolution forward after Egypt "balked under political pressure before voting in favour of the final resolution".

The Council also underlined that it will not recognize any changes to the June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.

The resolution called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, and for accountability in that regard, as well as for both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and previous agreements and obligations, "to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric".

Comments

UN should also levy penalty on israel and make them pay for allt he losses they did to palestinians since 1967. Israel should withdraw from all the ocupied land.

UN should pass a bill to curb and halt terorists state of Israel from occupying palestine land and withdraw immedaitely. As there is no chance that terror israel state will give any attention to US Resolution, i reqeust UN to pass on a resolution to isolate Israel and ban all flight servicdes to and from this terror state. However, even if this terrorits state do not honour UN resolution, UN should give freedom to Nato forces to attack israel. Isolation will definately work. Let this terrorist state suffer. Any country supporting Israel should also be given warning.

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

Brazil tops 1 million cases as coronavirus spreads inland

News Network

June 20,2020

Sao Paulo, June 20: Brazil’s government confirmed on Friday that the country has risen above 1 million confirmed coronavirus cases, second only to the United States.

The country’s health ministry said that the total now stood at 10,32,913, up more than 50,000 from Thursday. The ministry said the sharp increase was due to corrections of previous days’ underreported numbers.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro still downplays the risks of the virus after nearly 50,000 deaths from COVID-19 in three months, saying the impact of social isolation measures on the economy could be worse than the disease itself.

Specialists believe the actual number of cases in Brazil could be up to seven times higher than the official statistic. Johns Hopkins University says Brazil is performing an average of 14 tests per 1,00,000 people each day, and health experts say that number is up to 20 times less than needed to track the virus.

Official data show a downward trend of the virus in Brazil’s north, including the hard-hit region of the Amazon, a plateau in cases and deaths in the countries’ biggest cities near the Atlantic coast, but a rising curve in the south.

In the Brazilian countryside, which is much less prepared to handle a crisis, the pandemic is clearly growing. Many smaller cities have weaker health care systems and basic sanitation that’s insufficient to prevent contagion.

“There is a lot of regional inequality in our public health system and a shortage of professionals in the interior,” said Miguel Lago, executive director of Brazil’s Institute for Health Policy Studies, which advises public health officials.

That creates many health care deserts, with people going long distances to get attention. When they leave the hospital, the virus can go with them.

The cattle-producing state of Mato Grosso was barely touched by the virus when it hit the nation’s biggest cities in March. Sitting far from the coast, between the Bolivian border and Brazil’s capital of Brasilia, its 33 lakh residents led a mostly normal life until May. But now its people live under lockdown and meat producers have dozens of infected workers.

In Tangará da Serra, a city of 1,03,000 people in Mato Grosso, the mayor decided Friday to forbid the sale of alcoholic drinks for two weeks as an incentive for people to stay home.

Fᢩo Junqueira said the measure was needed after a spike in COVID-19 cases that filled 80% of the city’s 54 intensive care beds. The city has had nearly 300 cases of the disease, plus three fatalities.

In Rondonópolis, only 300 miles away from Tangará da Serra and home to a thriving economy, health authorities closed the local meatpacking industry after 92 cases were confirmed there. The city of 1,44,000 inhabitants counted 21 deaths from the virus and more than 600 cases. The mayor has also decided to limit sales of alcoholic beverages.

Even regions once considered examples of successful efforts against the virus are now struggling.

Porto Alegre, home to about 14 lakh people, had success in slowing the virus’ spread over the last three months. But now its mayor is considering increasing social isolation measures after ICU occupancy in the city jumped to 80% this month.

We were already making projections for schools to come back, Mayor Nelson Marchezan Jr. told The Associated Press. Now the trend is to impose more restrictions. Outside Sao Paulo city, five regions of the state’s countryside will have to close shops starting Monday due to a rise in coronavirus cases. Governor João Doria announced the decision Friday.

Dr. Mike Ryan, the World Health Organization’s executive director, said at a news conference that Brazil needs to increase its efforts to stop the spread of infections.

“The epidemic is still quite severe in Brazil. I believe health workers are working extremely hard and under pressure to be able to deal with the number of cases that they see on a daily basis,” Dr. Ryan said.

“Certainly the rise is not as exponential as it was previously, so there are some signs that the situation is stabilising. But we’ve seen this before in other epidemics in other countries.”

Margareth Dalcolmo, a clinical researcher and professor of respiratory medicine at the state-funded Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, believes the reopening in major cities and the virus traveling by road into Brazil’s heartland will keep the pressure on the country’s health system.

“The risk in the interior now is very big,” she said. “Our health system just can’t solve the most serious cases of COVID in many places of the countryside.”

Comments