I agree that this Resolution is not a step forward as previous Resolutions passed have never been enforced and this is no different. And I agree that the only way to enforce a just solution is through sanctions against Israel. So if the US is Israel's prop why is it that all the other nations of the world can't stand up to ONE bully. Furthermore I find it nonsense that the buildings of the settlement cement Israeli ownership. Where in the Geneva Conventions that buildings constitute ownership on stolen land? This is Israeli storytelling. Israelis can't get along with anyone and so yes, they need a land of their own which they can call 'democratic' (for Jewish people). The mistakes of the past have put them in Palestine creating the worst threat to world peace. I think perhaps under the circumstance of Israeli intransigence a one-state solution is not viable. Israelis must leave Palestine and they must leave the homes, markets etc as PART-reparation for the horrors they have caused. Israelis must be confined to their clearly defined borders (no more land grabs in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine right to the Jordan River). It's time the world took on the two bullies.

There are people celebrating this vote, or rather, America's abstention. They seem to regard the resolution's passage as a turning point heralding an end to Israel's impunity before the law. Personally, the whole performance strikes me as a bitter farewell joke from a departing President Obama. I suspect Palestinians on the whole will feel the same way. The Obama administration set its face against them at the outset and served the basest aims of Zionism with extraordinary devotion and consistency. This hollow resolution is a fitting capstone to the period in office of one of the most two-faced, violent and hypocritical administrations in recent U.S. history. Across the board, Obama's greatest achievement has been to prepare the way for Donald Trump to succeed him.

It didn't have to be this way.

Ali’s points about this new resolution are well made and duly taken, especially the overarching one, that it seems designed to enshrine the “two-state solution”. And his point that previous ones were even stronger condemnations of Israel’s early stages of ethnic cleansing are also good. However, his acknowledgment of the value of this righteous stand by the departing Obama administration is unduly tepid.
True that although it probably can’t be undone, it can continue to be ignored and it doesn’t address the broader question of Palestinian rights in Israel and the Diaspora. Still it comes at a time when BDS is poised to benefit from a resurgence of the issue, which he acknowledges and a hopefully, expansive debate about international law and its value, in light of western nationalist movements and the ascension of Trump and what appears to be license for total contempt of that law, its institutions and the UN.
Sure, the past had roads we should have taken and one would like to believe our race ethical enough to abide by what hasn’t been justly resolved but the fact is we aren’t, as a whole, up to it, so we have to rely on what’s carried on the breeze and hope it fans the fires we are building NOW.
Palestinian rights will continue to be an issue regardless of what solution is “enshrined”.

I've re-read this Resolution and found what its worst thought is. It's its 5th conclusion in which it "Calls upon all States ... to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;"
That's the whole point - there is no distinction. All of Palestine is 'occupied Palestinian territory'. The 'occupation' is of Palestine, not of the West Bank and maybe Gaza Strip. Almost all Zionist settlements except maybe old Tel Aviv and a dozen early colonies are immoral and illegal settlements, set up by British and Zionist force and trickery. There is no distinction between the territory called 'Israel' and that called the 'West Bank' and 'Gaza Strip'. It's all Palestine and belongs to the Palestinians.
That's the perfidy of this resolution, which is out to save Israel, nothing else.

First off, thank you. These articles have challenged my entire thought process on the vote and resolution itself. While the media has primarily focused on the negative effects this will have on Israel or the success of the vote for Palestinians, it is so important to put everything into context and see what this would actually mean for our people, the Palestinians. That being said, I need to ask the obvious question: What would have been the best outcome?? In your first article, you articulated that this vote failing could have been better for Palestine, and then stuck by that line here. Great, but then what? What should be the actionable steps here? Drafting another resolution with more intense language? You wrote that “This sent Israel back into panic mode.” Is this not a good outcome? What could have been done to further the cause, and what can be done now to move forward and make this more than some symbolic, ineffective resolution?

I wrote some thoughts on this topic in my blog, and referenced your articles. Would be great to hear your thoughts! Check it out: https://palestineroots.wordpre...