Anti-racist Jewish Humanitarians Oppose Apartheid Israel & Support UN Security Council Resolution 2334


The persecution of Jews in Europe that culminated in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed by violence or deprivation) means that anti-racist Jews are inescapably obliged to oppose race-based Apartheid, disempowerment, dispossession, expulsion, ethnic cleansing  and genocide. Accordingly, numerous anti-racist Jews have come out to back UN Security Council  Resolution 2334 (2016) that explicitly condemns such war crimes by Apartheid Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

On 23 December 2016,  the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 (2016) with a vote of 14 to 0 with the racist, pro-Zionist, pro-Apartheid US Obama Administration remarkably failing to veto and recording an abstention. The Security Council Resolution 2334 could have been much stronger by explicitly condemning the 49-year Apartheid Israeli Occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory but it nevertheless condemned other Israeli crimes in the Palestinian Territory that are in gross violation of international law, critically “Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice” and “Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions” [1].

The full text of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) reads as follows:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

“1.   Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

“2.   Reiterates 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;

“3.   Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

“4.   Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

“5.   Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

“6.   Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

“7.   Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

“8.   Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

“9.   Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

“10.  Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

“11.  Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

“12.  Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

“13.  Decides to remain seized of the matter” [1].

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has 5 Permanent Members  ( China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly, namely  (with end of term date indicated in brackets): Angola (2016), Egypt (2017), Japan (2017), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Senegal (2017), Spain (2016), Ukraine (2017), Uruguay (2017), and Venezuela (2016). The racist, pro-Zionist, pro-Apartheid  US failed to veto Resolution 2334 and merely abstained,  but the remaining UNSC members unanimously supported UNSC Resolution 2334 [1].

The UN Security Council Resolution 2334 ignored the crime of the near-half century Occupation by Apartheid Israel but at least spelled out the egregious violations of international law associated with that Occupation. To that extent, passage by the UN Security Council of Resolution 2334 (unanimously except for abstention by an intractably  racist US) is an ineradicable game changer. The ongoing Palestinian Genocide by race-based Apartheid Israel has now been recognized 14 to 0 by the UN Security Council, if not  with use of that terminology, by “Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions” [1, 2].

One notes that Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention states that :“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Apartheid Israel is guilty of violating all these elements of the UN Genocide Convention:  (1) since 1936 there have been 2 million Palestinian deaths from Zionist violence (0.1 million) or Zionist-imposed deprivation (1.9 million );  (2) there are  7 million Palestinian refugees and all of the 12 million Palestinians are excluded from all or part of Palestine; (3) of 12 million Palestinians (half of them children), 6 million are forbidden to even step foot in their own country on pain of death, 4.7 million are highly abusively and violently held hostage with zero human rights under Israeli  guns in the Gaza Concentration Camp (2.0 million) or in ever-dwindling West Bank Bantustan ghettoes  (2.7 million),  and 1.7 million live as Third Class citizens as Israeli Palestinians under Nazi-style Apartheid Israeli race laws; (4) 90% of Palestine has now been ethnically cleansed of Indigenous Palestinian  inhabitants (this making a 2-State Solution impossible); (5) the huge disparity in annual GDP per capita between Occupied Palestinians ($2,800) and Israel-proper ($38,000) is reflected in huge differential avoidable mortality of over 4,000 avoidable deaths per year for Occupied Palestinians versus zero (0) for Israelis;   (6) through  imposed deprivation, each year Apartheid Israel passively  murders about 2,700 under-5 year old Palestinian  infants and passively murders 4,200 Occupied Palestinians in general; (7) Apartheid Israel violently kills an average of about 500 Occupied Palestinians each year; and (8) Occupied Palestinians are deprived of essentially all human rights by Apartheid Israel, of which the most fundamental is the right to live unmolested in their own country [3, 4].

For anti-racist Jews and indeed all anti-racist humanitarians the core moral messages from the Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) and from the more general WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slav, Jewish and Gypsy dead) are “zero tolerance for racism”, “never again to anyone”, “bear witness” and “zero tolerance for lying”. Accordingly, all decent folk must bear witness to the appalling maltreatment  of Indigenous Palestinians by Apartheid Israel. Outstanding anti-racist Jewish American scholar Professor Jared Diamond in his best-selling book “Collapse” (Prologue, p10, Penguin edition) has enunciated the “moral principle, namely that it is morally wrong for one people to dispossess, subjugate, or exterminate another people” [5] – an injunction resolutely adhered to by anti-racist Jewish and non-Jewish humanitarians [3-13 ] but grossly violated by racist Zionist (RZ)-run, genocidally racist Apartheid Israel and its racist, anti-Arab anti-Semitic, genocide-committing and genocide-ignoring US Alliance backers [10-13].

Anti-racist Jewish Canadian writer Naomi Klein has distilled the anti-racist Jew versus racist Zionist debate as follows: “There is a debate among Jews – I’m a Jew by the way. The debate boils down to the question: “Never again to everyone, or never again to us?… [Some Jews] even think we get one get-away-with-genocide-free card…There is another strain in the Jewish tradition that say[s], ‘Never again to anyone.”” [14]. Moshe Menuhin (anti-racist Jewish scholar, father of famous violinist, anti-Zionist and universalist Yehudi Menuhin, a prominent anti-Zionist, and the author of “The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time”, “Jewish Critics of Zionism”, and of the family history “The Menuhin Saga”) has put this moral imperative for decent Jews very succinctly: “Jews should be Jews – not Nazis.” [15]. A large body of anti-racist Jewish and non-Jewish humanitarians  are opposed to the racist, child-abusing, nuclear terrorist, serial war criminal, state terrorist and genocidal exceptionalism of Apartheid Israel [2-15] and its powerful, likewise serial war criminal backer, the US [10-13].

Decent anti-racist Jewish humanitarians are grossly and falsely defamed by anti-racist Jew-defaming, Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists who falsely refer to Apartheid Israel as “the Jewish state”  and thus falsely  conflate all Jews (including decent anti-racist Jews) with Apartheid Israel and hence with its appalling,  genocidal war crimes. Indeed the racist Zionists (RZs) can be seen as the worst anti-Semites in the world today, anti-Jewish anti-Semites by defaming anti-racist Jews as “anti-Semites” or “self-hating Jews”)  and anti-Arab anti-Semites by backing the ongoing Palestinian  Genocide ( 2 million Palestinian deaths from violence, 0.1 million, or imposed deprivation, 1.9 million, since the mid-1930s) [3, 4] and backing a wider Muslim Genocide and Muslim Holocaust (32 million Muslim deaths from violence, 5 million, or imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity in 2001) [16, 17]. Decent anti-racist Jewish humanitarians are compelled to dissociate themselves from the appalling genocidal crimes of Apartheid Israel and the Zionist-subverted US Alliance [3-15] and in recent weeks numerous anti-racist Jews have come out to back UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

A quick search of the Web has revealed numerous anti-racist Jewish responses supportive of  the 23 December 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334 – they have been organized alphabetically below:

Gilad Atzmon (anti-racist, Jewish Israeli-origin UK writer and musician): “On 23 December the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”. For once, the USA decided to join the rest of humanity and didn’t veto the resolution.  The message is obvious: if Zionism was a promise to make the Jews people like other people, its failure is colossal. The Jewish State and its lobbies are people like no other. 14 out of 15 members of the UNSC voted against Israel, the US abstained. In the most clear terms, the UNSC denounced the Jewish state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. If Israel would be an ordinary state, as Zionism initially promised,  it would take some time to reflect on the resolution and consider the necessary measures to amend its public image. But as one would expect, the Jewish State did the complete opposite. It took the path of the bully and decided to punish the world… If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish state, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution. It, de facto, legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders. The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements… in practice he [Netanyahu] knows that the resolution is essential for the existence of the Jewish state. It is probably the last opportunity to scale down the pretentious Zionist dream and make it fit with the reality on the ground.  Let me reassure you, I don’t hold my breath. In reality it is actually the Israelis who don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” [18].

Noam Chomsky (anti-racist Jewish American linguistics professor at 87-Nobel-Laureate Massachusetts Institute of Technology): “Returning to UNSC 2334 and its interesting aftermath, it is important to recognize that the resolution is nothing new. The quote given above was not from UNSC 2334 but from UNSC Resolution 446, passed on March 12, 1979, reiterated in essence in UNSC 2334. UNSC 446 passed 12-0 with the US abstaining, joined by the UK and Norway. Several resolutions followed, reaffirming 446. One resolution of particular interest was even stronger than 446-2334, calling on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements” (UNSC Resolution 465, passed in March 1980). This resolution passed unanimously, no abstentions. The Government of Israel did not have to wait for the UN Security Council (and more recently, the World Court) to learn that its settlements are in gross violation of international law. In September 1967, only weeks after Israel’s conquest of the occupied territories, in a Top Secret document, the government was informed by the legal adviser to [Israel’s] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the distinguished international lawyer Theodor Meron, that “civilian settlement in the administered territories [Israel’s term for the occupied territories] contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention… In response to the Security Council orders of 1979-80 to dismantle existing settlements and to establish no new ones, Israel undertook a rapid expansion of settlements with the cooperation of both of the major Israeli political blocs, Labor and Likud, always with lavish US material support. The primary differences today are that the US is now alone against the whole world, and that it is a different world. Israel’s flagrant violations of Security Council orders, and of international law, are by now far more extreme than they were 35 years ago, and are arousing far greater condemnation in much of the world. The contents of Resolutions 446-2334 are therefore taken more seriously” [19].

Richard Cohen (anti-racist Jewish American writer): “There’s a part of me thinking that Donald Trump’s inauguration can’t come soon enough. I’m impatient for him to enter the Oval Office, I’m looking forward to his cronies taking over the West Wing. It’s the part of me that thinks everything will be so much easier once the Donald is in charge… I used to have to write a couple of thousand words a time to make my case on Israel/Palestine. But those days are gone. With President Trump in charge the man himself becomes the message. Now I can just say: “Take a look over there, what do you see?”… It turns out [according to Trump] there is no Occupation. The two-State solution was always a terrible idea. Listen up folks, Israel can do no wrong. And who wants to be ‘an honest broker’ anyway? For all my disappointment in Barack Obama, at least he believed there was an Occupation and thought the Settlements were ‘obstacles to peace’… United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, if it had passed in Obama’s first term, could have signalled the necessary sea change in international diplomacy. The beginning of political isolation for Israel. A moment when government trade policies might have begun to align with the work of peace-making. Resolution 2334 could still prove useful, but mostly to those like me who will use it to bolster the argument for BDS. After all, if the UNSC says all Settlements are illegal and so is the entire Occupation then the onus is on business and governments to justify why they are trading rather than for me to explain why I’m boycotting. For those still pining for Hillary, remember that  If Hillary had won in November, Obama would have vetoed 2334 and Kerry’s speech would have stayed locked away in a bottom draw. Under Hillary, the current status quo would have gone on providing ‘two-State diplomatic cover’ for the ongoing moral bankruptcy of the international community” [20].

Lawrence Davidson (anti-racist Jewish American historian, academic and writer from West Chester University, Pennsylvania): “Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance. In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…” In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do. This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past fifty years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behaviour” [21].

Richard Falk (anti-racist Jewish American law professor, formerly at 41-Nobel-Laureate Princeton University for 40 years, and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights): “Overall, the impact of 2334 is likely to be greater than it would have been if Israel had not reacted so petulantly. Even if Trump reverses the American critical approach to further Israeli settlement expansion, the UN has been reawakened to its long lapsed responsibility to find a peaceful solution for the conflict and end the Palestinian ordeal that has gone on for an entire century since Lord Alfred Balfour gave a British colonial green light to the Zionist project in 1917 to establish a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine. As well, civil society activists that have thrown their support to the BDS Campaign and governments critical of Israel’s behavior are likely to feel encouraged and even empowered by this expression of virtual unity among the governments belonging to the most important organ of the UN System. Of course, there have been many resolutions critical of Israel in the past, and nothing has happened. The harsh occupation persists unabated, the dynamics of annexation move steadily forward, and the Palestinian tragedy goes on and on. Despite this inter-governmental step at the UN, it still seems that the Palestinian fate will be primarily determined by people, above all by various forms of Palestinian resistance and secondarily by the extent of global solidarity pressures. Whether  resistance and solidarity on behalf of justice is sufficient to neutralize the iron fist of geopolitics and state power remains the essential challenge” [22].

Norman Finkelstein (anti-racist Jewish American scholar and academic): “I said, I think it was a good resolution. The question is what do you do with it. There have been literally scores of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and International Court of Justice [ICJ] opinions condemning the settlements as illegal. I agree– if you look strictly at the text it is a good resolution and I’m glad it was passed. In terms of its political potential, which is a separate discussion, it’s not much, and Obama didn’t do it for political reasons, he did it for petty personal narcissistic reasons. We should be clear: even if its genesis is narcissism, it’s still a good resolution. I’m not going to dispute that… In fact its [Palestinian rights] legitimacy had been enshrined in various resolutions, in this case  General Assembly resolutions, when Arafat was speaking. That’s what resolutions, high court opinions, ICJ opinions, even an ICC ruling would do. In that context, I consider the resolution to be a victory. You have a new document. It’s true it’s been said before, but it uses pretty– I would say– harsh and unequivocal language, saying in so many words that Israel is committing war crimes in the occupied territories, its settlements enterprise is a colossal war crime at that point… [anti-racist Jewish opposition to Zionism is]  indicative of the growing alienation between American Jews, who are overwhelmingly at the liberal end of the spectrum, with Israel, which is overwhelmingly on the right… And really, unless things radically change, which I don’t see happening, I think we’re past the point of no return. American Jews especially as time elapses are not going to feel that kind of sentiment for Israel much longer; it’s an embarrassment” [23].

Haaretz (progressive, anti-racist Jewish Israeli newspaper): “United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, passed on Friday by a majority of 14 of the 15 council members, should be seen as the continuation of the tradition of decisions from 1967 and 1973, resolutions 242 and 338, which state the principle that the occupation of territory is unacceptable. Israel is viewed, in all these resolutions, as holding territories only for as long as there are no Arab sides willing to trade them for peace; and in any case, within the framework of a peace agreement, it must return them. Though there will be no immediate practical implications for Israel, the resolution, and in particular the United State’s decision not to cast its veto, are a ringing slap in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face. The hysterical response from his bureau – “Israel rejects the contemptible, anti-Israel UN resolution and will not subordinate itself to it,” like the plan to impose sanctions against some of the countries who pushed the resolution – must be seen as part of Netanyahu’s campaign of destruction. He is leading Israel into the abyss of international isolation, and expressing contempt for anyone who dares demand that he stops the settlement enterprise, which casts a heavy shadow over any future possibility for the two-state solution” [24].

Independent Jewish Voices (anti-racist Jewish British organization): “On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 without dissent, demanding “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem”, stressing that this “is essential for salvaging the two-State solution”, while clearly condemning all acts of terrorism. In the 50 years since the Six Day War, Israel has established over 100 settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in contravention of international law, as well as a similar number of unauthorised outposts. There are around 600,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and settlement building continues, increasingly putting the viability of a two-state solution at risk. We are Jews living in Britain who welcome Resolution 2334 and the British Government’s support in ensuring its passage. We regret the hostile reaction of the Israeli government and disassociate ourselves from the endorsement of this reaction by certain Jewish communal leaders in the UK. We call upon Israel to implement the resolution immediately as a basis for resumed negotiations aimed at achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace” [25].

Stephen Lendman (anti-racist, Jewish American writer and commentator):“Israeli settlements and occupation of Palestine are flagrantly illegal. Friday’s Security Council Resolution 2334 affirmed the former. Action on the latter should follow, despite no UN enforcement authority to change things on the ground. Even so, Palestinians are joyous over Friday’s vote, Israeli officials hysterical. Netanyahu called Obama hostile to Israel, ludicrously accusing him of “a shameful anti-Israeli ambush… Fascist, zionist lunatics run Israel, a pariah state” [26].

Mark LeVine (anti-racist Jewish American professor of history at UC Irvine, distinguished visiting professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University, a contributing editor at Tikkun, and author of numerous books, including the just published “Struggle  and Survival in Palestine/Israel”, co-edited with Gershon Shafir): “There are several reasons why it [Resolution 2334]  in fact has some very deep teeth, if they haven’t been that exposed yet. Some of these teeth are contained in the Resolution itself, which once and for all puts to the lie any possible Israeli claim that it has the legal right to indefinitely occupy, never mind build settlements upon, any square meter of the territory it conquered in 1967. Specifically, Article 1 of the Resolution’s text (crucially not part of the preamble, which has less direct legal force) “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” … What this means is that the emerging generation of progressive Jews no longer has to choose between progressive values on the one hand, and the Jewish community establishment and Israel on the other. The establishment has made the choice for them, and as we’ve seen with the emergence of groups like Open Hillel, the new generation will not fall into the pro-Occupation line. The coalition of the future, the one that will not only heal American Judaism (and ultimately, Israeli Judaism as well), but help restore a progressive politics against the chauvinism and fascism of Trump and his minions, is now clear and is for once the same on both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. Security Council Resolution 2334 makes one final point to the world, which has implications far beyond Israel/Palestine: Human rights and international law can still matter — if they’re allowed to function as they were intended” [27].

Gideon Levy (anti-racist Jewish Israeli writer for progressive Israeli newspaper Haaretz): “On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to establish a Jewish state (alongside an Arab state) in the Land of Israel. Sixty-nine years later, on December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council voted to try to save it. Resolution 2334 that was approved Friday is a gust of good news, a breath of hope in the sea of darkness and despair of recent years… This decision has brought Israel back to the solid ground of reality. All the settlements, including in the territories that have been annexed, including in East Jerusalem of course, are a violation of international law. In other words, they are a crime. No country in the world thinks otherwise. The entire world thinks so – all Israel’s so-called friends and all its so-called enemies – unanimously… Resolution 2334 artificially distinguishes between Israel and the settlements in that it is aimed at the settlements, not the occupation. As if the guilt of [illegal West Bank Zionist settlement outpost] Amona were on its settlers and not all Israelis. This deception proves how much the world continues to treat Israel with leniency and hesitates to takes steps against it… But two questions won’t let up: Why don’t the Palestinians deserve exactly the same thing that Israelis deserve, and how much can one country, with all its lobbying power, weapons and high-tech, ignore the entire world?” [28].


Roland Nikles (an anti-racist Jewish American  Bay Area writer and attorney): “On December 23, 2016 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 reaffirming the world’s judgment that Israel should return land taken in the June 1967 war, subject only to mutually agreed upon adjustments. It reflects a continued international commitment to a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The resolution called the ongoing Israeli settlement project a flagrant violation of international law. But it seems clear now, after 50 years of Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank, that Israel will never voluntarily help to create a Palestinian state. Israel’s vehement response to Resolution 2334 speaks volumes that the time when Israel may have been willing to “exchange land for peace” has long passed. It seems equally clear that international law is impotent to bring about a two-state-solution, and that the international community lacks resolve. At least that’s the judgment of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. Israel’s reaction to Resolution 2334 was apoplectic … Perpetual occupation is the official policy of Israel and, in 23 days, the official policy of the United States. Resolution 2334 marks the formal end point of the two-state solution” [29].

Mitchell Plitnick (anti-racist Jewish American vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace,  former director of the US Office of B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and previously the director of education and policy for Jewish Voice for Peace): “The resolution [UNSC 2334] makes it clear to Israel that the world, including many of its most important allies and trading partners, is united in both its support of Israel’s existence and security and its opposition to Israel’s settlement program. If the Netanyahu government believes it can supplant its trade and other ties with Europe, should they be diminished due to Israel’s ongoing settlement activities, by turning to Russia, China and other Eastern countries, this resolution demonstrates that they too will distinguish between Israel and its settlements… The resolution establishes that nothing that has happened in the past fifty years of Israeli occupation mitigates the illegality of Israel establishing unilaterally establishing facts on the ground in occupied territory over which it has no recognized sovereignty. That could lead to sanctions or criminal charges against Israeli leaders should the international community decide to pursue such a course. Did the United States betray its commitment to protect Israel at the United Nations by abstaining from this vote? Absolutely not. Every president since 1967 has allowed UNSC resolutions critical of Israel to pass. Indeed, with less than one month remaining in his administration, Barack Obama was poised to become the first U.S. president not to do so. In fact, Obama did more to protect Israel from international action at the Security Council even for clear violations than any of his predecessors” [30].

Gideon Polya (anti-racist Jewish-Hungarian-origin  Australian scientist, writer, artist and humanitarian activist): “Resolution 2334 (2016) of the UN Security Council condemning Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian Territory in gross violation of international law was passed unanimously 14-0 on 23 December 2016, with the pro-Zionist US Obama Administration failing to veto and recording an unprincipled abstention. Hopefully UNSC Resolution 2334 is the beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel… Point 11 of Resolution 2334 of the UNSC “Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions”. Decent anti-racist people around the word must urgently (a) inform everyone they can about the horrendous crimes of Apartheid Israel; (b) urge and apply Boycotts. Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all the people, politicians, parties, countries, companies and corporations complicit in the racist Zionist Palestinian Genocide by nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, democracy-by-genocide, racist Zionist-run, neo-Nazi Apartheid Israel (just as BDS was successfully applied against US-, UK-, Australia- and Apartheid Israel-backed Apartheid South Africa); and (c) declare that Zionism is genocidal racism, and that the racist Zionists (RZs) and their supporters must be sidelined from public life as have been the Nazis, neo-Nazis, Apartheiders and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). With 90% of the land of Palestine now ethnically cleansed of Indigenous Palestinian inhabitants, the only realistic solution for a peaceful and just Palestine is immediate dissolution of Apartheid Israel and its immediate replacement (after the example of post-Apartheid South Africa) by a nuclear weapons-free, unitary or Federal state in which all Indigenous Palestinians, including 6 million presently exiled Palestinians, will live peacefully in Palestine with Israelis, with peace, internationally-guaranteed airport-level security, justice, equity, reconciliation, one-person-one-vote, equal human rights for all, and zero tolerance for racism. It could and should happen tomorrow” [2, 31].

Yachad (ostensibly “liberal” and works to build active support for a two-state solution in the British Jewish community but is basically Zionist, colonialist and opposed to the only effective peaceful option of BDS against Apartheid Israel and its supporters): “On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council voted in support of a resolution calling on Israel to cease all settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, alongside demanding immediate steps to ‘prevent acts of violence against all civilians’. The resolution firmly recognises the legitimacy of Israel and reiterates the importance of urgently pursuing diplomatic efforts in order to achieve a ‘just and lasting peace’ in the region. The final text can be read in full here. The entire Security Council, including the UK, voted in support of the resolution, with the exception of the USA, who made a bold decision not to exercise their power to veto it, ensuring it could pass. On Thursday, we wrote to the Boris Johnson MP, the British Foreign Minister, asking the UK to back the vote on the basis that it presents an historic opportunity to put resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back at the top of the international agenda, where it is fast being overshadowed by other issues. Whilst the resolution highlights the damage ongoing settlement construction is doing to the prospects of reaching a political resolution based on two-states for two-peoples, it also provides balance by recognising that ceasing settlement building must go hand in hand with stopping acts of violence and terror. We believe the settlements are gravely endangering the prospects of reaching a political resolution based on two-states for two-peoples and we support efforts to prevent their ongoing expansion. We know this is a view shared widely in our community” [32].

Concluding  comments.

The Apartheid Israeli Government, Netanyahu,  the racist Zionists (RZs), and the racist religious right Republicans (R4s) – notably racist, bigoted, pro-Zionist president-elect Donald Trump –   have responded to UN Security Council Resolution 2334 with roars of indignation and false, defamatory bluster that is the sine qua non of the Zionists (a very appropriate anagram of ISRAEL is e-LIARS). Apartheid Israel threatened Egypt, cut off aid to Angola and Senegal, and recalled its ambassador to New Zealand, accusing New Zealand of a “declaration of war”. War criminal Netanyahu summoned  the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, and told his Foreign Ministry to summon the ambassadors of the 10 countries which voted in favor of the resolution which have embassies in Israel [21].

More racist Zionist retaliations will follow, especially after racist, anti-Arab anti-Semitic,  pro-Apartheid,  pro-Zionist and anti-Jewish anti-Semite-backed Donald Trump takes over as president of the United States. However this is the beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel. As exampled here, anti-racist Jews have taken the lead in international zero tolerance for democracy-by-genocide Israeli Apartheid and US-backed Apartheid Israel’s  ongoing Palestinian Genocide. All decent Humanity will (a) inform everyone they can, (b) urge and apply resolute  and comprehensive Boycotts,  Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all its supporters,  (c) sideline racist Zionists (RZs) and their supporters from public life, as has already happened to like racists such as the Nazis, neo-Nazis, Apartheiders and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and (d) follow the example of anti-racist Jews in declaring “bear witness”,  “zero tolerance for lying”, “never again to anyone”, and “zero tolerance for racism”.


[1]. United Nations, “Israel’s settlements have no legal validity, constitute flagrant violations of international law, Security Council reaffirms.   14 delegations in favour of Resolution 2334 as United States abstains”, 23 December 2016: .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Is UN Security Council Resolution 2334 the beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel?””, Countercurrents, 28 December 2016: .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “2015 update on the ongoing Palestinian Genocide by Apartheid Israel”, Palestinian Genocide, 2015: .

[4]. “Palestinian Genocide”: .

[5]. Jared Diamond,  “Collapse”, Penguin, 2011.

[6]. “Boycott Apartheid  Israel”:

[7]. “Gaza Concentration Camp”:  .

[8]. “Jews Against Racist Zionism”: .

[9]. “Non-Jews Against Racist Zionism”: .

[10]. “Nuclear weapons ban , end poverty & reverse climate change”:

[11]. “Stop state terrorism” :  .

[12]. “State crime and non-state terrorism”:  .

[13]. William Blum, “Rogue State: a guide to the world’s only superpower”, Common Courage Press; 3rd edition, 2005.

[14]. Naomi Klein quoted in Yotam Feldman, “Naomi Klein: oppose the state not the people”, Haaretz, 2 July 2007: .

[15]. Moshe Menuhin quoted by Grace Halsell in “Like father, like son: a tribute to Moshe and Yehudi Menuhin”, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), July 1996: .

[16]. Gideon Polya,“Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”,  Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: .

[17]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: .

[18]. Gilad Atzmon, “UN Resolution 2334 is good for Israel”, Gilad Atzmon,  25 December 2016: .

[19]. C.J. Polychroniou, “Trump’s America and the New World Order: a conversation with Noam Chomsky”, Global Policy, 9 January 2017: .

[20].  Richard A.H. Cohen, “Welcome Trump and the end of pretence”, Jews For Justice for Palestinians, 1 January 2017: .

[21]. Lawrence Davidson, “Israel-running from the law”, MWC News, 2 January 2017: .

[22]. Richard Falk, “The welcome condemnation of Israeli settlement expansion. On the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and Secretary Kerry’s speech”, CommonDreams, 5 January 2017: .

[23]. Norman Finkelstein, “Norman Finkelstein on the UN Security Council Resolution 2334”, Norman Finkelstein, 4 January 2017: .

[24]. Haaretz editorial, “Saving Israel from itself”, Haaretz, 25 December 2016: .

[25]. Independent Jewish Voices, “UN Resolution 2334”, 2 January 2017: .

[26]. Stephen Lendman, “Israel hysterical over Security Council put-down”, SteveLendmanBlog, 25 December 2016: .

[27]. Mark LeVine, “Why Security Council Resolution 2334 matters a lot more than we think”, Scoop, 28 December 2016:  .

[28]. Gideon Levy, “UN resolution is a breath of hope in a sea of darkness and  despair”, Haaretz, 26 December 2016: .

[29]. Roland Nikles, “The formal end of the two-state solution”, Mondoweiss, 28 December 2016: .

[30]. Mitchell Plitnick, “Understanding the UN settlements resolution”, LobeLog, 27 December 2016: .

[31]. Gideon Polya, “UN Security Council Resolution 2334 – beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel?”, Uprooted Palestine, 27 December 2016: .

[32]. Yachad, “UNSC Resolution 2334”, 25 December 2016: .

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007:

) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see:  ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others:  ;  Gideon Polya:  ; Gideon Polya Writing: ; Gideon Polya, Wikipedia: ) . When words fail one can say it in pictures – for images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: and .

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

The Collapse of Zionism

Hamas’s assault of October 7 can be likened to an earthquake that strikes an old building. The cracks were already beginning to show, but they are now visible in its…

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News