RNA - Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, believes the United States decision to abstain from a UN Security Council vote on Israeli settlements was a very “important shift” in Washington’s position, although it would have been better if it supported the resolution.
The administration of US President Barack Obama “up until now had been rhetorically very powerful in condemning settlements but had maintained its longstanding commitment to Israel to protect Israel, to defend it in the United Nations and to provide the kind of protection that made sure Israel would never be held accountable,” the analyst told Press TV in an interview on Sunday.
However, she said, the reason why this time the Obama administration allowed the Security Council resolution to go through instead of vetoing it was because Israel has gone too far.
Bennis further stated that this is a “significant” resolution, adding that in the long-run, it will make a great deal of difference.
She went on to say that the resolution will provide a legal framework for the countries where there has been significant civil society pressure on the governments to exert sanctions on Israel.
The analyst also referred to the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is a civil society movement not a governmental approach that has had enormous success particularly in Europe, where there are efforts to prohibit Israeli products from being sold in the European Union.
She concluded by saying that this resolution is also a very important step towards sanctioning the products made in Israeli settlements and helping their boycott go forward.
More than half a million Israelis live in over 230 settlements built since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem al-Quds. International community regards the settlements as illegal as they are built on occupied Palestinian land. Israel has defied international calls for a halt to its settlement activities.
847/940