Thursday, May 24th | 10 Sivan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 26, 2016 1:47 pm

Head of Prominent UK Think Tank: Britain’s Vote in Favor of Anti-Israel UN Resolution Motivated by Obsession Over Settlements

avatar by Ruthie Blum

Email a copy of "Head of Prominent UK Think Tank: Britain’s Vote in Favor of Anti-Israel UN Resolution Motivated by Obsession Over Settlements" to a friend
Dr. Alan Mendoza. Photo: Facebook.

Dr. Alan Mendoza. Photo: Facebook.

Britain’s vote on Friday in favor of the UN Security Council resolution outlawing Israel’s presence beyond the 1967 borders was “motivated by an obsession about the importance of settlements in the Israel-Palestine question, usually to the detriment of far more important issues,” a Middle East expert and head of a prominent UK-based think tank told The Algemeiner on Monday.

Dr. Alan Mendoza, founder and executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, added, “Attacking settlements is also often seen as a sop to the pro-Palestinian lobby and Arabist elements in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as a way of showing them that UK policy — which in recent years has indeed been more pro-Israel than historically — is in some way balanced.”

Mendoza, who hosts the program “Current Affairs” on the Jewish Internet station J-TV, was responding to the question of why the British government, headed since July by Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May — who has been vocal in her support for Jewish state; has adopted a working definition of antisemitism; and has welcomed the enhancement of London-Jerusalem ties – would back such a blatant indictment of what she herself has acknowledged to be the only democracy in the Middle East.

Mendoza said the move was not altogether surprising.

“British politicians who use pro-Israel language will almost always qualify it with a denunciation of settlement policy,” he noted. “Consequently, Prime Minister May, in an otherwise overwhelmingly pro-Israel speech at the recent annual Conservative Friends of Israel lunch, found time to condemn ‘illegal’ settlements and demand the Israeli government stop building them.”

In this respect, Mendoza said, the UK’s stance at the UN on Friday “reflected established government thinking.”

Nevertheless, he went on to say, “Legitimate questions should be asked about why the UK chose a biased forum in the form of the UN — with its history of virulent anti-Israel activity — to make its point. Equally supporting such a one-sided motion, which fails to condemn the Palestinians for their many obstructions to a collapsing peace process, whose failure has more to do with their intransigence than any Israeli settlement building, is clearly a mistaken way to advance peace within the region.”

Mendoza not only criticized Britain’s position vis-a-vis Israel, but called it self-defeating. “It will damage the UK’s goal of securing a two-state solution, and therefore should be considered an ‘own goal’ in terms of British diplomacy,” he said.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 calls Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation” of international law, and states that “all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition and status of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, including construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel’s obligation as the occupying Power…”

It also expresses “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” and “calls upon all states… to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the state of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

The resolution was adopted nearly unanimously, in a vote of 14-0, with only the United States abstaining. The countries, other than Britain, which supported it were: Russia, Angola, Ukraine, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Malaysia, Venezuela, New Zealand, Senegal, Uruguay, France and China.

As The Algemeiner reported, Fatah — the leading political party in the Palestinian Authority, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas — posted a graphic on its official Facebook page on Saturday, suggesting that it was expressing gratitude to the UN Security Council for endorsing terrorism against Israelis.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded harshly to the passage of the resolution, and summoned ambassadors from the supporting countries for clarification and reprimand.

Meanwhile, the UK daily The Times reported on Monday that in protest over Britain’s backing of the resolution, Netanyahu canceled a meeting with PM May, which was ostensibly slated to take place next month on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

According to the report, the deputy chief of mission at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv called it a “disappointment that …Netanyahu does not want to have a conversation with Theresa May.”

This report came after a denial by Netanyahu’s office on Sunday night, however, that he had canceled the meeting, which — it said  — was never formally scheduled. Nor did any official source inform 10 Downing Street of an imminent snub.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Rightazz

    UK get out of the Falkland Island you hypocrites.

  • Cheryl Gumulauski

    The vote was antisemitic and moreover it has made any two state solution nearly impossible now. Firstly it is neither moral or legal to claim the Palestinians have a right to the pre 67 borders. Secondly, Israel, nor the US (and trust me Obama is the last leftist President the USA will have for at least a generation) will never back pre-67 borders as they absolutely can not be militarily defended thus would amount to the destruction of Israel, and sorry they are not going to give up their nation to accommodate antisemitic, hypocritical Brits and Europeans. Yet, Palestinians will demand nothing less given they thrive on notoriety and PR. So, the resolution has effectively sank the possibility of a two state solution.

    Finally, the backlash over this is so intense in the USA that Obama’s own party is denouncing him, at least 80% of Americans oppose what was done, and it has totally unified the Republican Party who are now demanding Trump cut off UN funds. Even Hillary Clinton opposes what was done. (That tells you how far out on a limb this lame duck President and his Vichy Frenchy Secretary of State are, and yes we all know the coward coordinated this entire thing!). Moreover, before 9/11 a good deal of Americans (majority, probably at least 52-48) wanted to leave the UN altogether. Well, that debate is now reignited and spreading like wildfire, thus we may do so down the line. Siding with the sneak attacks of an unpopular lame duck President three weeks before he leaves office was a very unwise move and has undermined American sentiment for Theresa May who will now be seen as having been in league with Obama, whose eight year tenure was just refuted with the election of Trump. She’ll have to send Nigel Farage (Whom Trump supporters love, especially the anglophiles) to clean up her mess.


    EU and UK claim lands and territories across the globe to whcih they have never had any historical relationship too. I am not sure what this is really about but I suspect it is a diflection from something going on the controlling “THEY” whoever they are do not want us to notice!! It is ironic the killers of 300 US marines in Beirut are now operating with US made tanks and heavy weapons!!