Tuesday, June 19th | 6 Tammuz 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

February 20, 2018 1:54 pm

At Security Council, Haley Tells Abbas: I Will Not Shut Up, US Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Will Not Change

avatar by Benjamin Kerstein

Email a copy of "At Security Council, Haley Tells Abbas: I Will Not Shut Up, US Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Will Not Change" to a friend

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley speaks in front of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner during a meeting of the Security Council in New York City, Feb. 20, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Lucas Jackson.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley upbraided Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the UN Security Council on Tuesday, saying, “I will not shut up,” and vowing American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “will not change.”

Haley spoke following a lengthy speech by Abbas in which he denounced the US Jerusalem move as a violation of international law and demanded it be suspended.

“You don’t have to like that decision,” Haley said, addressing Abbas, who was absent from the chamber, “but know this, that decision will not change.”

She emphasized that the US had a right to make its own decisions on the location of its embassy by repeatedly emphasizing “our” in the phrase “our embassy.”

Related coverage

June 19, 2018 4:14 pm

Defendant in Berlin Kippa Assault Denies Being Antisemitic

The Syrian refugee in Germany who assaulted two men wearing kippahs in Berlin earlier this year defended his actions as...

Nonetheless, Haley said that the US was determined to pursue peace, telling Abbas, “I sit here today offering the outstretched hand,” and noted that American negotiators were sitting right behind her, referring to White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, both of whom attended the Security Council session.

Recalling a recent insulting remark by Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat, Haley said, “I will not shut up. Rather I will respectfully speak some hard truths.”

Those truths, she said, were that the Palestinians must “choose between two paths,” one of “absolutist demands, hateful rhetoric, and incitement to violence” and the second that of negotiation and compromise. The first path, she stated, “will get the Palestinian people exactly nowhere.”

“We will not chase after you,” Haley added. “The choice, Mr. President, is yours.”

Haley also took the opportunity to criticize the UN’s attitude toward the Jewish state, saying it “spends a disproportionate amount of time” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and had “proved itself again and again to be biased when it comes to Israel.”

The international body, she said, used the “most democratic country in the Middle East as a scapegoat for the region’s problems.”

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon also spoke in response to Abbas. Noting that the Palestinian Authority president left the chamber immediately after his speech, Danon said, “Unfortunately, he is once again running away. … Mr. Abbas came in, put his demands on the table, and left.”

Danon said this was typical of Abbas’ approach to the conflict, since he always tries to “avoid the hard choices necessary for peace,” compounding “70 years of missed opportunities by the Palestinian leadership.”

This has been proved, Danon added, by Abbas’ rejection of a proposed peace agreement in 2000 and several times more over the next decade and a half.

“You just addressed the members of the Security Council and spoke of your commitments to peace. This is what you often do when speaking to international forums; but, when you address your people, you convey a very different message,” Danon said, noting Abbas’ recent speech to the PLO’s Central Council in which he denounced Zionism as “a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism,” as well as constant incitement in Palestinian media and Abbas’ own rhetoric.

“Mr. Abbas, your incitement does not end with rhetoric,” Danon continued. “You have made it official Palestinian policy to sponsor terrorism. In 2017, you spent $345 million paying terrorists for killing innocent Israelis. That is fifty percent of the total foreign aid donated to the PA.  This is money you could have spent building forty hospitals. This is money you could have used to build over 170 schools. Every single year.”

“When we extend a hand,” Danon noted, “Abbas extends a fist.”

Addressing the Palestinian leader directly, Danon asserted, “You have made it clear, with your words and with your actions, that you are no longer part of the solution. You are the problem.”

Nonetheless, Danan said that Israelis were an optimistic people, and expressed hope that a new, less intransigent Palestinian leadership would emerge.

“Three times a day Jews in Israel and all over the world turn to Jerusalem, and pray for peace,” he concluded. “We have no doubt that the day will come when the Palestinian people will also be blessed with leadership that shares these noble aspirations.”

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • BonniePrinceCharlie

    Can you imagine a USA Ambassador to the UN speaking out like that if Clinton – just a different shade of Obama – had become POTUS?

    Thank you, Nikki. Thank you, Mr President.

  • bertha yellowfinch

    That horrifically ignorant woman. She does NOT belong in that position.

  • The announcement made by our President Donald Trump, in an official statement recognizes Jerusalem as The Capital of Israel.
    It reiterates an existing U.S. Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and meets the U.N. resolution below.
    The consequence of the 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 to Jerusalem’s status in our time.

    If you believe that the 1947 U.N. non-binding resolution 181 is valid, which it is not valid; since the U.N. can only recommend; which is non-binding with no legal standing?
    The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947
    Resolution 181 non-binding (II). Future government of Palestine/Israel

    The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended (a non-binding with no legal standing) a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as non-binding Resolution 181(II).
    D. DURATION OF THE SPECIAL REGIME of Jerusalem – The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council on the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this ten year period the whole scheme shall be subject to re-examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of the experience acquired with its functioning.
    The residents of the City of Jerusalem shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the City.
    Since majority of the population of Jerusalem is Jewish as has been since the early 1800’s, the vote of a referendum is for The Jewish people to take over the full control and sovereignty of Jerusalem. These terms are now in place and the U.N. or any other entity cannot change those terms. Therefore, any vote or statement by the U.N. or any of its administrative bodies that proposes to change those terms and facts are illegal and have no bearing or legal standing.
    It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of U.N. Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be “in the first instance for a period of ten years.” The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express “their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.”10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years. 11