Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

On the second line of text, replace "Israel′s" with "Israel's" VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

• Current Version: "The American pro-Israeli organization J Street said (...)"

• Problem: The claim that J street is "pro Israel" is POV and hotly debated, see: J Street#Relationship with Israeli Government, J Street#Reception, J Street#Controversy

• Editing Request: Change to "The American self-claimed "pro Israel" organization J Street said (…)" Yabti (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I support, but "self-described pro-Israel" or "Jewish", instead of "self-claimed pro Israel".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I support as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Declined, that sounds like a POV term. They are a pro-Israeli organization, that's how they describe themselves, and there is absolutely no serious reason to cast suspicion on their sincerity in their support for Israel. Overall, they seem pretty mainstream, their positions are essentially based on the western consensus shared by just about everyone who is not an extremist (whether on the hard right or the hard left) in western countries (including millions of Jews who live in western countries), their President used to work as a policy adviser for Bill Clinton and so on, and their position on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is based on the international consensus view (two-state solution etc.) as well. --Tataral (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't decline it, you can oppose it. We're having a discussion. And it is POV to call them pro-Israel when mainstream US Jews are not in favor of them, as evidence by the sections highlighted above. And you proved the point. They describe themselves as pro-Israel but that is irrelevant. I can describe myself as whatever I want but that doesn't make it true. It is POV to describe them as pro-Israel when there is much controversy to that statement. That is why self-claimed or self-described is neutral. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not POV to describe an organization as pro-Israel, when the organization itself primarily describes itself as being pro-Israel and publicly states that it supports Israel. In addition to being a POV weasely wording, "self-claimed" is completely unnecessary, and this article is not the correct place to have a debate over whether it "really" is pro-Israel from the perspective of the far right. --Tataral (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Done As per the evidence from the J street page and the consensus below, I changed the statement to "self described pro-Israel." This is neutral and not undue. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done. There is no consensus for such a change, and the proposed wording is clearly POV. --Tataral (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is POV to describe them as pro-Israel. If you used to work for the European Commission, then focus on Europe, you shouldn't be editing US sections of articles if you don't have competency in that area. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, this article has nothing to do with the US; Palestine is in fact much closer to Europe than to the US. (I do in fact mostly focus on Europe). --Tataral (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-described pro-Israel is pov.

But there is no need to qualify J Street at all. Reader can just click on the link to see who they are. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree so I made the change.--Shrike (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Since there was a claim about a lack of consensus, I can say for sure that J Street is looked upon by the pro-Israel community as a largely anti-Israel group. Feel free to google "J Street anti-Israel" or anything similar. To have it written that J Street is pro-Israel would be POV. In any case, it looks like this is settled for now with the updated wording. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Domestic reaction in the US

I question whether we need to quote reactions from three US domestic politicians opposed to the resolution who do not represent the country internationally, in addition to the official position of the United States as a country quoted above. We should at the very least remove the third guy, an obscure parliamentarian. We don't include the views of any US politicians (who are not acting on behalf of their country in an official government capacity) supporting the resolution. We also don't have discussion of domestic views on the resolution in any other individual countries. It's a bad thing that articles on international issues tend to get flooded with discussion of US domestic affairs of little importance in an international context. --Tataral (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think Schumer is an obscure guy then perhaps you shouldn't be editing the US section. As I mentioned on your talk page it is extremely appropriate to add Schumer since he is from Obama's party to signify that US opposition is not just from the GOP. Furthermore, if you can't see why this article will have comments by US politicians then perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article. This article is here mostly because of the US so of course it will focus on those in the US against this resolution. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 03:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Schumer is an obscure guy in an international context, and in an article where we otherwise mainly quote official responses by countries and not domestic politicians who disagree with their own government. Yet here we have no less than 3 domestic politicians from one country with the same opinion (and no domestic politicians with the opposite opinion), in addition to the official position of their country quoted above. If we include political party of US politicians, then there would be no reason to remove political party of, say, the Norwegian foreign minister (a conservative). --Tataral (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This article received the prominence it had because of the US abstention. Otherwise it'd be an obscure article nobody reads. Therefore it of course makes sense to have US response since internally the abstention was not the policy of the Congress. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 04:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, that's wrong. This is not an article about the US, and your claim that it exists because of the US is blatantly wrong, it exists just as much because of Russia, China, the UK, France and other countries. And no, we are not going to focus "on those in the US against this resolution", a resolution that was adopted with 14 in favour and 0 against, and that was not opposed by the US either, a resolution which according to the US government represents the international consensus view on the subject. "Those in the US against this resolution" on the other hand represent an extremist fringe POV with practically no international support, as evidenced by how the Security Council voted on this resolution. --Tataral (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Right back at you, you're wrong. Had the US vetoed this resolution then we wouldn't be here. The fact that the US abstained is the news and US reaction will of course play prominence. Calling the US politicians "fringe" is ludicrous. While the UN may vote a certain way, that is not the way of 99% of the US Congress and so it's bizarre to call it fringe. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 04:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the news is the resolution itself. It was supported by 14 Security Council members (including 4 who have the exact same status as the US) and opposed by 0. Israel now needs to focus on how to comply with it. --Tataral (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed it's kind of weird to see so many quotes from US politicians. I already removed some quotes (Senator from Oregon or someone like that). To show these guys' opposition, could we instead just say that Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer (along with their titles) opposed the resolution? This will be less verbose but still convey the idea that various high-ranking politiciasn opposed the resolution or the abstention. HaEr48 (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a clear improvement. --Tataral (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Tatarai is basically correct. There is even a source bias in reportage of what actually occurred. Intense focus is given to the U.S. internal kerfuffle (totally predictable, in terms of internal politics), but the outstanding facts are that the resolution was seconded by all the major powers, and aside from the initial bruited snub to Teresa May, quickly backtracked on, there is little if anything regarding the fact that Britain and France positively voted for the motion, representing wider EU opinion, not to speak of Russia and China.The Palestinian question raised is not about what the U.S. and Israel agree on or disagree over. It is substantially about the international, virtually unanimous consensus on settlements violating objectively the conventions regarding the rights and duties of an occupying power. Politicians in both these countries can splutter, rage, spout nonsense ad libitum, but that does not alter the concrete legal facts. Politics can override laws, and finesse clear cut understandings for internal or geopolitical reasons and interests, but we all know this is playing to electoral constituencies and power interests, and has no lien on either the realities on the ground or the general quasi unanimous reading of what the Geneva Convention obliges the actors to observe in this case. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Diplomatic maneuvering in the plan for ratification (proposed new section)

• The resolution appeared after months of intensely secret deliberation in the US administration, and unannounced meetings between Kerry and Obama [2]

• Ukrainian vote for the resolution came only after a conversation between US Vice President Biden and the Ukrainian president Peroshenko [3]

According to Israeli officials, the Ukranian support came only after US pressure [4].

• New Zealand initially circulated a similar proposal earlier this year, but it was not taken seriously. The Egyptian proposal was then endorsed by them. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.83.121 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Consider for inclusion

Peter Beaumont 'Israel threatens to give Trump 'evidence' that Obama orchestrated UN resolution,' The Guardian 26 December 2016

What it reports is quite exceptional, extraordinary, if true. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to underline that the information is not that Obama would have orchestrated everything but rather that Israel accuses him of having done so. There is a huge gap between given the context is political in a very contentious context. What Israel claims is at this stage not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can only document claims, and counter-claims as they emerge. Facts in these situations are something established months, if not years, after the event, but historians and assorted scholars. The distinction you make is of course proper.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Diplomacy section citation

Israel retaliated against nations which sponsored or supported the resolution with diplomatic actions.

• "Jerusalem orders to cancel all aid programs to resolution co-sponsor Senegal". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
• Beaumont, Peter (25 December 2016). "Israel summons ambassadors for dressing down over UN resolution". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
• "Israel has retaliated to the UN vote on settlements by withdrawing its ambassadors". The Independent. 24 December 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2016.

Sokuya (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

US President's alleged involvement

Obama's alleged involvement is dealt with by multiple RSs. Besides, I think we'd better have it under the "passage" section, because it's most related to that area, although it contains reaction by Israel. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. That is not the Obama's involvement that is dealt with multiple sources. That's the accusations by Israel that he would have been involved. These sources are not reliable for the alleged fact. They are just 'relevant to underline that Israel MFA made this accusation.

Unless we have several 2nd sources that confirm this allegation, this should be moved to the section of the Israeli reactions because until now it is nothing more. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this odd conspiracy theory should be moved to the Israeli reactions section. --Tataral (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012: We're not talking about a fact, we know that's only an accusation. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We also have documents released by Egypt that show the US involvement. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein: if it is just an accusation then it should be in the Israeli reaction's section. Why should we report accusations in the factual section explaining the process by which the resolution was adopted ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Do the RS's mostly talk about this theory as "this is how the resolution passed", or as "this is what Israel said about the resolution" (or Egypt or someone else)? If the former, then I think it should go to passage section, if the latter, then reactions section. HaEr48 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reaction, it belongs in the passage section where it is right now. There are multiple RS that have since it was originally announced has more information. The Egyptian documents show that it is not just a reaction by Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Which "Egyptian documents" ? These are primary sources that will be given to Trump administration after his mandate starts. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it was released already; [6] , [7] 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Thanks for the sources. Do you think they warrant opening a subsection? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Josephs's JPost source reads in part:

'Erekat said that some people who have close relationships with "War Minister" Avigdor Liberman and the Austrian, Zionist financier Martin Schlaff fabricated the document to back up remarks by the Israeli government that indicate that the UNSC resolution was a conspiracy between the Obama administration and the Palestinian side.'

It is therefore clear from several sources already that (a) the Netanyahu government transformed a multilateral, multiple-great power discussion into a conspiracy exclusively organized by the Obama administration (b)helped leak documents to embarrass the Obama administration (c) offered to provide intelligence information on negotiations over the resolution to the incoming Trump administration in order to attack the former Democratic party (d) and Palestinian sources suggest that the documents were forged (looks odd, but it's in the record).

As the story is unfolding, it is clear that the standard format adopted is not adequate to representing the chronological unfolding of events.

One needs a precise time line for insinuations, measures, threats leading up to the resolution, and the same applies to events following the passage of the resolution. Endless subsections will get us nowhere. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can also read:

It is not possible to gauge the authenticity of the report published on the site Al-Youm Al-Sabaa. However, if it is authentic, it reinforces some of the claims that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bureau has voiced against the White House over the past few days.

And what about the source in next section that states conspiracy didn't come from the US but from the UK...

We cannot report rumors and in any case, we have to comply with WP:DUE WEIGHT. There is no more information than they are accusations of "conspiracy". Pluto2012 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can report statements authoritatively cited from otherwise 'unnamed' officials in any government administration concerned. In any case, as always, if we aim for an encyclopedic article, we should not rush to add every snippet that comes to hand, but bide out time, read widely, and wait until everything can be multi-sourced by respectable newspapers and journalists of standing (I guess that means even the New York Times, even though it is in thorough disrepute! on anything regarding the Middle East).Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Uk's role

This source says that Uk's role brokering the UN resolution has been confirmed. I think we may discuss it in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The source states "it has been confirmed" several times but it never says by whom !!

I add that this excerpt contredicts our discussion here above:

“This is not a text that was formulated by the Palestinians or Egypt, but by a western power.” It was not clear if this was a reference to the US or the UK.

So what ? That's not serious. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The source I cited re Britain said that it had played a major role in moderating the language so that the text would enable the U.S. administration to abstain, rather than veto it.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference to UK legal and diplomatic authors of the draft, working with Palestinians, isn't relable as it has only one sources and not a mainstream one at that. It should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.56.220 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012: You're interestingly rejecting a reliable source backed by [8] and [9]. There must be something! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, Straw man argument consists in modifying the speech of someone in order to refute this but not on his arguments. I don't say there are no such accusations. I say that the facts behind are not proven. You stated "that UK brokering the resolution was confirmed". I have asked by whom. What is your answer ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We're not going to engage WP:OR, specially in the case of such a source. Nothing prohibits us to write: "according to the Guardian, ..." The rest of the burden is on the reader to recognize how the role is confirmed. Note that I did not state that UK brokering the resolution was confirmed", rather I attributed the news to the source. Read my comment one again. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump new reaction

I have added this:

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20 is fast approaching! (sourced by L'Obs)

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Many sources will tell you that what is going on is unprecedented in contemporary political history. I.e. that a foreign government is coordinating with a not-yet sworn in President-elect in order to subvert or embarrass the still valid official government of the United States. This violates a long standing convention, and is historically quite fascinating. It's like Reagan's rumoured interference with Carter's Iran diplomacy before Reagan won the presidency and assumed control, only much more in your face.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is getting too large

Not everything has to be included. This article should be about the Resolution, the background and aftermath. We don't need to include everything published. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is less thann 50% of the recommended upper limit length for such difficult articles (many run, in this area, to 350,000-450,000 kbs, with no objection if it is crammed with details about terrorism)You just reverted a relevant piece of information, since all articles have impact, aftermath sections. The bit you just reverted is an Israeli measure taken a few hours before Kerry was due to clarify why the US abstained, and the sources all say this speech is linked to the Resolution (see Nir Hasson, 'In About-face Ahead of Kerry Speech, Jerusalem Okays New Housing for Jews in Palestinian Neighborhood,' Haaretz 28 December 2016) It is standard Israeli practice, see any decent book, to make a preemptive facts on the grounds move to embarrass U.S. political moves in this regard) Reuters reported that the Silwan decision, which directly challenges the Security Council Resolution and therefore is in defiance of it, was supposedly asked to be delayed at Netanyahu's request in order not to give Kerry further ammo. The Jerusalem municipality then denied this was true: they stated that Benjamin Netanyahu had not moved to stop their deliberation to defy the UNSC resolution. So your edit summary is mistaken, and it's connected.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As your article points out, they delayed the vote and just approved one three-story building, hardly something worth including. You can see the JPOST article as well, [10] Furthermore, the building is for an organization who buys land/buildings before Jews move in. Unless of course the problem is that Jews can't live in territories, similar to Saudi Arabia?? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The building permit concerns disputed land, not Jewish land. get your facts straight. Yes, it's like Saudi Arabia, which does not permit Christians or Jews to build there. In Area C, Israel gives 1 building permit to Palestinians for every 18 Palestinian structures it bulldozes, meaning incrementally over time, that the Palestinian housing stock will vanish.

The article says under pressure from Netanyahu before Kerry's speech, Israel held off passing a resolution to build 600 units, but did plunk one 3-story permit on an piece of land in Arab Silwan without Netanyahu asking them to stop doing that. One or 600 hundred, in either case, the principle is identical. It's politics. Make a concession for a few hours (no n600 units) but assert the principle you can build settlements simultaneously by approving just one. That is how political signals operate here. In any case, you said a vote cancelled the measure, confusing the 600 units with the Silwan case, so your edit justification was erratically wrong. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It was Jerusalem, not Israel. And the one building they approved was purchased. The other buildings never came to a vote and indeed, it's not worthy of inclusion that one building went up. As for your claim that permits aren't given, one very important reason is that in many cases residents in East Jerusalem don't apply for permits, they just build without a permit (that is also why you read about home demolitions.) 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is not very large at all. I hardly see the size as an issue. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It’s been many years since such a resolution passed. I believe the last one, United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, was 36 years ago. A lot has happened since then, namely the drastic increase in settlements, public awareness and interest, and no less, the founding of Wikipedia itself. It seems reasonable that the article is long providing that all edits pertain directly to matters of the resolution. Let’s not judge it on length at this time, but rather on quality. Veritycheck (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly not too long based on recommended lengths in Wikipedia:Article size. It's actually a fairly short article and should be expanded. For example there is heavy emphasis on the views of Netanyahu (and what the US Secretary of State just called the "extreme elements" in his government) and on the US far-right (Trump), and we should strive to make the article more globally representative by including views of more countries than the current handful which are currently included. (Perhaps we need a separate article on Debate in the United States about United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to avoid this article being too US-centric and to cover the internal US debate to the extent preferred by US editors?) --Tataral (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It may come but I agree it should not focus on the controversies around the US alleged involvment. That's also a reason why I added the Palestine's representatives reaction in the lead... Pluto2012 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

It rambles on further in the 'Passage' section, change "...suddenly asked for the vote to be postponed..." to "...requested that the vote to be postponed..." as there is no source for the 'suddenly' part and no reason to over-dramatize the situation. Ramires451 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

John Kerry speach

Explanation why US let it go youtube.com There are obvius art issues this speach could clear. 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Australia opposes Resolution

Can someone please add the fact that Australia opposed the resolution? li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftyfires (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

It didn't. Australia is not a member of the Security Council. It was supported by 14 member states, opposed by 0, with 1 abstention. (Incidentally, one could say Australia supported the resolution because Elizabeth II is the head of state of Australia, and she supported it through "Her Britannic Majesty's Permanent Representative" on the council). --Tataral (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No I'm talking about the other states responses, and Elizabeth II doesn't determine Australian government policy.