செல்லாக்காசு மோடி எதிர்ப்பு கழக ஆர்ப்பாட்ட வீடியோக்கள்

 

 

The full text of UN resolution 2334

Resolution

The full text of 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.”

UN Press Releases Resolution 2334(2016)

SC/12657
23 December 2016
Security Council
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms

14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity,
constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities
in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.  It underlined that it would not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations.

The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction.  It further called for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.  The Council called on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric in order to de-escalate the situation on the ground and rebuild trust and confidence.

Also by the text, the Council called on all parties to continue 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 Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) in its statement of 21 September 2010.  It called upon
all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Explaining her delegation’s abstention, the representative of the United States said it had been a long-standing position of her country that settlements undermined Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.  She emphasized, however, that her vote today had not been straightforward.  Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she noted that during the course of 2016, 18 resolutions adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council had all condemned Israel.  It was because of that bias that the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, emphasizing that her delegation would not have let the resolution pass had it not addressed terrorism and incitement to violence.

Malaysia’s representative said effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that were threatening any possibility of a two-State solution.  Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development.  Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence, she said, adding that the resolution could give hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted peace and a two-State solution.

Israel’s representative said those who had voted “yes” to the resolution had voted “no” to negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians,
and to the possibility of peace.  The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said, adding that the Council had voted to condemn the State of Israel and the Jewish people for building homes in the land of Israel, and to deny “our eternal rights” in Jerusalem.  “We will continue to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he declared.  “And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.”

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine said the Council’s action, while long-overdue, was timely, necessary and important.  The resolution required vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and salvage a two-State solution from relegation to history’s archives.  Israel’s illegal settlements and its wall had undermined the contiguity of Palestinian land and isolated East Jerusalem.  To claims of bias, he said the only bias was against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable solution.

Egypt’s representative said the text expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land.  Noting that his delegation had been compelled to withdraw its own draft resolution, he emphasized that it was unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt, recalling that his country had been the first to make peace with Israel.

Also this afternoon, Council President Román Oyarzun Marchesi (Spain) expressed appreciation for the contributions of Council members whose term would expire at the end of 2016 — Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Venezuela.

Also speaking today were representatives of New Zealand, Venezuela, France, China, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Russian Federation, Japan, Angola and Senegal.

The meeting began at 2:07 p.m. and ended at 3:50 p.m.

Action on Draft Resolution

RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia), noting that he was a sponsor of the draft, recalled numerous calls over the years for urgent Council action to end illegal settlement construction, and said that a recent attempt to legalize settlements on Palestinian-owned land added to the urgency.  Effective Council action must be taken without further delay to reverse dangerous trends on the ground that threatened any possibility of a two-State solution.  While Malaysia would have preferred a more transparent and normal process of submitting the text to the Council, the present situation was unique, he emphasized, appealing to fellow Council members not to lose the opportunity to advance the peace.  The time to show that a two-State solution was not an empty slogan was now, he added.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) also noted his delegation’s sponsorship of the draft, expressed frustration that no draft on the Middle East had been adopted in the past eight years.  He surveyed the draft’s drafting and negotiation history, saying what was needed was a text that moved the peace process forward by building on the broad consensus that settlements were a major obstacle and that all violence must end.

RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), a third sponsor, said today’s action could be historic.  The decision to table the draft was important due to the ongoing expansion of settlements and in order to safeguard the Palestinian people and salvage the peace process.  The draft resolution reaffirmed the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live within secure borders, on the basis of the 1967 lines.  At the same time, it addressed the settlement problem and condemned violence.  There was wide consensus among Member States, the Secretary-General, other members of the Middle East Quartet and other stakeholders, he noted, urging adoption of the text.

The Council then adopted the draft resolution by 14 votes in favour with 1 abstention (United States).
Statements

AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said the text adopted today expressed the painful reality of illegitimate settlements and confiscation of Palestinian land.  The settlement question was one component of the final-status issues — that of borders.  Noting that his country, had been compelled to withdraw its own draft, he stressed that it was unacceptable for some Council members to have warned Egypt.  Recalling that Egypt had been the first Arab country to make peace with Israel, he said it believed in peace based on a two-State solution and the land-for-peace initiative.

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said the immediate adoption of a freeze on settlements could create confidence, adding that further settlement activities were not necessary for Israel’s security.  President Ronald Reagan had said that in 1982, she recalled, noting that his words underscored her country’s commitment to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and highlighted its position that settlements undermined Israel’s security and eroded prospects for peace and stability.
She said that while her vote today was in line with her country’s bipartisan tradition, the vote itself had not been straightforward.  Explaining that Israel had been treated differently from other States for as long as it had been a member of the United Nations, she pointed out that in the course of 2016, 18 resolutions had been adopted in the General Assembly and others in the Human Rights Council, all condemning Israel.  Because of that bias, and some factors not included in the resolution, the United States had not voted in favour of the resolution, she said, explaining that her delegation would not have let it pass had it not addressed acts of terrorism and incitement to violence.

The issue of settlements was now putting a two-State solution at risk too, she continued.  The number of settlers had increased dramatically, and legislation now before the Knesset would legalize most of their outposts.  Emphasizing that one must make a choice between settlements and separation, she said her delegation had not supported the resolution because it was focused too narrowly on settlements.

She went on to stress that Palestinian leaders must recognize that incitement for violence eroded prospects for peace.  There had been hundreds of attacks, but rather than being condemned, the attackers were upheld as heroes.  Israel faced threats in a difficult neighbourhood, and the United States would not waver in its commitment to its security, she said, underlining that a two-State solution was the only path to peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.  It was up to them to choose that path.

FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) described the resolution’s adoption as an important and historic event, noting that it marked the first time that the Council had clearly stated the obvious:  settlement activities undermined a two-State solution.  Israel’s settlement building had accelerated, fuelling tension on the ground, and it was now part of a deliberate policy aiming to create facts on the ground in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.  Acts of violence, incitement and terrorism also undermined the chances for a two-State solution, he said, pointing out that the resolution strongly reiterated its condemnation of all acts of terrorism and called on the Palestinian Authority to discourage them.  The resolution was also meant to create the conditions for a resumption of negotiations.  Emphasizing that peace could only be based on a two-State solution, he said France would organize an international
conference in Paris to re-launch the negotiation process.  Today’s resolution and the Paris conference were both aimed at reiterating support for a two-State solution, he added.

RAFAEL DARIO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), welcoming the resolution’s adoption, said it allowed the Council to emerge from inaction and work for the resumption of negotiations
towards a two-State solution.  Of course that was just one step towards that goal, but it was necessary because it seriously affected both the Palestinian people and the prospects for peace, he said.  Israel must now end all illegal practices of the occupation, including its blockade on the Gaza Strip and all settlement activity.  Reiterating condemnation of all terrorism as well as all violations of the human rights of Palestinians, he said he was pleased that, as his country ended its term, the Council had finally acted on the settlement issue.

WU HAITAO (China), welcoming the adoption, said the resolution reflected the common aspiration of the international community.  He urged Israel to implement the resolution and called upon both sides to re-establish mutual trust so that a just and lasting solution could be reached in the form of two secure States coexisting peacefully.  China would continue to support efforts to achieve that goal, he pledged.

MATTHEW RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said the adoption reaffirmed the belief that a two-State solution was the only way to a just and lasting peace.  In that context, it was critical to end all terrorism and incitement, he emphasized, adding that it was also necessary to end the expansion of settlements.  The United Kingdom rejected all efforts to de-legitimize Israel, and it was as a friend of that country that it supported the resolution text, since it was in the best interests of both sides and renewed efforts for a peaceful two-State solution.  He stressed, however, that he did not anticipate an easy road to that goal.

LUIS BERMÚDEZ (Uruguay) said the resolution represented a critical effort to address negative trends in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Hopefully it would be a call for action towards the resumption of negotiations on a peaceful, negotiated two-State solution.  Uruguay would continue to support that goal, he pledged, noting that both Israelis and Palestinians deserved it, exhausted as they were by many decades of conflict.

VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), explaining that he had been puzzled by the process around the resolution and by the haste with which it had been “pushed” to the vote, agreed  with other speakers that settlement activities undermined the chances for a two-State solution, as did acts of terror and incitement to violence.  Emphasizing that his country had been involved in the peace process for a long time, he said the work of the Middle East Quartet (European Union, Russian Federation, United Nations, United States) remained important and effective.  Its July report was still relevant, and implementation of its recommendations would help to return the process to the political track, he added.

KORO BESSHO (Japan) said he was deeply concerned about the current stagnation in the peace process.  Noting that settlement activities were in violation of international law and had been eroding the viability of a two-State solution, he emphasized the importance of the parties committing themselves to the resolution.  Peace in the Middle East could only be realized through negotiations, he said, stressing that Japan would not recognize any unilateral change by either party that might pre-judge the final resolution of the conflict.

RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said that after decades of paralysis the Council had finally taken effective action to reverse the negative trends threatening peace and a two-State solution.  Thanking Council members who had voted in favour of the resolution, he said he was encouraged by the restraint demonstrated by some permanent members.  Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace and a two-State solution, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions, as well as the denial of development.  Decades of violations of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, which had led to acts of violence, he said.  The resolution could give hope to the people of Palestine and Israel, the majority of whom still wanted peace under a two-State solution.  The adoption was also a victory for people in Israel who still believed in living side by side in peace with the Palestinians and other Arab people.  While emphasizing the need to reflect on the collective failures of the past 50 years, he also cautioned that today’s resolution only addressed the
symptoms and not the root causes of the conflict.

ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), welcomed the resolution’s adoption, saying that the problem of settlements had continued for far too long.  It was disappointing that Israel disputed its illegality.  Urging both sides to refrain from unilateral actions that could hinder a two-State solution, he said that such a solution would require unity on the Council, among Palestinians and among Israelis.  Angola hoped today’s action was a first step in the right direction.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) said he was very pleased that during the last meeting of 2016, the Council had been able to take a positive step to save a two-State solution.  Settlements were a threat to that goal, but so were violence and terrorism, he said, adding that they also created false expectations on the part of Israelis and resentments on the part of Palestinians.  Today’s resolution confirmed principles that had long been accepted in the United Nations, he said, adding that, while more could have been done, the text was achievable “right now”.

GORGUI CISS (Senegal), welcoming the adoption, affirmed that the settlements were illegal under international law.  They encouraged violence against both Israelis and Palestinians, and harmed the aspirations of both to a peaceful future.  Renewing condemnations of all acts of terrorism and violence while expressing support for initiatives that could move the peace process forward, he called for the coordination of all such initiatives.

ROMÁN OYARZUN MARCHESI (Spain), Council President for December, said he had voted in favour of the resolution because it would help to save the prospects for a two-State solution, which must be negotiated between the two sides.  However, the Council must fulfil its responsibilities and act on the basis of consensus and a balanced text that could move the process forward.  Spain had always affirmed the illegality of the settlements and condemned incitement to violence, he recalled, noting that today’s resolution was consistent with both positions.  Welcoming the Council’s breaking of its silence on the issue, he pledged that his country would continue to make whatever contribution possible to advance peace in the Middle East.

DANNY DANON (Israel) described today as a bad day for his country and the peak of hypocrisy.  The Council had wasted time to condemn Israel for building homes in the Jewish people’s historic homeland.  Those who had voted yes had voted no to negotiations, to progress and to a chance for better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians, he said, adding that they had voted no to the possibility of peace.  The resolution would continue to provide excuses for the Palestinians to avoid recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said.  There had been a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning Israel and today’s text would be added to that shameful list.

He went on to call upon the Council to turn a new page and end the bias against Israel.  Today it had voted to condemn the State of Israel and to condemn the Jewish people for building homes in the Land of Israel.  Asking every voting member who had given them the right to issue such a decree, denying “our eternal rights in Jerusalem”, he expressed full confidence in the justice of Israel’s cause and the righteousness of its path.  “We will continue to be a democratic State based on the rule of law and full civil and human rights for all our citizens,” he emphasized.  “And we will continue to be a Jewish State proudly reclaiming the land of our forefathers.”

RIYAD MANSOUR, Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine, said that the Council’s action, while long overdue, was timely, necessary and important.  Over the years, the delegation of the State of Palestine had made countless appeals for the Council to uphold its Charter duties, insisting on the need to confront Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and its relentless colonization of their land under a half-century of foreign occupation.  Those appeals had been calls for the Council to contribute to the cause of peace — for Palestine, Israel, the Middle East and the world, he said.

The resolution would require vigilant follow-up if it was to be meaningful and if it would salvage the two-State solution from relegation to history’s archives, he said.  Urgent efforts would be needed to reverse the dangerous, negative trends on the ground and to advance collective efforts to end the occupation that had begun in 1967.  For five decades, the occupation had persisted with full force, its illegal settlements and wall having undermined the contiguity of Palestinian lands and isolated East Jerusalem.  In response to claims of bias, he said the only bias taking place was bias against law, reason and the vision of two States as the most viable solution.

Urging the Security Council to stand firm by its decision, he expressed hope that the global call for an end to Israel’s settlement activities and violations would compel its compliance with the law, de-escalate tensions and bring an end to violence.  That would be vital for salvaging the prospects for peace and should be led by responsible Council action, including follow-up to the reports requested of the Secretary-General in relation to implementation of today’s resolution.  Recognizing the efforts of Arab States in the context of the Arab Peace Initiative, as well as those of France, the Quartet, Egypt and the Russian Federation, he called for intensified international and regional efforts to end Israel’s occupation and build a just and lasting peace in an independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, side by side with Israel and within secure and recognized borders.
=====================================================================
Resolution
The full text of 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.”

செல்லாக்காசு மோடி கழக மக்கள் முழக்கம்

செல்லாக்காசு மோடி

சமரன்: தர்மபுரி: செல்லாக்காசு மோடி எதிர்ப்பு கழக ஆர்ப்பாட...

சமரன்: தர்மபுரி: செல்லாக்காசு மோடி எதிர்ப்பு கழக ஆர்ப்பாட...:          நன்றி மக்கள் ஜனநாயக இளைஞர் கழகம் - PDYA   Report / Pho...

''ஒரே நாட்டவராக வாழ'' மனோ கணேசனுக்கு இருக்கும் '` ஒரேயொரு வழி``!

இந்த நாட்டில் நிலவுகின்ற பன்மை தன்மையை புரிந்து ஏற்றுக் கொள்வதுதான், நாம் ஒரே நாட்டவராக வாழ எஞ்சியிருக்கும் ஒரேயொரு வழி

20 இனங்கள், 4 மதங்கள், 3 மொழிகளைக் கொண்டது இலங்கை; இதை மறந்தால் ஒரே இலங்கையை மறக்க வேண்டிவரும்:

தேசிய சகவாழ்வு கலந்துரையாடல்
மற்றும் அரசகரும மொழிகள் அமைச்சரும், தமிழ்
முற்போக்குக் கூட்டணி தலைவருமான மனோ கணேசன்
22 December 2016 

இருபது இனங்களையும், நான்கு மதங்களையும், மூன்று மொழிகளையும் கொண்டதுதான் இலங்கை. இதை நாம் மனதில் கொள்ள வேண்டும். இதை மறந்தால் ஒரே இலங்கை என்பதை மறந்துவிட வேண்டி வரும் என்று தேசிய சகவாழ்வு கலந்துரையாடல் மற்றும் அரசகரும மொழிகள் அமைச்சரும், தமிழ் முற்போக்குக் கூட்டணி தலைவருமான மனோ கணேசன் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

தெற்கிலே ஒரே மொழி, ஒரே மதம், ஒரே இனம் என்று சொன்னால், அதற்கு பதிலடியாக வடக்கிலும் ஒரே மொழி, ஒரே மதம், ஒரே இனம் என்ற கோஷம் எழும். அதேபோல் வடக்கில் இந்த கோஷம் எழுந்தால், தெற்கிலும் இந்த கோஷம் எழும். எனவே இந்த நாட்டில் நிலவுகின்ற பன்மை தன்மையை புரிந்து ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதுதான், நாம் ஒரே நாட்டவராக வாழ எஞ்சியிருக்கும் ஒரேயொரு வழி என்றும் அவர் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

இரத்தினபுரி பிரதேச செயலகத்தில் நடைபெற்ற சிங்கள அரச ஊழியர்களுக்கான தமிழ் பேச்சு மொழி பயிற்சி வகுப்பு நிறைவு சான்றிதழ் வழங்கும் நிகழ்வில் பிரதம அதிதியாக கலந்து கொண்டு உரையாற்றிய போதே அமைச்சர் மனோ கணேசன் மேற்கண்டவாறு கூறியுள்ளார்.

அவர் மேலும் தெரிவித்துள்ளதாவது,

“சிங்களவர், ஈழத்தமிழர், முஸ்லிம்கள், மலையகத் தமிழர், மலாய், ஒல்லாந்து பறங்கியர், போர்த்துக்கல் பறங்கி, வேடர், பரதர், மலையாளிகள், கடல் வேடர், தெலுங்கர், இலங்கை சீனர், தாவூத் போரா, மேமன், கொழும்பு செட்டி, பார்சி, சிந்தி, ஆபிரிக்க வம்சாவளி கப்ரிஞா, கோஜா ஆகிய இருபது இனத்தவர்கள் இலங்கையில் வாழ்வதாக எனது அமைச்சில் பதிவாகியுள்ளது.

சிங்களம், தமிழ் ஆகிய இரண்டு மொழிகள் ஆட்சி மொழிகளாகவும், ஆங்கிலம் இணைப்பு மொழியாகவும், பெளத்தம், இந்து, இஸ்லாம், கத்தோலிக்கம் ஆகிய நான்கு மதங்களும் இலங்கையில் நிலவுகின்றன.

இதுதான் இலங்கை யதார்த்தம். இதை மாற்ற முடியாது.

உண்மையில் இந்த அடிப்படை உண்மைகள் இந்த நாட்டில் வாழும் நம்மில் பலருக்கே தெரியாது. அப்படியாயின் வெளிநாட்டவருக்கு இவை தெரியாமல் போனதில் ஆச்சரியம் இல்லை.
அடுத்த வருடம், ஒவ்வொரு இனத்தின் கலாச்சார வரலாற்று அடையாளங்களும் காட்சிப்படுத்தப்படுமுகமாக, எனது அமைச்சு நாடு முழுக்க நடத்த உள்ள இலங்கை பன்மை தன்மை ஊர்வல நிகழ்வில் இந்த உண்மைகளை நாம் வெளிப்படுத்துவோம். அதன்மூலம் இலங்கை என்றால் என்ன என்பதை முதலில் நம் நாட்டவரே தெரிந்துகொள்ள முடியும். பிறகு வெளிநாட்டவரும் அறிய முடியும்.

உலகத்துக்கு இலங்கையில் வாழும் தமிழர்கள் அனைவரும், இலங்கை தமிழர்கள். அதில் மாற்றுக்கருத்துக்கு இடமில்லை. ஆனால், உள்ளகரீதியாக, ஈழத்தமிழர், மலையக தமிழர் என்ற அடையாளங்கள் இருக்கின்றன.

உலகத்துக்கு தமிழ் பேசும் மக்கள் என்ற அடையாளம் இருக்கின்றது. ஆனால், உள்ளகரீதியாக தமிழர், முஸ்லிம் என்ற அடையாளங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. இந்த பரஸ்பர அடையாளங்களை அங்கீகரித்து
அறிவுப்பூர்வமாக ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளவேண்டும். அதேவேளை ஒட்டுமொத்தமாக நாம் அனைவரும் இலங்கையர்கள் என்ற அடையாளத்துக்குள் வருகிறோம் என்பதை மனதில் நிறுத்த வேண்டும்.
இலங்கையர் எம் அடையாளம், பல இனங்கள் எம் சக்தி என்பது எம் பார்வையாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

 தமிழ் மொழி மட்டும் தெரிந்த ஒருவர் இலங்கையில் எந்த ஒரு பாகத்திலும் சென்று தனது தாய்மொழியில் கருமமாற்றிகொள்ளும் நிலைமை ஏற்பட வேண்டும். அதேபோல் சிங்கள மொழி மட்டும் தெரிந்த ஒருவர் தனது தாய்மொழியில் வடக்கு, கிழக்கு, மலையகம் உட்பட நாட்டின் எந்த ஒரு பாகத்துக்கும் சென்று தனது தாய்மொழியில் கருமமாற்றிகொள்ளும் நிலைமை ஏற்பட வேண்டும்.

இதைப்பற்றி எழுதுவது, பேசுவதை போன்று செய்துகாட்டுவது இலேசான காரியமல்ல என்பது எனக்கு தெரியும். ஆனால், கஷ்டமான காரியங்களை செய்து பழக்கப்பட்ட எனக்கு இதை செய்து காட்ட முடியும் என நம்புகிறேன்.

அடுத்த வருடம் எனது இந்த நோக்கத்துக்கு முக்கியமான வருடம். முதன்முதலாக இந்த மொழியுரிமையை உறுதிப்படுத்தும் பொறுப்பை, மூன்று மொழிகளையும் எழுத, படிக்க, வாசிக்க, புரிந்து கொள்ள கூடிய ஒரு அமைச்சர் பொறுப்பேற்றுள்ளார் என்பதை நீங்கள் புரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும்.

இந்த மொழிப்பிரச்சினையை தீர்க்க முடியாவிட்டால், அடுத்த கட்டத்துக்கு போக முடியாது.

ஒரே இரவில் அனைத்து மாற்றங்களையும் கொண்டு வந்துவிட முடியாது என்பது எனக்கு தெரியும். ஆகவே நான் கொஞ்சம் அவகாசம் கொடுத்துள்ளேன். அதனை புரிந்துகொண்டு அரசு ஊழியர்கள்
மொழிப்பயிற்சி பெற வேண்டும். இந்த விடயத்தில் என்னுடன் விளையாட நினைக்க கூடாது. நான் இங்கே விளையாட வரவில்லை. அரசாங்கத்தின் மொழிக்கொள்கையை அறிந்து அதன்படி நடந்துக்கொள்ள வேண்டும்.

இங்கே எனது அமைச்சின் தேசிய மொழிக்கல்வி பயிற்சி நிறுவனம் இரத்தினபுரி மாவட்ட அரசு நிறுவன சிங்கள ஊழியர்களுக்கு பேச்சு தமிழ் மொழியை மட்டுமல்ல, தமிழ் கலாச்சார அடையாளங்களையும் கற்றுக்கொடுத்துள்ளது.

மேடையில் தமிழ் மொழியில் பேசி ஆடிப்பாடிய அரசு ஊழியர்களான சிங்களப்பெண்கள் அனைவரும் தமிழ் பெண்களை போலவே எனக்கு தோன்றினார்கள். பெருந்தொகையான அரசு ஊழியர்களுக்கு தமிழ்
மொழிப்பயிற்சி சான்றிதழ்களை இங்கே வழங்கினேன். இவை தொடர்பில் நான் அமைச்சர் என்ற முறையில் மகிழ்ச்சியடைகிறேன்.” என்றுள்ளார்.

Now, Kashmir’s pellet victims slip into despair, hopelessness

Now, Kashmir’s pellet victims slip into despair, hopelessness

    
ZEHRU NISSA
Srinagar, Publish Date: Dec 23 2016 10:18PM | Updated Date: Dec 23 2016 10:18PM
In a waiting room outside an Operation Theatre at general specialty SMHS hospital here, Bashir Ahmad sits silent; his back leaning against the wall, waiting eagerly for his turn to be called in. The room is packed with boys, hit by pellets in their eyes—some of them as young as 12. All of them had reached the hospital on Thursday to undergo surgical procedures in their injured eye for ‘a chance’ to regain their vision.

“It will be my third surgery today. But I can’t see anything beyond a shadow in front of my injured eye,” sighs Ahmad.

Hailing from Krehshore area in central Kashmir’s Budgam district, Ahmad had completed his graduation and got admission in a diploma course in a government institute this year
when he was hit by deadly pellets in his left eye on August 28 following clashes between protestors and forces.

“After my second surgery I had regained some vision but then I lost it again,” says 23-year old Ahmad.

Confined to home for almost four months now, he says he often loses his calm.

“After the incident life has been such a tough struggle. I don’t know what will happen. This thought is more killing,” he says, and takes a deep breath.

This despair expressed by the Budgam boy is written on the face of every youth who has turned up for yet another surgery in their pellet hit eye (s) due to little or no improvement in
their vision.

A team of surgeons at Ophthalmology Department, joined by world renowned vitreo-retina surgeon Dr S Natrajan, have performed a number of vitrectomies since Thursday. But with
each passing day and after repeated surgical procedures “not yielding amazing visual outcomes”, these pellet-hit youth are slipping into despair and hopelessness.

One such case is Firdous Ahmad from Mazbugh Sopore who lost vision in both eyes after being hit by pellets on July 15. He has undergone two surgeries in his left eye and one
surgery in his right. “I regained some vision but it faded away then,” says Firdous, who was writhing in pain after the latest surgery in his left eye.

“I can only distinguish the colors of my clothes and that too with great struggle,” says Firdous who used to drive a passenger auto to earn for the family including aged parents and
three young siblings. Blinded, Firdous’s movement has now got confined to his home.

“At times he cries and says that he wants to run away,” says Asif Ahmad, cousin of Firdous, who was accompanying him. “Till few months back Firdous would not only take care of his
parents but earn for schooling and fulfilling other needs of his two brothers and a sister. The reality that he is now dependent on family for entire life depresses him beyond
imagination.”

But unlike Firdous, Fayaz Ahmad, a truck driver, seems to have resigned to the fate that he might not be able to see with his injured eye again. “Today was my fourth surgery but
there is hardly any improvement,” says Fayaz, lying on a bed in Ward No 7. That he can’t go back to resume his work worries Fayaz.

“A week ago I went along with some laborers to try and earn few bucks but I ended up with infection and high pressure in my eye and had to be hospitalized,” recalls Fayaz.

Commenting on the condition of the injured persons, Dr Natarajan said: “We are facing the challenge of post vitrectomy adhesions in which the tissues in the eye during the natural
process of healing get heaped up and form a lump over visual area which worsens situation after some progress in the eye.”

He said there was the problem of adhesion faced in at least 20 percent cases. “It is frustrating…there is a new challenge each time. A doctor might say operation is successful but it
doesn’t translate into vision each time,” said Dr Natarajan.

A senior doctor, who is part of the surgical team, said badly damaged eyes need multiple surgical procedures before they start responding to treatment. “These (persons) who we have
been examining/operating for past two days have all badly damaged eyes and need repeated vitrectomies,” said the doctor.

He said 11 such cases were operated upon yesterday and 25 others on Friday. “Except for one injured who has been operated upon since yesterday, all have positively responded and
have in fact gained vision which would improve over a period of time,” said the doctor.
 

x mas 2016

“Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump told MSNBC

Trump Makes Foray Onto Obama’s Turf

President-elect wades into foreign policy before taking office, setting up confrontation between outgoing and incoming administrations

By   Carol E. Lee and Peter NichoUpdated Dec. 23, 2016 7:20 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump is upending the modern convention that the U.S. speaks with one voice on foreign affairs, plunging into some of the most sensitive national-security matters before he takes office.

Mr. Trump has launched a series of challenges to President Barack Obama’s policies on nuclear weapons, China and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, setting up a rare and increasingly public confrontation between outgoing and incoming administrations.

Mr. Obama on Friday brushed back pressure from Mr. Trump to block a United Nations Security Council resolution harshly criticizing the expansion of Israeli settlements. Mr. Trump on Thursday called on the administration to veto the resolution. But Mr. Obama instead chose to break from longstanding U.S. policy and allow it to pass.

“There’s one president at a time,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national-security adviser. He said the president believes “it’s important that the world understands who is speaking on behalf of the United States until Jan. 20.”

Mr. Trump took to  Twitter after the vote, saying: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.”

While Mr. Obama’s move suggests it may be difficult to eclipse a sitting president who has said he intends to “run through the tape,” Mr. Trump’s policy pronouncements as president-elect could send mixed signals to America’s allies and partners overseas about who is in charge, experts and analysts said.

Mr. Trump signaled soon after the election that he planned to take a different posture during the transition, when he took a protocol-breaking phone call from the president of Taiwan.

The White House was caught off guard and fielded angry protests from Beijing.

Jon Alterman, a national-security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Mr. Trump appears to be using his transition to test the waters on some issues. “It feels to me partly like he’s just thinking out loud trying to imagine what a Trump foreign policy will be,” Mr. Alterman said.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow focused on national-security issues at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said Mr. Trump is deviating from a longstanding tradition that ensures “continuity” in foreign policy even when the presidency changes parties.

“What he’s signaled on a number of different fronts since his election demonstrates that he has an unorthodox and unconventional way of dealing with the world,” Mr. Katulis said.

“It’s deeply unsettling to a number of our longstanding partners.”

Ken Duberstein, a chief of staff under Republican President Ronald Reagan, countered, saying Mr. Trump’s approach could pay dividends. The president-elect is “basically signaling to the world the way he will conduct things once he is in fact president,” he said. “It’s reassuring to many of our allies and it is setting the stage for an understanding from our adversaries that there will be a new sheriff in town.”

Mr. Trump has just this week waded into two of the most hot-button foreign-policy issues, both raising the prospect of expanding America’s nuclear arsenal and, at the behest of Israel, pressuring Mr. Obama to veto the U.N. resolution.

Mr. Trump said Friday that he wouldn’t shrink from a nuclear-arms race, doubling down on his tweet a day earlier saying the U.S. needs to expand its nuclear capabilities. “Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump told MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

Mr. Trump’s top spokesman, Sean Spicer, later sought to play down the interview.

But Mr. Trump’s comments—which followed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement that Moscow needs to build up its military, including nuclear weapons—are reigniting concerns among critics that he lacks the temperament for the presidency.

“The words presidents speak or tweet or write can send armies marching and markets tumbling,” said David Axelrod, who was a longtime adviser to Mr. Obama and supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “I think there was this hope or expectation that the weight of the presidency or the impending presidency would sober him and this is evidence that that’s not the case.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, expressed alarm at the casual tone Mr. Trump is using to discuss major changes to the nation’s defense posture and security policy.

“These opaque, oracular statements that are coming out of his Twitter account are the subject of multiple interpretations and they’re a dangerous thing to do as president-elect,” said
Mr. Schiff. “They could be a potentially catastrophic thing to do as president.”

Also on Friday, Mr. Trump released a letter he received from Mr. Putin, in which the Russian president says he hopes that “we will be able—by acting in a constructive and pragmatic
manner—to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level.”

Mr. Trump responded to what he called “a very nice letter from Vladimir Putin” with a statement saying, “His thoughts are so correct. I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path.”

—Ben Kesling and Byron Tau contributed to this article.
 

How Russia, Iran and Turkey see the future of post-war Syria

How Russia, Iran and Turkey see the future of post-war Syria
December 22, 2016 Nikolai Litovkin, RBTH 

Russian observers say that the three countries have grown tired of the Syrian conflict and are now preparing to address the problem without waiting for the West and other regional actors.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has announced that specialists from Russia, Turkey and Iran are working on drafting a joint action plan for Aleppo following a meeting of the three nations’ defense ministers in Moscow on Dec. 20.

The final document of the meeting, the so-called Moscow declaration, will lay out urgent steps to promote a settlement of the civil war in Syria following the recapture of the country’s second largest city by government troops.

Despite their desire to put an end to the Syrian hostilities, each of the three actors has its own vision of how the crisis should be resolved and how a post-conflict Syria should look. It also appears, if Russian analysts are to be believed, that Syria's post-war future will become reality fairly soon.

“The hostilities will continue for about another year, after which the first signs of Syria's future state system will become visible,” Vladimir Yevseyev, a military expert and deputy director of the Moscow-based CIS Institute, told RBTH.

Yevseyev believes there will be a redistribution of political power between the offices of president and prime minister in Syria, making the latter a more influential figure. In addition, some of Syria's regions will gain more rights and autonomy, but the country is more likely to remain a republic than turn into a federation.

Russia's position

Moscow wants the situation in the region to stabilize, and also wishes to limit its involvement in the Syrian conflict, according to Russian experts.

“Russia is calling for elections to be held after the end of the crisis, and for the drafting of a road map to restore Syria,” said Yevseyev. “We will continue to involve [Syrian] settlements into the peace process, and to create corridors for the withdrawal of militants.”

Russian experts say that Moscow's primary objective is not only to achieve security in Syria but also to restore the country economically. On the other hand, Russia does not want to go it alone on this: It expects other nations to share the burden.

However, according to Yevseyev, there is also a certain self-interest in Russia’s ambitions for Syria, with the boosting of Moscow’s military presence in the region another priority.

“We also want to establish a foothold in the eastern portion of the Mediterranean,” he said. “We already have Khmeimim air base in Syria; in the future we will turn our naval supply and maintenance base at Tartus into a full-fledged navy base.”

Turkey's position

During the Moscow talks, Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik described the operation to take back eastern Aleppo from rebels opposed to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad as having been “very successful”.

Nevertheless, a number of Russian experts are skeptical as to Turkey's contribution to the Aleppo offensive. Semyon Bagdasarov, director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Central Asia, said in an interview (in Russian) with the online news publication Vzglyad that pro-Turkish units had actually taken part in the defense of eastern Aleppo, and also that it was the Turkish military that had organized counter-strikes from the direction of Idlib and Homs, and had attempted to breach the government blockade around the city.

Bagdasarov enumerated Turkey's key objectives in the Syrian conflict: overthrowing Assad; setting up a Turkish-controlled quasi-state with its capital in eastern Aleppo; and also destroying the foothold established by the Syrian Kurds.

According to him, Moscow in principle is prepared for the emergence of a Kurdish quasi-state in Syria, but there are fears that such a state would be constantly at war with Damascus, “with all the associated problems that would entail”.

Not all Russian experts agree with this view. Prof. Sergei Druzhilovsky of the Department of Oriental Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations told RBTH that Ankara's position has changed significantly in the past six months, since the failed coup in Turkey, and that the Turkish authorities have even found common ground with Iran, whose views used to be diametrically opposite.

“Al-Assad represents Syria's Alawite ethnic minority, which accounts for about 10 percent of the population, and there are 12 to 15 million Alawites residing on Turkish territory,” said Druzhilovsky. “Domestic conflicts have prompted [Turkish President] Recep Tayyip Erdogan to revise his policy on Syria, as well as on some parts of his own country's Shia population.”

Iran's position

Druzhilovsky believes it is important for Iran that Al-Assad retain his presidency: “Any other president is likely to change Syria's policy on Tehran dramatically,” he said.

Syria's attitude towards Israel is a sensitive issue for Iran, Nikolai Surkov, assistant professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and an expert with the Russian International Affairs Council, told RBTH.

“Iran would like Syria to fight Israel, and to provide its territory for supplying arms to Hezbollah,” said Surkov. “Tehran's position is that any figure to replace Al-Assad should be prepared for maximum cooperation with Iran.”

Vladimir Yevseyev, however, does not believe that Iran will have any direct influence on Syria's future policy: “For the time being Iran remains Syria's economic sponsor; it plays but a secondary role militarily,” he said.