{"id":1591,"date":"2017-12-22T15:17:08","date_gmt":"2017-12-22T02:17:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/israelinstitute.nz\/?p=1591"},"modified":"2018-07-01T19:59:30","modified_gmt":"2018-07-01T07:59:30","slug":"new-zealand-sided-with-the-mob-in-yet-another-anti-israel-un-resolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/israelinstitute.nz\/2017\/12\/new-zealand-sided-with-the-mob-in-yet-another-anti-israel-un-resolution\/","title":{"rendered":"New Zealand sided with the mob in yet another anti-Israel UN resolution"},"content":{"rendered":"
New Zealand has further entrenched UN discrimination against the only Jewish state by voting with the mob, against sovereign nations being allowed to declare their own capitals.<\/span><\/p>\n There are 193 member states of the United Nations. Of these, 125 – the Non-aligned movement<\/a>, which includes the 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation<\/a> – are inherently anti-Israel and anti-democratic. It is little wonder that there are disproportionately more resolutions passed against Israel than any other country (by a ratio of 20:1<\/a>) when countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela dictate the agenda.<\/p>\n And New Zealand \u201cjoined the bullies<\/a>\u201d in voting for the resolution, as Israel Institute of New Zealand director, Dr David Cumin, told RadioNZ<\/a>.<\/p>\n Australia and Canada, our traditional allies, abstained from voting along with 35 other nations, including five EU nations that broke EU consensus<\/a>. Nine countries voted against the resolution and a further 21 did not vote at all. The vast majority of the 128 positive votes were from the 125 Non-aligned movement countries.<\/p>\n Turkey and Yemen called the emergency session of the UN general assembly today. It was not to address the 8.5m people starving in Yemen<\/a> or the lack of freedoms in Turkey<\/a>. It was to bring the nations of the world together to condemn a sovereign nation – a fellow member – for doing what all other sovereign nations can do without criticism: name its own capital.<\/p>\n The decision of the United States is not a new one – it dates back to at least a 1995 piece of legislation that had bipartisan support<\/a> – and has been the policy of previous presidents<\/a>. Crucially, president Trump made it clear that the territories that Israel took from Jordan in the 1967 war still needed to have a negotiated solution – his speech was rather nuanced on this point. As Dr Cumin has pointed out:<\/p>\n The US decision is simply acknowledging an existing fact. It does not preclude negotiations<\/a> that might result in the capital of a future Palestinian state in East Jerusalem.\u201dDr David Cumin<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Asked by TVNZ how the vote would affect any future peace talks, Dr Cumin said:<\/p>\n The only way it would derail peace talks is by once again sending a signal to the Palestinians that\u00a0 they don\u2019t need to negotiate; that they can work things out through the UN.\u201dDr David Cumin<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n