Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Biden must get Security Council to rescind Resolution 2334

By David Singer - posted Thursday, 21 March 2024

President Biden can stem the outbreak of Jew-hatred worldwide by convincing the Security Council to rescind Resolution 2334 adopted on 23 December 2016 - only after the Obama-Biden administration failed to veto its passage.

Resolution 2334 violates article 80 of the UN Charter which preserves the right of the Jewish People to settle in any part of the territory of former Palestine located west of the Jordan River under articles 6 and 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.


The reasons for rescinding Resolution 2334 are found in this letter published in the New York Times on 19 September 1983 – authored by Eugene Rostow – former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

In a recent news analysis, ''The West Bank and the Emperor's Clothes,'' Bernard Gwertzman accurately portrays the mindset of the officials who condescendingly dismiss President Reagan's statement that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are ''not illegal.'' But these officials and not the President are wearing the Emperor's gossamer suit.

Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank. The West Bank is part of the British Mandate in Palestine which included Israel and Jordan as well as certain other territories not yet generally recognized as belonging to either country. While Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River was suspended in 1922, such settlements remained legal in the West Bank.

All rights vesting under mandates were preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. And they survived the end of British administration in Palestine as a ''sacred trust'' - exactly the legal posture for Namibia after South Africa ceased to be the mandatory power.

Recognizing the legal force of these facts, those who are seeking to sabotage the President's position fall back on a provision of the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbidding occupying powers to transfer their own populations to occupied territories.

This article of the Convention was a reaction to Nazi policy in Czechoslovakia after the invasion of 1938. But Israel is not in the West Bank only as an occupying power, because the West Bank has never been widely recognized as Jordanian. Israel's claims to the territory are at least as good as those of Jordan, since Jordan held the territory for 19 years after a war of aggression, whereas Israel took the area in the course of a war of self-defense, so far as Jordan was concerned.

As a matter of convenience, Israel applies the Geneva Convention generally in its administration of the West Bank, but does not admit it is legally obliged to do so. Jordan is not the reversioner in the West Bank and therefore the protective provisions of the Geneva Convention do not apply. Whether Israel's right to settle the West Bank should be exercised at a particular time is thus a matter of prudence, not of law.

It is conventional wisdom that such settlements are an obstacle to peace. But the absence of such settlements between 1948 and 1967 did not encourage Jordan to make peace. The thesis, often mechanically repeated by our Government spokesmen, does not do justice to the principles of the Arab position: that the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, and all that flowed from them were beyond the powers of the victorious Allies of 1914-18, the League, and the United Nations, and that the existence of Israel is itself an aggression against the Arab nation.

Perhaps the realization that their continuing refusal to make peace with Israel is bound to have territorial consequences will help to persuade the Arabs that 35 years of intransigence is enough.

President Biden: Atone for your sin in giving birth to Resolution 2334 by rescinding it.


  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

The author has a Facebook page: "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine supporters"

Author's note: The cartoon - commissioned exclusively for this article - is by Yaakov Kirschen aka "Dry Bones"- one of Israel's foremost political and social commentators - whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International - an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine. Previous articles written by him can be found at

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Singer

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy