Sign In

Login

Password

Forgot Password ? Sign Up

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
7timesofisrael.com
571st place
403rd place
6haaretz.com
497th place
371st place
5un.org
97th place
164th place
5nytimes.com
7th place
7th place
4books.google.com
3rd place
3rd place
4web.archive.org
1st place
1st place
4jpost.com
544th place
387th place
4independent.co.uk
36th place
33rd place
3bbc.com
20th place
30th place
3reuters.com
49th place
47th place
3ynetnews.com
1,870th place
1,304th place
2aljazeera.com
268th place
215th place
2nzherald.co.nz
435th place
276th place
2foxnews.com
152nd place
120th place
1bbc.co.uk
8th place
10th place
1theglobeandmail.com
293rd place
203rd place
1qcea.org
low place
low place
1doi.org
2nd place
2nd place
1jstor.org
26th place
20th place
1semanticscholar.org
11th place
8th place
1mfa.gov.il
2,707th place
2,707th place
1icj-cij.org
3,889th place
3,892nd place
1brookings.edu
1,634th place
1,093rd place
1voanews.com
581st place
738th place
1france24.com
481st place
508th place
1telegraph.co.uk
30th place
24th place
1aps.dz
4,743rd place
low place
1bernama.com
3,981st place
3,985th place
1theguardian.com
12th place
11th place
1mid.ru
3,727th place
7,316th place
1jewishpress.com
low place
6,955th place
1rfi.fr
559th place
1,777th place
1sky.com
431st place
274th place
1businessinsider.com
140th place
115th place
1state.gov
264th place
249th place
1thedailybeast.com
330th place
222nd place
1reliefweb.int
2,136th place
1,442nd place
1thejc.com
1,842nd place
1,079th place
1eajc.org
low place
low place
1abc.net.au
139th place
108th place
17sur7.be
5,321st place
low place
1tagesspiegel.de
458th place
1,945th place
1t-online.de
1,069th place
6,414th place
1nrk.no
849th place
1,207th place
1thelocal.se
3,667th place
2,481st place
1wafa.ps
low place
low place
1amnesty.org
1,367th place
1,176th place
1hrw.org
729th place
650th place
1firstpost.com
283rd place
179th place
1nouvelobs.com
575th place
3,292nd place
1ny1.com
6,196th place
3,482nd place
1jstreet.org
low place
low place
1radionz.co.nz
5,259th place
3,182nd place
1unmissions.org
low place
8,636th place
1securitycouncilreport.org
low place
low place

7sur7.be

abc.net.au

aljazeera.com

amnesty.org

aps.dz

bbc.co.uk

bbc.com

bernama.com

books.google.com

brookings.edu

  • Natan Sachs 'What’s new and what’s not in the U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements,' Brookings Institution 26 December 2016:'The U.S. abstention—the focus of a great deal of personal rage against Obama by Netanyahu and others—was not new either. In 1987, the Reagan administration abstained and allowed the passage of UNSCR 605, 14 to 0, which reaffirmed the application of the Geneva Convention (via previous resolutions) and included "Jerusalem" in the "Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967". Sixteen years later, the George W. Bush administration voted in favor of UNSCR 1515, which called—by endorsing the Roadmap for Peace—for a full settlement freeze, including natural growth. In fact, until this latest resolution, Obama had been the only president not to let a resolution critical of Israeli policy pass in the Security Council.

businessinsider.com

nordic.businessinsider.com

doi.org

  • Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. S2CID 145514740. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.

eajc.org

firstpost.com

foxnews.com

france24.com

haaretz.com

hrw.org

icj-cij.org

  • 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,' Archived 25 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine 9 July 2004.'Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court takes note that differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court recalls that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention; that Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951; and that neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings. The Court observes that the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occasions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention within the occupied territories. However, according to Israel’s position, that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, paragraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armed conflict. Israel explains that the territories occupied by Israel subsequent to the 1967 conflict had not previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties. The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to "occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party", is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

independent.co.uk

jewishpress.com

jpost.com

jstor.org

  • Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. S2CID 145514740. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.

jstreet.org

mfa.gov.il

mid.ru

nouvelobs.com

reel.nouvelobs.com

nrk.no

ny1.com

nytimes.com

nzherald.co.nz

qcea.org

radionz.co.nz

reliefweb.int

reuters.com

rfi.fr

securitycouncilreport.org

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

  • Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. S2CID 145514740. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.

sky.com

news.sky.com

state.gov

2009-2017.state.gov

t-online.de

tagesspiegel.de

telegraph.co.uk

thedailybeast.com

theglobeandmail.com

theguardian.com

thejc.com

thelocal.se

timesofisrael.com

  • "Choosing not to veto, Obama lets anti-settlement resolution pass at UN Security Council". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  • "Full text of US envoy Samantha Power's speech after abstention on anti-settlement vote". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 24 December 2016.
  • Raphael Ahren (24 December 2016). "PM cancels visit of Ukrainian PM after Kiev supports anti-settlements resolution". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  • "Official: 'Rather ironclad' intel shows Obama behind UN vote". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  • "Abbas welcomes UN resolution, calls on Israel to talk peace". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  • Cortellessa, Eric (6 January 2017). "US House Passes Motion Repudiating UN Resolution on Israel". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
  • Ahren, Raphael (10 February 2017). "Israel permanently downgrades its ties to New Zealand, Senegal". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 28 August 2018.

un.org

unmissions.org

unsco.unmissions.org

voanews.com

wafa.ps

english.wafa.ps

web.archive.org

  • 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,' Archived 25 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine 9 July 2004.'Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court takes note that differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court recalls that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention; that Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951; and that neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings. The Court observes that the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occasions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention within the occupied territories. However, according to Israel’s position, that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, paragraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armed conflict. Israel explains that the territories occupied by Israel subsequent to the 1967 conflict had not previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties. The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to "occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party", is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.
  • "UNSC Vote Against Israeli Settlements A Victory for the People of Palestine – Najib". Bernama. 24 December 2016. Archived from the original on 15 April 2017. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  • 'US pressured Ukraine to support the UN Security Council resolution on settlements,' Archived 30 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, 28 December 2016.
  • "Schumer Blasts Obama Admin., U.N. After Resolution Accuses Israel of Violating International Law". Ny1.com. 24 December 2016. Archived from the original on 4 January 2017. Retrieved 8 January 2017.

ynetnews.com