to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose. so we reject the criticism that this vote abandons israel. on the contrary. it is not this resolution that is isolating israel. it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible. virtually every country in the world other than israel opposes settlements. that includes many of the friends of israel, including the united kingdom, france, russia, all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed and again this year along with every other member of the council. in fact, this resolution simply reaffirms statements made by the security council on the legality of settlements over several decades. it does not break new ground. in 1978, the state department
abstention of the u.s. these were not enemies of anyone. these were friends of peace trying to save the two-state solution. i d like to bring you in and ask the same question as well. the ambassador, do you feel optimistic about january 20th? no, not at all. what s really unusual here is the degree to which the president-elect has injected himself into ongoing diplomacy and politics while waiting to become president. what s also unusual is the degree to which prime minister netanyahu has treated the sitting president so poorly. you have this very unusual and destructive mix of activities. the u.n. resolution was focused on settlements. it was not anti-israel.
peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace. but the problem obviously goes well beyond settlements. trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take the west bank land for israel and prevent any palestinian development there. today, the 60% of the west bank known as area c, much of which was supposed to be transferred to palestinian control long ago under the oslo accords, much of it is effectively off limits to palestinian development. most take taken for use by israel, simply unilaterally designated it as state land or included it in the jurisdiction of regional settlement counsels.
significant new settlement well east of the barrier. closer to jordan than to israel. what does that say to palestinians in particular? but also to the united states and the world about israel s intentions? let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. of course they are not. nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly moved, you d have peace without a broader agreement. you would not. and we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years. we understand that. including the new demographic realities that exist on the ground. but if more and more settle lers
must take responsibility to do that. we have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the palestinians that all incitement of violence must stop. we have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism. we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize israel in international fora. we have made countless public and private exhortations to the israelis to stop the march of settlements. literally hundreds of conversations with prime minister netanyahu i have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an international response. we have all known for some time that the palestinians were intent on moving forward in the u.n. with a settlement s resolution. i advised the prime minister repeatedly that further settlement activity only invited u.n. action. yet the settlement activity just increased. including advancing the