UN Vote: How The US & The World Are Beginning to Rescue Israel From Itself


HAARETZ – Santa Obama delivered a wonderful Christmas present to Israel when the United States opted not to veto Friday’s United Nation Security Council vote condemning settlement policy (…) The passage of the resolution won’t result in the immediate dismantling of any West Bank settlements, but the world is beginning to come to the rescue and try to save Israeli from itself.


Friday’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policies may not result in immediate changes on the ground, but it does signal that the international community has not changed its expectations that any future peace agreement will involve an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.   

Santa Obama delivered a wonderful Christmas present to Israel when the United States opted not to veto Friday’s United Nation Security Council vote condemning settlement policy.

The passage of the resolution won’t result in the immediate dismantling of any West Bank settlements, but the world is beginning to come to the rescue and try to save Israeli from itself.

And the passage of the resolution by a vote of 14 in favor with one abstention – that of the United States — shows that finally the United Nations is uniting. Among the 15 votes cast, that American abstention, instead of a veto, was the most important vote cast.

About a year ago a document from Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot spelling out IDF strategy warned of worrying trends in the West. Support for the use of military force, it warned, would be more difficult to obtain and more selective and limited than in the past when it comes to maintaining Israeli control in the territories, in contrast to the defense of Israel proper.  

The concerns that the IDF expressed are coming to fruition. Even without sanctions from the United Nations, European countries can now rely on Friday’s resolution, Resolution 2334, to justify disrupting Israeli wartime efforts such as delaying weapons shipments from their ports or airspace. 

The failure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy with regard to the Security Council Resolution is crystal clear. 

Forty-nine years and one month after the post-Six-Day War adoption of Resolution 242, which called for an exchange of territory for peace, the world, that same world, is actually not against Israel. It remains in our favor but against the millstone around our necks.

The international community is signaling that no creation of purported facts on the ground, in the form of settlement construction, will change expectations of an Israeli withdrawal as part of a peace agreement. 

The settlements may be part of the domestic Israeli rules of the game, but they have no sway anywhere else in the world. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have not received any international support.

By the same token, the Knesset could legislate that there are 25 hours in a day, and it would have the same effect for the rest of the world.

Residents of West Bank Jewish settlements such as Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg may have achieved the highest ranks of public office in Israel, but as the rest of the world sees it, these people are accessories to a violation of international norms.

As the government faces the relocation of residents of the unauthorized outpost of Amona, how will it now build alternative West Bank housing for them when any settlement construction has now been deemed as a violation of Friday’s UN Security Council resolution?

On the tactical level as well, the UN vote is a resounding defeat for the Israel government, as Netanyahu earns himself a place of infamy in the diplomatic hall of fame. This saga will become a lesson that new recruits to the Israeli foreign service will have to study in the context of how not to conduct foreign policy.

Netanyahu’s frequent digs at the Democratic Party in the United States and President Barack Obama in particular will be held against him in the long term, and shall be dredged up at the appropriate time. 

Netanyahu has been playing a diplomatic chess game recently with Obama that will end in a checkmate. Netanyahu scored a temporary and illusory victory on Thursday when he lobbied to get the vote on the resolution deferred. Obama left it up to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi to decide whether his country would have the resolution put to a vote.

Netanyahu outflanked him with the help of President-elect Donald Trump, who put pressure on Sissi. The Egyptian president held back for a day, got a commitment from Trump to reexamine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but then faced the refusal of four other Security Council member states to go back on the plan. 

Netanyahu made Trump look helpless, in practice extracting a promise for a more balanced policy than Trump’s proposed move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, followed by his choice of settlement advocate David Friedman as ambassador to Israel. 
With his impulses and ignorance, Trump, a man who is dangerous to world peace and stability, sounded over the weekend like a trader hoarding his wares – the settlements in this case – only as a bargaining chip, for that major deal in the future in which he will forgo them for the right price. For the time being, however, Trump is the one barking while Obama is biting. 

Netanyahu’s man in Washington, that Florida Republican turned Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, couldn’t restrain himself until January 20 and was already celebrating Trump’s victory and Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

In fact, the prime minister’s chief representatives in the United States, Dermer, UN ambassador Danny Danon and Israeli Consul General in New York Dani Dayan are all right-wing settlement supporters.

They don’t reflect the aspirations of Israelis for a peace compromise. They also haven’t had the leverage to lobby the administration to assist countries that in the past admired Israel’s power on Capitol Hill.  

Israel under Netanyahu has been portrayed as an empty vessel. In one of his moments of euphoria amid the fear, Netanyahu boasted that he always gets what he wants.  
But he wraps up his eight years with Obama with a resounding 0-2 loss in the championships against both Iran and Palestine. This is the same Netanyahu who following his oratory record as Israel’s ambassador to the UN took the Likud by storm, as the party was convinced that his Boston-Philadelphia-accented turns of phrase would charm the world. 

Those were the years of the administration of Ronald Reagan and is highly pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz. If we are to believe the PR, they were Bibi’s best friends.

But as soon as Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, was elected president, and before he was even sworn in, Reagan and Shultz launched a dialogue with Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat.

So much for appearances. 

Netanyahu has had a wealth of diplomatic experience in the course of his career of thus far, 11 years as prime minister.  But he has also wrecked what little was left of the Foreign Ministry. And the combination of foolish policy and poor management are among the signs of collapse of Netanyahu’s diplomatic infrastructure.
Maybe Friedman, the American ambassador-designate, who was Trump’s personal bankruptcy lawyer, can provide him with some advice. 

Obama assumed office with a demand for an Israeli settlement construction freeze. Netanyahu was afraid of the new president and gave in. Obama is ending his presidency in similar fashion. As expected, the president waited until after the U.S. election.
It would be easy to imagine what would have happened if the steps at the Security Council had been taken in September or October and had been followed by Clinton’s loss to Trump. 

In more creative times under David Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, Levi Eshkol and Yitzhak Rabin, the interregnum between the election of a new leader and his taking office provided an opportunity, not only in the United States.

Peres, as Ben-Gurion’s emissary, obtained outgoing French Prime Minister Maurice Bourgès-Maunoury’s agreement to supply Israel with the nuclear reactor at Dimona.
As Eshkol’s representative in the transitional period between the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency and the beginning of Richard Nixon’s, Rabin secured Phantom jets for Israel without an Israeli commitment to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. 

In Netanyahu’s case, however, he’s a hawk who has little to show for himself.

  1. #1 by PJ London on 12/26/2016 - 9:34

    Pay back is such a B*tch :

    May 2011 — Bibi lectures Obama in front of reporters during a press availability in the Oval Office, explaining recent Jewish history to a visibly irritated U.S. president. Diplomatic experts call it a startlingly aggressive move.

    November 2011 — After a G20 summit in Cannes, Obama and then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy are caught discussing Netanyahu on an open mic. After Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a liar, Obama replies, “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!”

    Fall 2012 — Netanyahu appears in a campaign ad for Obama’s Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Netanyahu’s office says the prime minister was not consulted or asked for permission but does not call for the conservative group that sponsored the ad to stop running it. After Romney’s defeat, the New York Times reports that Netanyahu was “widely perceived in Israel and the United States as having supported the Republican challenger.”

    September 2012 — In what Reuters calls “a highly unusual rebuff,” Obama snubs a request from Netanyahu for a meeting during the Israeli prime minister’s planned visit to New York for a United Nations meeting.

    Obama to Nutti :
    “You might have friends in Washington, I have them in New York.
    Oh yes, I have just been offered a new Presidency, BDS”

  2. #2 by nooralhaqiqa on 12/31/2016 - 9:34

    I don’t know if anyone can do enough to save Israel from itself. Rot is rot is rot.

    The big concern is to halt and subsequently heal from the spreading of this Talmudic plague. All of us. Somehow I think there are so many changes ahead with the incoming administration that it is no more than a fun way to past the time imagining possible scenarios. Nothing is set in stone.

    But the fall of Bibi and Barry, unfriendly from the start, is a most interesting tale no matter how the analysts portrayed the relationship. A most enjoyable, albeit dangerous, game is being played and Bibi has to know he is on the way down. I mean, threatening war if one disagrees with him? Those things all come to an end eventually. He is being set up for a fall.

    I have a strange hunch that his fall will bring in a “kinder gentler fresh faced” leader to work with Trump … but that Israel will be allowed to carry on its genocidal policies towards Palestine so long as it takes a less ‘in your face’ approach and possibly makes a superficial alteration of policy that is no more than unheeded legal footwork as they have been doing for so long.

    Meanwhile, I also think that although Barry might have been giving Bibi a slap because they are not best buddies, I believe that he finally caved into the urge to not veto simply to complicate matters for the incoming administration, just as he is attempting to lay turds everywhere for the Russians and whoever else he thinks he can stir up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: