The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Israel vs the United Nations: The More Things Change, the More They Don't

    By Michael Wolraich on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 12:50pm | Politics, World Affairs

    The U.N. Security Council is poised to vote on a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, calling the construction "illegal" and "a major obstacle to the achievement of peace."

    The White House is trying to block the resolution, but Obama has not indicated whether the U.S. would veto it. Predictably, American politicians and pundits from across the political spectrum are furious that Obama would "sell out" Israel.

    If you were to read the full text of the resolution -- which is not easy to find -- you might notice the curious repetition of the words "reaffirm" (three times) and "reiterate" (twice).

    The resolution references a number of earlier Security Council resolutions, but the most relevant is Resolution 446, adopted in 1979 by a vote of 12-0 with three abstentions: the U.S., the U.K., and Norway. Resolution 446 charged that the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory had "no legal validity" and constituted "a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

    Nonetheless, despite the fact that the U.N. Security Council may vote on a resolution that is almost identical to one that it approved over twenty years ago when Israel was significantly less secure than it is today, Democratic and Republican leaders have warned that failure to veto it would be catastrophic to the security of Israel and to our own national interests.

    Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) accused the administration of "abandoning one of our most important allies."

    Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) warned that support for "this anti-Israel statement is a major concession to enemies of the Jewish state and other free democracies."

    Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) argued that failing to "stand with Israel" would "encourage the enemies of America and Israel."

    If history is any guide, however, Israel will surely weather yet another critical Security Council resolution without consequences to its national security. Indeed, this resolution will be no more effective than 446 in discouraging Israel from continuing to build settlements.

    But more importantly, while the security of Israel is important to American interests, the idea that Israel's settlements are essential to American interests is senseless. The best thing that could possibly happen to America in the Middle East would be a comprehensive peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. The construction of settlements does nothing to advance such a peace agreement. On the contrary, the settlements have always been and continue to be, in the words of the proposed resolution, "a major obstacle to the achievement of peace."

    AttachmentSize
    PDF icon 110121_UNSC Resolution 1-18-11.pdf35.39 KB
    Topics: 
    Politics
    World Affairs

    Comments

    I think the settlement issue is a red herring. The al-Jazeera links show that the Palestinian negotiators are willing to say nearly anything in the confines of the negotiation venue even though they know very well they would never be able to sell these supposed compromises to the people. This is the same problem Arafat had with Clinton - he could not make a public agreement on the proposed deal and had nothing else to offer since that deal gave him virtually everything he asked for at that time. The only thing this resolution vote does - if the US fails to veto it - is to widen the public separation between the Obama White House and Israel. This does no one any good - not even Israel's Arab neighbors - because it makes more remote the possibility of a peace agreement. [all caps gone - d] [thanks d, nice work - g]


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 1:21pm

    Perhaps I'm not following your line of argument. It seems like you're saying that Obama shouldn't pressure Israel because it would interfere with his ability to pressure Israel.

    PS Welcome to dagblog, but please be advised that this caps-lock free zone.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 1:37pm

    "...the idea that Israel's settlements are essential to American interests is senseless." Of course that is true, as senseless as the idea that invading Iraq was essential to protect out freedoms. Both, however, make for good political jujitsu, aka Blowing Smoke, for use in attacking anyone who disagrees, and points out the real truth.

    Israel thrives on the continuation of tension, the lack of a defined border, the ability to perpetuate the disenfranchisement of millions under its control, and the exclusive right to take whatever land or resources it wants to in eretz Israel. Arab rulers in the region have no more desire for self-determination to be granted to Palestinians than they do to to Bahrainis or Libyans. They would just as soon Israel hold the keys to the prison as some Arab dictator.

    The fantasy of an Israel forever hanging by a frayed thread helps to raise contributions from Zionists abroad, and keeps US billions flowing every year. Perhaps the only non-Palestinian people in the region who endeavor to protect the rights of Palestinians from the IDF and the juggernaut of bigoted settlers and their ever expanding settlements are the Jews of Gush Shalom.


    by NCD on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:15pm

    Agreed, with a quibble. The justification for the Iraq War wasn't senseless. It was a lie. If Saddam Hussein had really possessed WMDs, and if he had actually been in league with Al Qaeda, then attacking Iraq might have made some sense.

    But the claim that America should support Israel's settlement construction isn't a lie. It's simply absurd.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 4:03pm

    According to Xinhua: "The U.S. administration told the Palestinian leadership during intensive discussions that it will veto the resolution," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee.

    So Israel has nothing to worry about, except that its only important ally is further isolated, weakened and embarrassed on the world stage.

    Thanks for posting the full text. Pretty tame stuff, eh? A lot of reaffirming, reiterating and urging people to do what they've already promised to do. Nothing the U.S. hasn't declared publicly to be its position. The resolution doesn't even condemn Israel, as some lazy people are saying. It condemns continued settlement expansion, but even that rebuke is relegated to a subordinate clause.

    When will the U.S. decide to get serious about whether it wants the Israeli-Palestinian issue settled?


    by acanuck on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:53pm

    I guess the usual way this plays out is that the administration calls Abbas and says "You know we give you a lot of money, right?  And money is worth more than this U.N. Resolution, right?  So how about you withdraw the U.N. Resolution, spare us the uncomfortable vote and you can have some more money!"


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 4:40pm

    I think they already tried that tack. Hillary Clinton and Obama are both reported to have had long phone calls with Abbas, urging him to settle for a "non-binding" UN statement that the U.S. wouldn't have to vote on. Abbas refused, basically pointing to what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. American support is worth spit if you have to flee your own country.


    by acanuck on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:47pm

    I'm confused now.  I'd read this yesterday at FP Magazine, and it was announced that Obama's supporting the Security Council's statement that "reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.  (my bold)

    A bit different from what you found, and I don't see the big rebuke, but at least it's something.  But why the reversal?  Besides being the odd-nation out on the matter...does Rice see the future in the ME?  Now that there might be a second Democracy?  I'd been hoping that events in Egypt might have a medium-term beneficial effect on the peace process.

    http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/16/in_major_reversal_us_to_rebuke_israel_in_security_council

    Along that line, here's a thoughtful piece by Dov Waxman saying how things might go better for Israel if they could see it:

    "Instead of immediately dismissing Arab public opinion in Egypt and elsewhere as hopelessly and unremittingly anti-Israeli, Israeli Jews should recognize that what Israel does - not simply what it is - shapes public opinion in the Arab world, and in the rest of the world too for that matter. Rather than desperately hope that somehow the rising tide of democratic change in the Middle East can be held in check, Israelis need to seriously think about how they can improve their relations with Egyptians and other Arab publics.  To be sure, this will not be easy to do. Egyptians, like Arabs across the Middle East and beyond, have a very negative view of Israel and of Israeli Jews. More than anything else, Israel's continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories is responsible for this (but it is not the only factor). By ending the Occupation, therefore, Israelis can make peace with the Palestinians and finally begin to really make peace with Egyptians as well. 

    Unfortunately, Israelis now seem to be drawing the opposite conclusion. The political upheavals and turmoil in the region are regarded by many as yet another reason not to carry out any risky territorial withdrawals in the future. They are pining their hopes on the military maintaining power in Egypt, whether openly or behind the scenes, and other pro-Western authoritarian regimes weathering the storm of protest they are now facing." 

    http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/18/israel_s_demophobia

    Hope I can remember to come back and see if you have any thoughts on any of this.  Doubtful?  Mebbe.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:40pm

    The US veto is in from AOL News:

    The U.S. opposes new settlements but says taking the issue to the U.N. will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.

    ..as if building more settlements is less 'complicating' than passing UN Resolutions that follow international law on seizing occupied territory. The chance of a peace agreement and a 2 state 'solution' is less likely than a snowstorm in Phoenix in July.


    by NCD on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 7:32pm

    The peace "process" is to actual peace what "processed cheese products" are to cheese. A cheap, synthetic, tasteless imitation that looks a bit like what it mimics. But which fools nobody who likes cheese! Hearing the words "advance the peace process" actually pisses me off.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 12:22am

    ...advance the peace (settlement) process..like real authentic imitation leather, or certain to make one feel more healthy looking!.


    by NCD on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 1:01am

    I got your solution right here:

    The United  Semitic Peoples' Kemalist Republic.

    One semite, one vote. One state, no Yahwists.

     

    (oh, and, btw-no apartheid.  That's the one semite/one vote part)

     

    As the estimable T. Friedman would have it,

    "Suck on this" ,  Zionist gangsters


    by jollyroger on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 3:04am