UN Vote: no longer a game changer
New far-right US administration would not be bound by any vote in showing a lack of resolve to supporting Israel
The writer is a former Interior secretary and former ambassador
After 36 years, the UN Security Council has adopted on December 23, a resolution that condemns the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and calls upon Israel to stop such activity calling it an obstruction to peace. Because such activity would jeopardise the creation of a Palestinian state that would exist side by side with the state of Israel. The most significant part of this important development is that the US chose to abstain, allowing the Council to pass the resolution 14-0.
The US abstention was in part reflecting its exasperation over its repeated failures to convince Israel to agree to resumption of peace talks that are predicated on the establishment of the Palestinian state — the two-state solution that has been endorsed by the International community for a long time as the only long-lasting solution to one of the oldest disputes that the UN has been seized of since the creation of that organisation.
Dramatic developments took place in the run-up to the passing of the resolution. Egypt which tabled the draft succumbed to Israeli pressure and pulled its draft. The resolution was then tabled by New Zealand supported by Malayasia, Senegal and Venezuela.
Isreal made concerted endeavours to block the passage of the vote by calling Donald Trump to intervene. The President-elect did try but the White House refused to use its veto power in defence of Israel as it has done so on countless number of occasions in the past.
The vote, unsurprisingly, evoked a strong response from Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu called it a shameful UN vote, rejecting it and reiterating that Israel would not abide by such resolution. Not only that, the Israeli supporters in the US Congress vowed to protect the Jewish state’s paramount interests at all costs.
President-elect Trump tweeted that this will change after January 20, the day he takes office. Trump also appointed a Jewish American, David Friedman, as the US ambassador to Israel. The nominee is an ardent supporter of the settlements on the occupied land. From that perspective then the vote will have no impact on the situation on the ground. But it does point to the isolation of the state of Israel. It also shows how disgusted the Europeans have become in the wake of Israeli intransigence on any meaningful peace initiative. The vote could have implications for companies based on operating in the areas where settlements have been allowed.
Israel has so far allowed the construction of nearly 150 settlements in the West Bank catering for a population of more than 400,000 Jews. In East Jerusalem, more than 200,000 Jews have taken up houses. More settlements continue to be created.
From the Palestinian perspective, the vote has enormous symbolic importance. It is for the first time in many decades that the world body has censured Israel. The international community has spoken resoundingly against a pillar of Israeli policy — namely its right to create homes for the Jews on territories that it occupied in a brief war in 1967; territories from which the owners were forcibly expelled following the victory of Israel in the six-day war.
But the vote should not be judged as indicating any change in the fundamental US policy towards a state that it helped create in 1948 on lands stolen from its Arab population. Every US administration has consistently and vigorously supported the state of Israel since the creation of the Zionist state. Not only that, the US has provided billions in dollars to the Jewish state in the spheres of economic and military assistance. The Obama administration has not fallen behind either. It has just announced a package of $38 billion in military assistance alone spread over the next 10 years, the biggest military aid ever provided to any country by the US.
The new far-right US administration would not be bound by any such vote in either showing a lack of resolve to supporting Israel or reducing the quantum of aid it provides. Donald Trump has promised to shift the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. If he carries out this pledge, it will drive a deep wedge between the Arab world and the West at a time in history when the Middle East is in turmoil and the old order is being swept aside by new, potentially destructive bands of reckless, misguided youth who have been driven to despondency in an environment which does not hold any promise for them or posterity.
For the Arab countries, the vote would not create any huge enthusiasm because most of them are involved in a bitter conflict that has generated deep sectarian and ethnic hostilities amongst the myriad of ethnic groups. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunis and now Yemen have suffered destruction of infrastructure of a magnitude that is beyond quantification. The attention or focus is more on the impending social and economic disasters and not on the future of the Palestinians. Israel can relax and get ready for a warm embrace by the Trump administration.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 31st, 2016.
The US abstention was in part reflecting its exasperation over its repeated failures to convince Israel to agree to resumption of peace talks that are predicated on the establishment of the Palestinian state — the two-state solution that has been endorsed by the International community for a long time as the only long-lasting solution to one of the oldest disputes that the UN has been seized of since the creation of that organisation.
Dramatic developments took place in the run-up to the passing of the resolution. Egypt which tabled the draft succumbed to Israeli pressure and pulled its draft. The resolution was then tabled by New Zealand supported by Malayasia, Senegal and Venezuela.
Isreal made concerted endeavours to block the passage of the vote by calling Donald Trump to intervene. The President-elect did try but the White House refused to use its veto power in defence of Israel as it has done so on countless number of occasions in the past.
The vote, unsurprisingly, evoked a strong response from Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu called it a shameful UN vote, rejecting it and reiterating that Israel would not abide by such resolution. Not only that, the Israeli supporters in the US Congress vowed to protect the Jewish state’s paramount interests at all costs.
President-elect Trump tweeted that this will change after January 20, the day he takes office. Trump also appointed a Jewish American, David Friedman, as the US ambassador to Israel. The nominee is an ardent supporter of the settlements on the occupied land. From that perspective then the vote will have no impact on the situation on the ground. But it does point to the isolation of the state of Israel. It also shows how disgusted the Europeans have become in the wake of Israeli intransigence on any meaningful peace initiative. The vote could have implications for companies based on operating in the areas where settlements have been allowed.
Israel has so far allowed the construction of nearly 150 settlements in the West Bank catering for a population of more than 400,000 Jews. In East Jerusalem, more than 200,000 Jews have taken up houses. More settlements continue to be created.
From the Palestinian perspective, the vote has enormous symbolic importance. It is for the first time in many decades that the world body has censured Israel. The international community has spoken resoundingly against a pillar of Israeli policy — namely its right to create homes for the Jews on territories that it occupied in a brief war in 1967; territories from which the owners were forcibly expelled following the victory of Israel in the six-day war.
But the vote should not be judged as indicating any change in the fundamental US policy towards a state that it helped create in 1948 on lands stolen from its Arab population. Every US administration has consistently and vigorously supported the state of Israel since the creation of the Zionist state. Not only that, the US has provided billions in dollars to the Jewish state in the spheres of economic and military assistance. The Obama administration has not fallen behind either. It has just announced a package of $38 billion in military assistance alone spread over the next 10 years, the biggest military aid ever provided to any country by the US.
The new far-right US administration would not be bound by any such vote in either showing a lack of resolve to supporting Israel or reducing the quantum of aid it provides. Donald Trump has promised to shift the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. If he carries out this pledge, it will drive a deep wedge between the Arab world and the West at a time in history when the Middle East is in turmoil and the old order is being swept aside by new, potentially destructive bands of reckless, misguided youth who have been driven to despondency in an environment which does not hold any promise for them or posterity.
For the Arab countries, the vote would not create any huge enthusiasm because most of them are involved in a bitter conflict that has generated deep sectarian and ethnic hostilities amongst the myriad of ethnic groups. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunis and now Yemen have suffered destruction of infrastructure of a magnitude that is beyond quantification. The attention or focus is more on the impending social and economic disasters and not on the future of the Palestinians. Israel can relax and get ready for a warm embrace by the Trump administration.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 31st, 2016.