Hubris and hyperbole, from both sides of the divide, filled the air following last Friday’s United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli colony activities in the Occupied Territories. The resolution passed by a 14-0 vote with the United States, as Israel had feared, abstaining. It proclaims that the colonies in Occupied Territories since 1967, including occupied East Jerusalem, have “no legal validity” and demands a halt to “all Israeli [colony] activities.” Furthermore, it states that such activity was a “flagrant violation” of international law.
A furious Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to wage an unprecedented attack on the US administration, describing the decision as “shameful” and adding that US President Barack Obama went against Israel and the commitment to stand by Israel. And as expected, he said that Israel will not abide by the resolution. He instructed the foreign ministry to re-assess all ties with the UN, including funding of its institutions and the presence of UN representatives in Israel. In a statement, Netanyahu’s office accused the US of collusion by urging other countries to resubmit the draft resolution after Egypt withdrew its own under pressure from US President-elect Donald Trump.
The Obama administration defended its decision not to block the resolution with a veto by pointing out that it was consistent with the bipartisan consensus accepted by every single US president of both parties since Ronald Reagan. America’s UN envoy Samantha Power said “this resolution reflects trends that will permanently destroy the two-state solution if they continue on their current course”.
The Palestinians called it a historic victory, but being a non-binding resolution and coming in the wake of strong signs that the Trump administration was getting ready to reverse decades-old policy on colonies and occupied East Jerusalem the euphoria will be short-lived. Trump lamented that UN vote and tweeted that “the big loss yesterday [last Friday] for Israel in the United Nations will make it much harder to negotiate peace. Too bad, but we will get it done anyway!” Republican senators attacked Obama and vowed to stop UN funding until the resolution was reversed.
The UN vote represented a final divorce between Obama and Netanyahu — their relationship marked by mutual suspicion and, in the case of the Israeli premier, clear disrespect, if not loathing, for the US president. But it is historically and factually wrong to accuse Obama of abandoning Israel or of walking back on US commitment to defend the Jewish state. In fact, it is the Palestinians who have the right to be disappointed by the outgoing president.
Soon after his historic victory in 2008, a young and charismatic Obama promised to open a new chapter with the Arab and Muslim worlds. In June 2009, from Cairo University, Obama spoke of a new beginning, pledging to do everything in his power to bring about Palestinian statehood and making it clear his opposition to Israeli colonies describing them as the principal obstacle to the emergence of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel.
But his efforts were dashed repeatedly by a defiant Netanyahu, who although spoke of his acceptance of a two-state solution, did everything in his power to stop it in its tracks. A frustrated Obama could only watch as Netanyahu unveiled project after project to build and expand illegal colonies in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. By the second term of his presidency, Obama had given up on attempts to convince Netanyahu to freeze colony activities as a precondition to resume peace talks with the Palestinians. Ironically, the only time the US used its veto at the Security Council during the Obama years was in 2011 to derail a resolution condemning Israeli colony activities in the Occupied Territories!
Last week’s vote could be interpreted as a personal pay-back by Obama for Netanyahu’s arrogance and repeated snubs and less as an overdue gesture to the Palestinians. Under Obama US-Israeli strategic and military ties continued to grow at a fast pace. In fact last September Obama signed on a 10-year $38 billion (Dh139.76 billion), the largest batch of military assistance the US has ever pledged to another country. It raises the amount of annual military assistance to $3.8 billion a year — up from $3.1 billion. In addition, Israel became the first country outside the US to acquire the strategic F-35 stealth fighter jets. Fifty such jets were ordered.
Future security won’t be stronger
Even on the controversial nuclear deal with Iran, which Netanyahu vehemently opposes, the US believes Israel’s long-term security will be better served by keeping Iranian activities under international inspection and by making sure that Tehran’s nuclear programme remains peaceful.
To believe that Trump will be a better ally for Israel is problematic at best. Israel will not benefit much from cutting its ties to the UN or by seeing the US embassy moved to occupied Jerusalem. Its future security will not be stronger if Trump reverses US policy on the illegal colonies. And certainly, while Netanyahu has succeeded in burying the two-state solution, there are no viable alternatives for Israel and the Trump administration. In fact, Israel is now edging closer to facing two existential threats: A de facto apartheid state, which the world can never accept and can only exist for a few years, or a de jure bi-national state that die-hard Zionists, as well as hardline Palestinians, will never allow. This is the predicament that Netanyahu will have to face soon and Trump’s blind bias in favour of Israel will not change future scenarios.
Osama Al Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
