Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, within hours of the announcement by the Palestinian Authority that it is moving forward with a plan to submit a proposed UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, subtly underscored the concern some have that President Obama, in his last several weeks in office, may not continue to protect Israel at the world body.
PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki told the Voice of Palestine that “[We will] begin to submit a resolution condemning settlements to the UN Security Council in the coming days.” In 2011 the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning settlements but a high ranking member of the PLO Executive Committee told The Jerusalem Post that the Palestinians expect the administration to abstain this time around: “We have ongoing contacts with the U.S. administration about the forthcoming UNSC resolution and our assessment is that the U.S. will abstain from taking a position.”
Mr. Netanyahu followed with: “I expect that in the twilight of President Obama’s tenure he will stand by what he said in 2011, that the way to achieve peace does not run through Security Council resolutions but rather direct negotiations with the Palestinians, which has been the U.S. position for years.”
He went on to quote from President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly in 2011: “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations –if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now…. [I]t is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately it is the Israelis and the Palestinians –not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders, on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.”
Further roiling the waters is concern that the Palestinian resolution might not be limited to settlements but also call for a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines, recognition of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and a prescribed timetable.
For months the Obama administration has not revealed the president’s thinking, or, indeed, whether he has even come to any conclusions about how the U.S. will react to a Palestinian resolution containing all or some of the possible elements.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s somewhat incongruous comments at the Saban Forum in Washington last week did little to clarify matters. Thus, he said Israel is , “heading to a place of danger…by virtue of th[e] continued settlement process” which is leading to “an erosion” of the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
However, he also said, “I’m not here to say that settlements are the reason for the conflict…. But I also cannot accept the notion that they are not a barrier to peace” because the Palestinians and the Arab world deem the settlements illegitimate.
But if, as Mr. Kerry said, the settlements are not the cause of the conflict, it is hard to understand what he would have Israel do to resolve it.
In any event, Mr. Kerry expressed the Obama administration’s frustration that it has little leverage over Israel’s settlement policy despite vast amounts of U.S. military and economic aid to Israel: “We issue a warning today when we see a settlement going up – nothing happens.”
He also went on to say the administration would veto all UN Security Council resolutions that are “biased, unfair, and illegitimate.” Not only does this leave too much to interpretation, Mr. Kerry also went out of his way to note that international frustration with Israel’s settlement expansion was such that several countries will be proposing resolutions to the Security Council.
So things are still up in the air. Yet there is reason to believe President Obama will not want to see Israel boxed in. For one thing, as noted, Israel reacts negatively to any attempt at pressure. So, assuming the president is truly interested in a two-state solution – leaving aside the particulars – any pressure would likely backfire.
In addition, Mr. Obama has to know a resolution embodying the Palestinian wish list would render it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the Palestinians might ever negotiate in good faith. In addition, once President-elect Trump takes office he would undoubtedly seek to undo any U.S. action taken at the eleventh hour in order to pursue, with hands untied, his own policies.
Analytically, everything points to President Obama continuing his eight-year policy of vetoing anti-Israel measures at the Security Council. At the same time, though, the potency of the pique factor is the great unknown.