Will Obama take steps against Israel at the United Nations? All bets are off
ANXIETY CONTINUES to roil the pro-Israel world over a possible last-minute move by the Obama administration that could permanently alter the Israeli-Palestinian geopolitical landscape.
In the wake of the US election, audiences everywhere were on the edge of their seats asking whether President Barack Obama would take extraordinary passive or active steps in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to recognise a Palestinian state or impose a peace settlement, including a territorial mandate, following the lines of the 1948 truce. Unlike General Assembly resolutions, which are not binding, the UNSC generally creates lasting pillars of international law.
As we approach midday, January 20, 2017, uncertainty continues to abound among even the most astute of political insiders.
Mr Obama remains silent. Administration assurances in recent days have provided crumbs of comfort. But ambiguities embedded in each of those assurances only increased the speculation.
For example, in recent days, unnamed administra- tion sources were quoted by the Associated Press suggesting Mr Obama “has nearly ruled out any major last-ditch effort to put pressure on Israel over stalled peace negotiations with the Palestinians.” The phrase “nearly ruled out” emphasised that no decision had been made.
A few days ago, America’s Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, told Army Radio the US would “always oppose one-sided initiatives”, adding that this position “is a long-term policy. Whenever there were one-sided initiatives, we opposed them in the past and we will always oppose them.” Sceptics note that “opposing” such a UN move is not the same as blocking it with a veto.
Mr Obama has circumvented Congress on the Iran nuclear deal and many other issues. Among the un-reassured is House Foreign Relations Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, who emphasises Mr Obama’s “unpredictability”.
Mr Royce told an interviewer: “If you are heavily signalling that you’re not going to oppose and veto UN Security Council resolutions that seek to impose one-sided solutions, the consequence is others will take your measure, and the momentum will build, given the natural attitudes at the UN.”
If Mr Obama wants to make a gamechanging move on Israel-Palestine at the Security Council in the coming days, he has three main options.
First, he could go for a unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state within specified or approximate borders following the 1948 armistice lines. In virtually all world forums, this would juridically change the status of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria from “disputed” to “occupation”.
A second possibility is that Mr Obama could abstain from vetoing a pending French resolution that would recognise a Palestinian state within 18 months, barring an agreement between the two sides.
Thirdly, he could impose a two-year deadline for a territorial settlement if the parties do not craft one themselves.
Any of these three measures would end the centrality of bilateral negotiations and bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to an entrenched stalemate.
The suspense has been intensified by developments in recent weeks.
On November 28, former presi- dent Jimmy Carter authored a passionate op-ed in the titled “America Must Recognise Palestine.” Mr Carter advised Mr Obama to exercise one final opportunity to counter “the one-state reality that Israel is imposing on itself and the Palestinian people.” He warned: “The United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is fully aware of the dynamics, and recently confirmed that he was in close contact with the French government over its pending UN resolution.
Mr Abbas has repeatedly assured his people and the world that the UN would deliver independence in 2017. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, speaking at a December 1 press conference in Paris, reaffirmed France was determined to convene an international peace conference before the end of 2016. If that conference were to be unsuccessful, France could unilaterally recognise Palestine — within which territorial lines remains unclear.
Already, 88 American senators have written a bipartisan letter to Mr Obama warning him not to carry out a lame-duck move at the UN. Likewise, after his electoral win, Mr Trump’s Middle East adviser sent a private message to the White House warning against any such action in view of overwhelming popular and congressional sentiment against it.
On November 29, 2016, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding bipartisan bill urging President Obama to continue blocking any UN resolution that would unilaterally impose a one-sided peace, including by a failure to veto such a resolution in the UN Security Council.
If push comes to shove, some observers suggest that Israel may have an unforeseen ally in Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev are in regular communication with Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr Putin, as many observe, would love to frustrate the Obama administration and openly coordinate with the incoming Trump administration to fulfill an alreadystarted effort to oversee a peace conference between Palestinians and Israelis. For his part, Mr Abbas met Mr Medvedev just last month in Jericho and, reportedly, even named a street after him.
A speech by Secretary of State John Kerry at the annual Saban Forum on December 4 served to heighten the anxiety. Mr Kerry would not rule out a UN veto unless the resolution “is a biased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimise Israel”.
Until 11.59am on January 20, 2017, no one knows whether President Obama will try to add another notch to his legacy or allow the destiny of Israel and Palestinians to be written by others, including the parties themselves. Edwin Black is the New York Times bestselling author of ‘IBM and the Holocaust, Financing the Flames and The Farhud’