Bitter endings

The “post truth” era has arrived to Israel. Every tool of rhetoric, demagoguery and enhancement of fear is utilized in order to entrench the state of denial. First find the enemy, then the collusion and then the ultimate statement of “fact” – the whole world is against us.

The ground has been prepared over years. God is on our side – the Biblical promise of the Land, history, heritage, tradition, millennia of persecution, dispersion, and yes, the miracle of Zionism. We will not be victims, we will not turn the other cheek. We will take our destiny in our own hands. After the Holocaust, the moral imperative of the creation of the State of Israel was accepted by the world in the United Nations of all places. But almost immediately afterwards, it became UM-Shmum – it doesn’t matter what the world says, it only matters what the Jews do.

The issue is not President Obama and his “scheme” to take revenge against Netanyahu. The issue that we should be discussing is why is there unanimity in the world on the positions stated in UNSC Resolution 2334 and why can’t Israel see what rest of the world sees? The world is not against Israel. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the nations of the world support Israel’s right to exist and that is expressed in the resolution itself. The resolution supports the State of Israel legally and legitimately on the lines of 1949, not 1947, which comprises 78% of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The resolution “calls upon all States… to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” The reason behind this call is “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, (which) has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

Settlements are a major obstacle in the path of reaching the only possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that entitles Israel to continue to be the nationstate of the Jewish people. The same institution that once voted to equate Zionism with racism has adopted the most Zionist Security Council Resolution in its history, and yet the Israeli body politic can only see it as antisemitic and anti-Israel.

Anyone who supports the two-state solution should see this resolution as the new Kaf-Tet of November – the cornerstone of international legitimacy for renewing and completing a peace process on that basis. The resolution clearly states that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations. The resolution accepts Israel’s position that the conflict can come to an end only through a negotiated agreement. In all previous negotiations with the Palestinians the principle of territorial swaps has been accepted, taking cognizance of the impossibility of returning to the June 4, 1967 borders. This will not change.

The resolution speaks directly about the de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-state solution, “and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace; including immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror… refraining from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.” This is exactly what Netanyahu calls for all the time.

The Resolution is answering Israel’s most basic interest as an affirmation of Israel’s need for peace with its neighbors “to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap.”

The resolution is not against Jewish prayer at the Kotel or Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. This is not a re-statement of the UNESCO Resolution that ignored Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Kotel. It is against the illegal transfer of civilians from Israel to the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which are territories that Israel agreed would be included in permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians. The Oslo Declaration of Principles from September 1993, accepted with enthusiasm by the people of Israel, stated: “It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.”

Now at the end of 2016, getting ready to mark 100 years since the Balfour declaration, 70 years of statehood and 50 years of occupation, reality is hitting us directly between the eyes. The panic, hysteria, public rhetorical lynching of one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents in history, the shaming of the leaders of friendly nations that voted for the Resolution, the naming of a French peace initiative “worse than the Dreyfus Trial” – all of these are acts of self-inflicted insanity. These days are so reminiscent of the years before the end of South African apartheid. The denial of reality and the virtual celebration of global isolation is the same mood voiced by South Africa’s white leadership before they forced themselves to understand that their dream of continued control without democracy had to come to an end.

That is where Israel is heading, but for us there is a shortcut to redemption based on the Zionist dream of a secure and safe democratic state of the Jewish people. The world cannot force us to do what we don’t want to do. Eventually we will make the right decision for ourselves. However, that decision is time-linked. Today we can chose the two-state solution, which enables us to continue to exist as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people. In a very short period of time, with continued settlement building, Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and the international community no longer seeing the two-state solution as viable, the only choice will be to transform Israel into a bi-national democratic state that is not the nation-state of the Jewish people nor the nation-state of the Palestinian people. It will not be a peaceful bi-national state.

The decision to be made is in our hands, not in the hands of the United Nations. Yes, it take two sides to make peace, but the adoption of a clear strategy and policies that advocate reaching a two-state solution is much more likely to succeed than the current strategy of entrenchment of Israeli control and creeping annexation.

The writer is founder and co-chairman of the Israel Palestine Creative Regional Initiatives, a joint Israeli-Palestinian “think” and “do” tank. www.ipcri.org

It is the bitter ending of a bad relationship, and it’s not over yet. What happened last Friday at the United Nations, when the United States abstained in a Security Council vote condemning both Israeli settlement building and Palestinian terrorism, may just be the opening shot in US President Barack Obama’s farewell that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has feared.

The hysterical response from the prime minister and his aides has been unprecedented and threatens to cause irreparable damage to Israel, not only in foreign capitals and at the Obama White House but also on Capitol Hill and in the American Jewish community, including among those groups that have been critical of last week’s UN vote.

The American refusal to veto Resolution 2334 was intended to tell Netanyahu that his accelerated settlement construction and inflammatory rhetoric were dangerously threatening chances for a two-state solution. Obama has been saying that since he came to office, and it is a view held by his predecessors as well.

However, like so much of Obama’s foreign policy, he waited too long to act and then acted indecisively (e.g. Syrian red line, recognition of ISIS threat, support for Syrian rebels). Coming in the final weeks of his administration, it gave him no leverage to change Israeli action and looked more like pique than policy.

To listen to Netanyahu’s incensed response, you’d think it was the first time an American president had voted against Israel’s wishes in the Security Council. In fact this is only the first time for Obama (he vetoed a similar resolution in 2011), the fewest of any president since 1967, though you couldn’t tell that by Netanyahu’s vituperative reaction.

Ronald Reagan supported the most UN votes critical of Israel, 21, most notably his joining with Saddam Hussein to condemn Israel’s reaction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and opposing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, calling for Israel’s nuclear facilities to be put under international safeguards and condemning the invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Richard Nixon had 15, including condemnation of Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem.

What is so different today? Could it be that Obama is a black Democrat with a Muslim father?

In just a few more weeks, Netanyahu will be getting what he’s longed for: an American president who doesn’t care about settlements, peace or Palestinians, who – he hopes – will follow the bidding of the Israeli premier. At least that’s what he expects.

But it won’t be soon enough to stop the next act of the Obama finale. On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry will be outlining the American – or at least the Obama administration’s – vision for a two-state solution. He will lay out positions on the core issues: borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees. None of this will be new – the parameters of an agreement have been known for years – but it will come at a time when the Israeli leadership is more resistant than ever to territorial compromise that any agreement will require.

Kerry won’t break any new ground, but his speech could offer a stark indication of which regional leaders really want peace, and which are just going through the motions.

None of that will come as a surprise to Netanyahu, although he was hoping to prevent it. What worries him most, and which may explain his public tantrums of the past several days, is what else might come before January 20.

Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea wrote that if another country decides to put Kerry’s vision for peace in the form of a UN resolution, Washington will have difficulty voting against it if it comes up before Obama leaves office. That will create another and bigger crisis for Netanyahu, who “has sown the wind and Israel is reaping the whirlwind,” Barnea said.

Another Netanyahu worry is that the framework will become the basis of an international initiative at a Mideast peace conference France plans to convene January 15 in Paris. Israel already announced it will boycott the meeting.

Netanyahu also fears that the UN settlements vote could affect the International Criminal Court review of accusations of war crimes by the IDF in the Gaza war and in the West Bank settlements. A 2004 ICC opinion declared the settlements illegal. Israel and the United States are not members of the ICC.

Obama entered office demanding a settlement freeze; the best he could get was a partial and very temporary pause. Netanyahu disputes Obama’s insistence that settlements on the West Bank are an obstacle to peace, but most of the world and many Israeli security experts disagree.

Resolution 2334 is not a condemnation of Israel but of the settlement enterprise as illegitimate – reflecting decades of bipartisan US policy – and calls it a threat to the two-state process and an obstacle to peace. Which it is. Intentionally.

Ariel Sharon, who in 1980 was in charge of settlement construction across the West Bank under Prime Minister Menachem Begin, confirmed that to me personally. Laying out a map of the occupied territories, he showed me how the location of planned settlements would prevent the drawing of any borders for a Palestinian state. The map hangs on my wall with his signature.

Sharon’s vision is becoming today’s reality on the ground, with approximately 400,000 Israelis living beyond the Green Line, not including east Jerusalem.

Just listen to Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settler Israel Home party and Netanyahu’s leading rival on the right. He celebrated Trump’s election as the end of prospects for Palestinian statehood and pressure to stop settlements. In the wake of the Resolution 2334, he and other Netanyahu coalition partners have called for annexation of the rest of the West Bank. The PM, as he green-lighted building hundreds of new homes, told his cabinet colleagues to stop talking about that in public until after Trump’s inauguration.

Settlements are not the greatest obstacle, but they – like Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to engage in direct, unconditional talks – make it impossible to achieve the level of trust needed for serious negotiations and painful compromises.