Shamefully for the Arab states, the resolution was moved by four non-Arab states, - New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela, and Malaysia - after Egypt withdrew its resolution under pressure from the US President-elect Donald Trump at Israel's behest. Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed to have been caught by surprise when in a rare move Washington decided to abstain rather than resort to its usual use of veto to block any text condemnatory of Tel Aviv, allowing the passage of the resolution. This would be an embarrassing moment for any other country, but not this one. Displaying its customary disregard for international opinion, Israeli foreign ministry summoned ambassadors from 10 of the 14 countries that voted in favour of the resolution and with which it has diplomatic relations to deliver demarches whilst Netanyahu railed against President Obama, accusing him of conspiring with the Palestinians to push for the adoption of the resolution. Encouraged by Trump's support, he has also vowed to build thousands of new homes in East Jerusalem, which he intends to permanently annex under a new 'expropriation law' forcing more and more Palestinians out of their lands to make the two-state solution unrealisable.
The dislike between Obama and Netanyahu is no secret. Early into his first term, the former had tried to restart the Arab-Israeli peace process that lay in tatters, demanding a halt to construction activity in the West Bank. In response, Netanyahu shrugged his shoulders and announced plans for yet more housing units while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting to jumpstart the peace process, prompting then secretary of state Hillary Clinton to angrily declare Israel had insulted not only the vice president but the US. The Israeli leader did what he did secure in the knowledge that the Jewish lobby had overweening influence on US' power structures hence he could insult the Obama administration and get away with it too. In fact he grumbled in a cabinet meeting, "he [US President] does not get it, does he?" Obama of course got it that he had to stop telling Israel to do something it didn't want to do unless he was willing to stay a one-term president, and gave up his peace initiative. Shortly before he was to seek a second term, ie, in February 2011, the US also vetoed a UNSC resolution calling for a halt to settlements although its declared policy all along has been against construction of Jewish homes in occupied territories. In fact there is an overwhelming international consensus on the issue. Yet the US and its allies have been turning a blind eye to this rogue state's unremitting atrocities against the Palestinian people and its usurpation of Arab lands.
This the US-led Western nations have been doing as part of a well thought-out policy aimed at the furtherance of their geostrategic interests and control over the oil-rich region's resources. It is no coincidence that Israel became the US's blue-eyed boy who could do no wrong only after it defeated the Arab nationalists in the 1967 war. Its demonstrated military power was to be used to maintain the status quo. Soon afterwards, Israel became the largest recipient of US foreign aid as well as unstinted diplomatic and military support. Although during the recent years the discovery of shale oil and other unconventional sources of energy has significantly weakened US' attraction of Mideast's oil with a corresponding lessening of warmth in its relations with the biggest oil country Saudi Arabia, other interests remain strong. American military-industrial complex has an extremely lucrative market in the region. There are other business interests too. Hence it is hardly surprising that even before assuming office Trump has assured Israel of support of its expansionist policy - the key impediment to peace negotiations.
The present resolution is not about to change anything immediately. It has upped the hopes, nonetheless, of action in the International Criminal Court where the Palestinians have filed a suit against Israel raising, among other issues, the matter of settlements. The ICC of course is expected to follow the international law under which settlements are already illegal; the UNSC resolution would further strengthen the Palestinian case. Reports say Israeli officials are also worried that it could encourage some countries to impose sanctions against the settlers and goods produced by them. No wonder Netanyahu is so annoyed with Obama claiming "we have no doubt the Obama administration initiated it (the resolution), stood behind it, co-ordinated the wording and demanded it be passed."
Meanwhile in a significant development in the wake of growing turmoil in the Arab world, France has invited some 70 countries for a January 15 conference whose stated goal is to throw the international community's weight behind two-state solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas will be attending but not Netanyahu. He insists only on bilateral discussions that he knows can't happen without a halt to the settlement activity. And of course the conference will decide a way forward in the light of the latest UNSC resolution. Going by what Netanyahu had to say about Obama administration's role in its passage, Obama during his last days in office might also put his weight behind the conference's effort to find a viable solution. That in fact would be in Israel's own interest. Its expansionist policy will continue to fuel conflict while a just two-state solution offers long term security. Israel cannot confiscate other people's land and have security too.
[email protected]