If Obama doesn't use his veto
Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton sets the scenario correctly when he assumes that 'even Obama' wouldn't vote "yes" on 'Palestinian statehood' in the Security Council. The real concern is that Obama will instruct his ambassador, Lazy Susan Rice, not to exercise the US veto in the Security Council (or in Rice's case, more likely, just not to show up for the vote). What would happen then? What if the Security Council voted 14-0 to recognize a 'Palestinian state' with the United States abstaining? Bolton explains. Israel would then confront a dramatic change in its international posture, facing a political equivalency with the new state of Palestine. What's more, customary international law's definition of "statehood" requires that a putative state have clear boundaries. This is why the potential Security Council resolution would refer to Palestine as a state within the "1967 borders," or some such language.How hostile will Obama be to Israel? Let's put it this way: After November 2, he will have one huge restraint lifted from his shoulders. Whether or not Obama decides on the morning of November 3 that he has a chance to win in 2012, he will still have some period of time where he can allow a resolution to pass the Security Council that will have little or no effect on his re-election chances.
Border delineation is a zero-sum game. Right now, as in 1988-89, "Palestine" has no real borders, other than those around the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Moreover, Israel has long contended that it would never return to its pre-1967 configuration, and would instead insist on secure and defensible borders. Its extensive West Bank settlements and fortifications are concrete proof of its determination.
A Security Council resolution fixing the 1967 lines as borders would call into question even Israel's legitimacy, dramatically undercutting prospects for security and defensibility. By defining "Palestine" to include territory Israel considers its own, such a resolution would delegitimize both Israel's authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines, and its goal of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.
Mr. Obama has unmistakably left open the possibility of defaulting to the 1967 borders. In his September 2009 speech at the U.N., for example, he supported a Palestinian state "with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
No one should underestimate the gravity of this threat to Israel's position, although Mr. Obama could eliminate it at a stroke if he chooses to speak out. We will soon see how hostile to Israel he is prepared to be.
The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman believes that President Obama should put an end to the threat of 'Palestinian' unilateralism.
Foxman suggested that Netanyahu might be more forthcoming about extending the freeze if the Palestinians stand down from threats of unilateral statehood.One of the things that was in the offer that Prime Minister Netanyahu turned down was a commitment to use the United States' UN veto to prevent the 'Palestinians' from having the Security Council declare a state. There were two problems with the offer. One is that it was only good for a year. The second is that there's more than a small question here about whether we can trust President Obama.
“I believe there will be an extension of the settlement freeze,” he said, barring the “disincentive” of activity toward a unilateral statehood declaration.
Foxman cast his appeal in terms of Obama’s commitment to Jewish leaders in the summer of 2009 to equally pressure both sides.
The Obama administration “continues to press Israel on settlements but doesn't press the Palestinians on anything,” he said. “I'm not sure it has learned from its mistakes.”
What could go wrong?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:32 AM
4 Comments:
Israel can't trust Obama.
Israel should pass a law declaring its sovereignty over Yesha if the UN Security Council passes a Palestinian statehood resolution. In other words, if the Palestinians move to pre-empt negotiations, Israel should pre-empt their right to have a state at all.
Let's see Obama try to veto it.
As soon as the "Palestinians" make a formal announcement that they will be taking their statehood claims to the UNSC, the Oslo Accords become null and void.
As soon as this happens, Israel should immediately take steps to annex Judea/Samaria and move IDF positions to make it clear that Israel has full possession of the land.
The "Palestinian Authority" will also be dissolved which means that Abu Mazen will be an individual with no authority to bargain with anyone about anything unless he'd like to bargain with a travel agent over his retirement destination.
Israel can NOT wait to see what Lazy Susan does at the UNSC when it's most likely that she won't show up for the vote.
Hi Carl.
You know i don't trust him at all and it ain't because of his middle name.
I think his "Love" for Israel will make him "vote" in favor of recognizing a 'Palestinian state' probably even not showing up for the vote.
Or Israel could recognize a Palestinian state as an entity under international law, declare that by definition of the conditions of its establishment it and the State of Israel are in a state of war following abrogation of the Oslo whatever, formally declare war, and re-occupy with out formal annexation--however this plays Bibi unfortunately needs to "man up" and inform the President that this will not go well for the Palestinians. It is the President who started this off "without preconditions" and then helped push up the "settlement moratorium" as a condition.
Post a Comment
<< Home