Sunday, January 1, 2017

UNSC Resolution 2334

The New York Times couldn't find any precedent for a lame duck President working as assiduously as this one to undermine the expected policy of his elected successor. The precedent President Obama is now establishing is as corrosive to our Democracy anything President-Elect Trump has (yet) done.

The resolution, itself, effectively argues that borders established in a war of self-preservation have no legal validity, but demographics established by, thankfully thwarted, attempts at genocide (the series of Arab massacres of Jews from 1920 through the 1948 war) do. If that is a continuation of long-standing policy, it is of a policy that should be changed.

The argument that the possibility of a two-state solution, which America has a strong interest in preserving, is in jeopardy, is a strong one, but is an argument for more active American leadership. Specifically: Proposing and building consensus around a stronger and more balanced resolution rather than lamely not-vetoing a (mostly) toothless one, which we don't even stand behind ("we did not agree with every word..."). A more balanced resolution would clearly re-affirm the "two-states for two-peoples" doctrine and could differentiate between the extremist, "one-state", settlers, and the "consensus" ones.

Naftali Bennett's boast ("The era of a Palestinian State is over"), which was quoted by, literally, every Resolution defender, was remarkably reckless. Those supporters of Israel angry at Obama and Kerry for their biases, ought to be equally, or more, aggravated at Bennett for foolishly providing this cover.

Supporters of Israel have the benefit of facts on their side in arguing that "The existing settlements... do not pose any danger to the two-state solution... Israel proved that in Gaza when it dismantled every single Jewish settlement and evacuated every single Jew from the Gaza strip... The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples." It is hard to imagine that Kerry (and Obama) are not well aware that, unlike the GOI, the Palestinian leadership, and perhaps population, is unwilling to accept the principles he laid out.

The "one-state" settlers do, even if Kerry lacks the ability to properly articulate, pose an existential, if indirect, threat to Israel. Israel greatly benefits from being, perhaps besides apple pie, the last remaining zone of bipartisan agreement. But while that support has firm conservative ground (the biblical resonance, the shared conflict with fanatic Islamicists, etc), it depends, among Liberal/Progressive Americans, on the perception of shared values. Liberal/Progressive American's can be drawn to support the "Shimon Peres" version of Israel, in which Israel, despite being under perpetual attack, heroically never loses faith in the shared humanity of its enemies, and its feelings of compassion for, and responsibility towards, the Palestinians. Unwillingness, today, to restrain the most ideological settlers, is perhaps the strongest signifier of the current Israeli mainstream opinion which has (after the attempts of Rabin, Barack and Olmert) given up on Peace and the Palestinians, and is perfectly happy to maintain the status quo, until the Palestinians come around. American conservatives will continue to support this Israel, but liberal/progressives, rightly or wrongly, will not.