America Returns to Function as a Powerful Country
Credit for the Palestinians' failure to reach a decision that supports the establishment of a Palestinian State at the U.N. goes to Washington, and it was not a veto that prevented this. However, this successful outcome may only be temporary.
The Palestinians' failure to reach a decision at the United Nations Security Council that will enforce, within two years, the establishment of a Palestinian State following the borders formed on June 4, 1967 has removed, at least for now, a serious threat on the state of Israel. The decisions made by the Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly, which approves an average of 20 severely anti-Israeli decisions yearly, have a legal and binding authority that can lead to practical, financial and military actions against countries that breach them.
The achievement of neutralizing this Palestinian decision is solely due to America. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which did not even bother to send an ambassador to this U.N. discussion, did not play a part in this success. It was the U.S., nearing the end of President Barack Obama’s presidency, that has returned to its powerful and aggressive conduct, and is presenting strong leadership.
The U.S. had many reasons to oppose the Palestinian proposal, and not all of them are related to Israel. The Americans' concern is to continue to fulfill its role in managing the political process between Israel and the Palestinians, and not allow the U.N. a real stance that will lessen America’s ability and influence in the area. An American veto is caused by American needs, not only due to its loyalty to Israel. An American veto at the U.N. at present would cause embarrassment to the Americans and would make it difficult to strengthen and secure the anti-Islamic State charge that the U.S. is leading in the area. To avoid imposing a veto, the U.S. secured a blocking majority in the security forces, and in doing so avoided America’s isolation, postponing the Arabs' proposal instead.
Despite America’s success, Israel and the U.S. cannot rest on their laurels. The threat of a Palestinian state is not gone, and it is possible that they will repeat this proposal in the next year, when the Security Council panel will change and countries more hostile to Israel and America will replace friendlier countries. In this case it will be much more difficult for the U.S. to secure a majority block, and they will have to impose a veto.
Imposing a veto such as this one opposes Israeli interest, as it will cause resentment on the American side and will increase American pressure on Israel, subsequently damaging Israeli-American relations. To effectively handle this all-embracing political attack from the Palestinians (at the Security Council in New York, The International Criminal Court and European Parliaments), and to avoid isolation and a financial blow for Israel, it is necessary to be freed from the silencing of Israel’s foreign policies and initiate creative political actions. This way, the next elected government will already be tested.
The Palestinians' failure to reach a decision at the United Nations Security Council that will enforce, within two years, the establishment of a Palestinian State following the borders formed on June 4, 1967 has removed, at least for now, a serious threat on the state of Israel. The decisions made by the Security Council, as opposed to the U.N. General Assembly, which approves an average of 20 severely anti-Israeli decisions yearly, have a legal and binding authority that can lead to practical, financial and military actions against countries that breach them.
The achievement of neutralizing this Palestinian decision is solely due to America. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which did not even bother to send an ambassador to this U.N. discussion, did not play a part in this success. It was the U.S., nearing the end of President Barack Obama’s presidency, that has returned to its powerful and aggressive conduct, and is presenting strong leadership.
The U.S. had many reasons to oppose the Palestinian proposal, and not all of them are related to Israel. The Americans' concern is to continue to fulfill its role in managing the political process between Israel and the Palestinians, and not allow the U.N. a real stance that will lessen America’s ability and influence in the area. An American veto is caused by American needs, not only due to its loyalty to Israel. An American veto at the U.N. at present would cause embarrassment to the Americans and would make it difficult to strengthen and secure the anti-Islamic State charge that the U.S. is leading in the area. To avoid imposing a veto, the U.S. secured a blocking majority in the security forces, and in doing so avoided America’s isolation, postponing the Arabs' proposal instead.
Despite America’s success, Israel and the U.S. cannot rest on their laurels. The threat of a Palestinian state is not gone, and it is possible that they will repeat this proposal in the next year, when the Security Council panel will change and countries more hostile to Israel and America will replace friendlier countries. In this case it will be much more difficult for the U.S. to secure a majority block, and they will have to impose a veto.
Imposing a veto such as this one opposes Israeli interest, as it will cause resentment on the American side and will increase American pressure on Israel, subsequently damaging Israeli-American relations. To effectively handle this all-embracing political attack from the Palestinians (at the Security Council in New York, The International Criminal Court and European Parliaments), and to avoid isolation and a financial blow for Israel, it is necessary to be freed from the silencing of Israel’s foreign policies and initiate creative political actions. This way, the next elected government will already be tested.
America’s continuing vetos in the Security Council in favor of Israel’s interests do not exhibit its return as a “powerful country”. We are the most powerful nation that has ever existed, one way or the other. But the use of the veto weakens us, it does not strengthen us.