Just with His Veto

There was something ridiculous, childish in the way the Israeli government welcomed the American veto. For truly, the fact that Obama had been cornered, compelled to stand alone, to take the heat, and to apologize isn't cheery in the least. The American president is going to pay a political price for this veto, and will “put” it — perhaps with the interest added — on the customer, who is satisfied over the top. Not tomorrow, nor the next day.

Obama is too busy with more important things than the state of the settlements — which are no more than a comic interlude that took a minute of attention from the tribulation befalling the Middle East. He is also limited in his political ability.

Not only did Republican leaders inform Obama in advance that they won't put up with an America surrendering to the Palestinian maneuvers, senior Democratic legislators weren't too quick to disagree. And not only did they pour cold water on the draft resolution, which has been blocked, but also on the compromise Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the U.N., proposed last weekend.

The Republican candidate Mitt Romney called the proposed compromise “a tactical, strategic and moral mistake.” The Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner was trying to express a similar view when he said: “This is too clever by half.” And clearly, there was something ridiculous, childish in the predictable conduct of the rest of the Security Council members; but there’s nothing new in that.

There is also something childish, from the very beginning, in the Palestinian Authority's stance, which — and not only Israel's — is annoying the Obama administration and killing its desire to make any efforts. The Palestinians denounced the United States in the last couple of days in strong, harsh words. But their refusal to find a happy medium was understood in Washington in a simple way: It was the Authority’s power game against America. Indeed, more than just embarrassing Israel, more than just hurting its already shaky status, the Palestinians embarrassed Obama.

They not only pointed their arrows at the abominable settlements, which they have hated for so long, they pointed them even more at Obama, a person who only two years ago had been the great hope, the great friend, a person who fooled them into thinking that the end of the settlement enterprise was nearly coming. The tree Obama planted in the peace process garden continues to bring fruit, and the one who climbed onto its top refuses to come down.

Not Easy for Obama to Be a Responsible Adult

But there was also something ridiculous, almost childish, in the way Susan Rice announced the decision of the Obama administration to put the veto in the vote against the settlements in the Security Council. In the manner of someone under compulsion, someone forced to swallow a bitter pill, Rice made clear America’s position.

And to be precise: This is a technical position which concerns a specific vote on a specific formulation — so let no one conceive that Rice is fond of the settlements project in the West Bank. She dislikes it. And in fact, so does the administration, which still thwarts the Security Council resolution anyway, in a stooped posture, in half-apologetic language.

It’s not easy for Obama to be a responsible grown-up; nor is it easy to be forced to stand alone against the scribbled self-righteousness of the other Security Council members. It should have been explained, however, that he imposed the veto not because erroneous wording or improper timing.

Obama’s veto is a continuation of an American political tradition that most of the presidents before him aligned with: Don't abandon fundamental decisions to the U.N. arena; prevent the U.N. from becoming a tool in the hands of those wanting to enervate Washington’s strength; and place little faith in the U.N.'s ability to manage mature policies.

Ever since Richard Nixon cast the first American veto in order to block a resolution against Israel, every American president has followed suit: Nixon vetoed twice, Gerald Ford four times, Jimmy Carter once, Ronald Reagan eighteen times, Bush Sr. four times, Clinton three times, Bush Jr. nine times. One way or another, it’s good that Obama used the veto right. It would have been better, though, had he done it standing upright.


Translator's note: The English title reflects a pun in Hebrew, derived from the Talmudic saying equal to "The righteous suffer and the wicked thrive."