Following his meeting early last week with US President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu briefed the small circle of reporters who accompanied him on the trip to the US, describing his meeting with Obama as “one of the best we’ve ever had,” complete with understandings regarding a coming increase in US security aid to Israel. But there were two topics Netanyahu refused to touch when speaking to the reporters, both for fear of somehow offending his American host. One was the pending release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard after 30 years in US prison; the other was the possibility that the White House would fail to veto a UN Security Council resolution declaring a Palestinian State.
Apparently, Netanyahu and Obama discussed the issue at their meeting, but unlike security aid and the situation in Syria, where the two found a common ground, the US veto issue remained open. The PM’s circle appears to believe that Obama would still prefer to avoid a scenario in which his administration does not come through with a veto favoring Israel, mostly because it could hurt the Democratic party’s chances in the presidential race. They believe Obama’s final decision on a veto depends mainly on the text of the Palestinian statehood resolution.
So far, France will not propose Palestinian statehood at the UN after all, especially if it is certain that the US would veto it, as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius put it over the summer. “It doesn’t make any sense to propose a resolution if it will clash on a veto,” he said, arguing that “it also doesn’t serve any purpose to have a vote on a resolution if it isn’t applied. The resolution is a means to an end, not an end in itself.” But Fabius did not indicate how certain he was of an American veto. In fact, he said that “our American friends have made statements which are maybe more open [to a Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood] than before.”
According to Walla, the scenario that keeps Netanyahu up nights (metaphorically speaking), is that Obama would stay off the statehood business for most of next year, and even signal pro-Palestinian members of the council to bind their time until after the first Tuesday right after the first Monday in November 2016, the date of the presidential election. Once that’s done with, and pro-Israel Democrats have cast their votes, there will be a window of opportunity of two months during which the lame duck Obama may refrain from vetoing a Palestinian statehood resolution.
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully, whose country is serving a two-year term on the Security Council, said back in October that recent events in Israel “cry out for action.” McCully’s draft resolution demands that Israel and the Palestinians take steps “to end the violence, avoid incitement and protect civilians.” It calls on both sides to refrain from “provocative acts, including acts which threaten the historic status quo of holy sites in Jerusalem,” including the Temple Mount.
According to the AP, the draft resolution declares that the 17-month suspension of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians “is unacceptable” and calls on both parties to take steps to rebuild trust. It also calls on the two parties to refrain from actions or statements that might undermine or prejudice negotiations or their outcome, “including continued expansion of settlements and demolition of Palestinian homes in the occupied territories,” according to the AP.
Israel’s UN envoy Danny Danon told the AP: “This proposal is destructive instead of being constructive.” He said “the only way to achieve peace is through direct talks between the parties,” and “the best way to reduce tensions in the region is to urge President Abbas to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call to meet with him.”
