Last Friday, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on Israeli settlements in a 14-0 vote. It is the first U.N.S.C. resolution to deal specifically with the settlements in 36 years, the last resolution being adopted in March of 1980. Despite pushes from federal officials to veto the resolution, including President-elect Donald Trump, U.S. ambassador Samantha Power voted to abstain.
“Today, the security council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity… President Obama and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly warned- publicly and privately- that the absence of progress towards peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two-state solution at risk, and threaten Israel’s stated objective to remain both a Jewish state and a democracy,” Power said in her speech to the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N.S.C. resolution essentially restates the United States’ current stance on Israeli settlements by recognizing the illegality of Israeli occupation on the West Bank and by pushing for a two-state solution. The resolution condemns “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and includes “the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians.”
Though the resolution may appear brash, it is but empty rhetoric and toothless in it’s implementation.
As the resolution was adopted under Chapter 6 of the United Nations Charter, it doesn’t include any coercive measures or define sanctions for those who violate it, thus rendering the resolution as a recommendation or a show of intent.
The feebleness of the resolution thus brings into question the severity of the backlash the Obama administration has received from federal officials and major media outlets due to the U.S. abstention. Several prominent Congress members have tweeted their outrage at the decision.
Obama-Kerry foreign policy has gone from naïve and foolish to flat-out reckless. With friends like these, #Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 23, 2016
Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) December 23, 2016
Why is the Obama team waging war against Israel?why are they taking steps to isolate and then kill a democracy and an ally?
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) December 26, 2016
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has gone as far as to say that Obama’s legacy is to ‘embrace Iran’ and ‘reject Israel’. Similar opinions have been voiced in op-eds such as “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel at the U.N. Must Not Stand” and “Obama stabbed Israel in the back.”
The mainstream media and establishment politicians, amidst their cries of anguish, have refused to address not only the lack of legal implications the resolution imposes, but they also shy away from the context in which 14 countries deemed this resolution necessary.
According to the 2016 Human Rights Watch Israel-Palestine report, building permits are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control. Systematic oppression of the Palestinian people is evident in these areas as Palestinians “have limited access to water, electricity, schools, and other state services, all of which the state makes readily available to the Jewish settlers there.” According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel has also increased its settlement activity “authorizing construction work on 566 new settlement housing units, 529 of which were completed during the first quarter of 2015, an increase of 93 percent in housing starts.” The Israeli government has only grown more conservative and openly defiant of U.S. protests, boasting a plan to escalate settlement building and displaying open disdain for a two-state solution with their set of cabinet ministers.
These settlements are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention as Israel’s demolition of Palestinian houses violates the provisions of Article 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which states, “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed” and prohibits the destruction of fixed or movable property.
The United States must uphold international law by not allowing its bias to cloud its perception of this objectively continuous violation by the Israeli government.
In addition, these accusations that the Obama administration is an enemy of the Israeli state are completely unfounded and false to such a large extent that the accusation is comical. This is the first time Obama has refrained from using the U.S. veto in the Security Council when it came to Israel since he entered the White House in 2008. Last time a resolution on Israel was brought to a vote at the Security Council in February 2011, a resolution also concerning the Israeli settlements, Obama vetoed it. Whereas under George H. W. Bush’s presidency nine resolutions critical of Israel passed and under President Bill Clinton’s presidency three resolutions were adopted by the U.N.S.C. President Obama and his administration have been supportive of the Israeli government through a variety of other forms including $38 billion in military aid, a disarmed Iran through the Iran nuclear deal, and the funding of the Iron Dome.
Opposition to this abstention primarily comes from the dichotomous facade that is the American political landscape.
A gradual conservative realignment has merged the two parties into one political force driven by financial incentives and the bipartisan outrage over this abstention is only further evidence. According to OpenSecrets.org, pro-Israel forces are one of the most influential lobbyist groups within congress as over $4 million was spent on lobbying in 2015 alone. Campaign contribution trends have only increased, with $16 million being spent in campaign contributions by pro-Israel individuals and PACs in 2016. Both sides of the aisle benefit from this annual inflow of cash as in 2012, super PAC megadonor Sheldon Adelson contributed $92.8 million to Republican super PACs, making him the single highest contributor to outside groups that year.
The top recipients of campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups are largely democrats, including politicians Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Yes, Chuck Schumer, the same guy who recently described the U.S.’ “failure” to veto the resolution as “extremely frustrating, disappointing and confounding” (The $386,901 he has received from pro-Israel entities maybe, just maybe, might have some influence on his outrage).
The U.S. could use its economic, military, and diplomatic ties to coerce Israel to obey international law and respect the human rights of the Palestinians.
The inexplicable outrage produced from a resolution merely condemning Israel’s flagrant violations accurately illustrates how right-leaning U.S. policy on Israel-Palestine has become. In a political system conquered by Super Pac megadonors and in a hegemonic empire notorious for defying international law themselves, such a solution is infeasible.
