Liberal Israeli Paper Urges Barack Obama To Back Palestinian UN Resolution
Source: The Forward
April 10, 2016
The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz has urged Barack Obama to back a Palestinian resolution at the United Nations — and to ignore Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calls for a veto.
The resolution, expeceted to be oonsidered later this month, calls for a resumption of direct talks and a one-year deadline for an agreement on a final agreement to end the occupation of Palestinian lands and solve to wider dispute between the two peoples.
“A veto of the latest resolution, which does not include a single clause that contradicts U.S. policy, would constitute a diplomatic and moral renunciation of the peace process,” Haaretz editors wrote in an unsigned editorial published online Sunday.
Haaretz praised embattled Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas for pushing the resolution as a way of jumpstarting peace talks and putting a lid on the wave of violent attacks against Israeli citizens.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/338225/liberal-israeli-paper-urges-barack-obama-to-back-palestinian-resolution-at/
Obama, Support Abbas' UN Resolution, No Matter What Netanyahu Says
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas keeps coming up with moves that could advance the peace process. In his efforts to get the international community behind a major initiative, Abbas is expected to submit to the UN Security Council this month a draft resolution reflecting international consensus that could help to jump-start the stalled peace process.
The resolution calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, with a one-year deadline to complete them and reach a final-status arrangement based on the principle of two states. It would define the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace and condemn continued Israeli construction in the occupied territories, as well as any action whose purpose is to change the demographic balance in the area.
The Palestinian resolution does not set out new conditions for the resumption of talks. It is supported by agreements and resolutions that the United Nations has already passed as well as remarks made by U.S. President Barack Obama over the years in favor of new talks and against continued building in the settlements. In February 2011, a similar proposal was approved by 14 out of 15 Security Council members but was vetoed by the United States.
In the five years that have passed since then, the U.S. administration has tirelessly endeavored to reactivate the negotiations. Obama himself came to Israel and Secretary of State John Kerry turned Israel into his temporary home, but both men ran into an impregnable wall. Last month Obama admitted that he did not believe an Israeli-Palestinian agreement would be reached before he leaves office in January. But that should not prevent him from preparing the ground for a future international effort to advance the two-state solution he believes in.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.713610
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)do just that as a parting shot before he turns out the lights in the Oval Office for the last time.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I think that had Haaretz made a similar editorial in early 2014 as Netanyahu started to back away from what was negotiated with Kerry, they could have made a difference -- and the conversation would have been in Israel. They do get credit for having a lot of tough reporting rather than allowing Netanyahu to make the story that he tried.
We have, in the past, vetoed resolutions, that essentially state official US policy. Now, with an election in about 6 months, Obama is highly unlikely to do this -- especially if he sees it hurting the Democrat.
Haaretz last month had an article by one of their main foreign policy writers that weighed what Obama might do on Israel for the rest of his term. Although I think Haaretz gets American politics wrong a lot, these possibilities are not unreasonable. The first alternative was to nothing or next to nothing. The other possibilities make sense IF you believe that Obama wants something on Israel as his legacy. (I suspect that many foreign policy people and certainly the Israelis, over weight the importance of Israel.)
Here are the two other possibilities:
The second possibility is that Obama will give a speech in which he presents the U.S. vision for a solution to the core issues of the conflict: borders, security, the return of refugees and the division of Jerusalem. Obama’s speech would be based on the draft framework agreement that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry almost succeeded in formulating during peace negotiations in early 2014. There is a higher probability of this scenario materializing, Israel surmised.
A third possibility, which was described as being a certain possibility too, is American support for a UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Some of Obama's advisers, as well as senior officials at the State Department in Washington, believe that the American president's legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue should be a Security Council resolution that would determine principles for the end of the conflict.
Such a resolution would replace the Security Council's Resolution 242 from 1967 and Resolution 338 from 1973. It would serve as a new source of authority for the peace process, secure and preserve the two-state solution, and make it clear to the Israelis and Palestinians what concessions they would have to make if they one day decide to renew the peace process.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.707551
Note that it is easy to see that 2 and 3 are not incompatible. In fact, if Obama does give that speech, either Abass could align his proposal directly with it OR the US could introduce its own resolution. However, it might come down to whether Obama opts for complete lame duck status to avoid giving the Democrat a tricky decision of supporting him or not.
