Veto?

The so-called "peace process" had ground to a halt.  The White House was diverted by other issues, for instance the sputtering U.S. economy, Libya, Afghanistan to name a few. The principal US officials still involved processing peace, not least the affable but ineffectual Dennis Ross, were occasionally trying to bunt their way to first base, but they typically struck out.

Now the Palestinian initiative at the UN has jarred the US into action, but what is the Obama White House doing other than corroborating its diplomatic isolation with Israel?  The prospect of the US casting a veto to thwart a step that will likely increase pressure on Israel to negotiate responsibly is a stunning paradox, especially at the time when Israel is led by a government that has demonstrated little, if any commitment to a feasible two-state solution.  The US is using its sharp diplomatic elbows to deter support for the Palestine initiative, but there is no evidence that the US is doing much poking in Israel.

Of course, there is an attempt to deter Mahmoud Abbas with a statement by the Quartet, but that statement, at least as presently drafted, it is deeply flawed and it is unlikely to win Palestinian assent.  

US and Israeli interests are not identical, and it is worrying that that simple reality is contentious in Washington.  Given the wider US interests in the Middle East, especially considering the momentous political upheavals in the Middle East, it will be very damaging for the U.S. to cast a veto, which is why Obama and Co. are trying to kill the issue before it gets to the UNSC. What the US should be working to attain is a context in which the issue of Palestinian membership in the UN is met by a US abstention rather than a veto.  

What are Israeli strategists thinking? One example.

The setting for these remarks was the Herzliya National Security Conference, in early February.  They are reported in Defense News, Feb. 14, 2011, pp. 1 and 8.

Retired U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, who up until last October served as Obama’s national securi­ty adviser, dismissed claims of Washington’s decline.

“I reject the idea that the United States is in decline or even in rela­tive decline,” Jones told conference participants here. “To be sure, there is much to be done to ensure we are as successful in the 21st century as we were in the 20th ... and Egypt is just a small sign of the potential for change.” Alongside efforts to prevent a nu­clear-armed Iran and to fortify a coalition of the moderates com­prised of pro-Western Arab states respectful of the universal rights of its people, Jones cited the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as “a mat­ter of urgent necessity.” Jones said the lack of a peace deal jeopardizes regional stability by un­dermining moderates, provoking the young and hopeless classes, and empowering Iran.

Time is not on Israel’s side, Jones warned: “The growing isolation of Israel is a very real concern. The number of countries that recognize a Palestinian state can outrank the number of countries that recognize Israel.” Jones urged Israel’s leaders to restart peace negotiations.

“Failure to act could ignite a rep­etition of Egypt on streets in neigh­boring countries,” he said. “Will ex­tremists win the hearts and minds of the young Arab street? Or will moderate voices prevail for a two­state solution? This could be the most important national security question of our time, and if we fail, history will not forgive us.” Amos Gilead, director for politi­cal-military affairs at Israel’s Min­istry of Defense, was brutally direct in rejecting Jones’ premise.

“Even if we sign an agreement to­morrow with the [Palestinian Au­thority], they won’t honor it,” Gilead said. “Look around the Middle East: If there is a democratic process here, it will bring, for sure, hell.” In tactless and borderline racist remarks here, Gilead insisted that democracy and stability cannot co­exist in the Arab Middle East.

“In the Middle East and the Arab world, there is no place for democ­racy,” he said.

Gilead said free elections in the region would breed either a Gaza­like “Hamastan,” or Lebanon, which he described as a so-called democracy.

“In Lebanon, there is a constitu­tion without a state. They have an elected president, prime minister, speaker, but the country is losing it­self when it allows entities more powerful than Lebanon to drive the agenda,” Gilead said, alluding to Hezbollah.

“The only place in the region with a real chance of democracy is Iran,” a non-Arab nation, he said. “But what was the reaction to Iranian democratic forces? Indifference. And so dissenters in Iran got the message and we lost the opportuni­ty to change Iran.”

Amira Hass: an informed reading

Finally, a popular uprising - Haaretz - Israel News
"The chance of using the achievement of having breached the wall as a way of moving forward and developing the tactics of a popular struggle is hampered by two primary obstacles. One is what's called the "armed struggle" - such as rocket fire from Gaza targeting Israeli towns, or a suicide bombing in Israel. The Palestinian mantra that an occupied nation has the right "to fight using all means" rings hollow, since what's at stake is not a right, but the effectiveness of the struggle.

"It has been proven that through popular disobedience, the Palestinians manage to break the Israeli rules of the game and bring their concerns back to the center of global attention - as well as intensifying criticism of Israel. The "armed struggle," especially when it is aimed at civilians, achieves the opposite: It presents the Palestinians as the aggressor, not as the occupied party under attack, thereby weakening their global standing.

"If the Gaza government does not want to lose the momentum of the wall's fall, it must not make do with just having its own militants desist from firing Qassams: it must make it clear to other organizations that they are hindering a successful move of resistance. "