A US Abstention in UNSC Resolution: The Birth of Palestine?

[Meengla]

I thought this topic deserves a separate thread because of the regional, if not global implications. The topic needs to be seen in the light of:
1) Obama vs Netanyahu rivalry (now probably a hatred) for years
2) Obama, being a 'lame duck' yet wants to be seen as a genuine, peace-making giant of his time
3) Iran-USA detente
4) Last, but not least, Netanyahu's unnecessary admission to not allow a Palestinian State during his tenure
5) Likud distancing from the Democratic Party and aligning with the Republican Party
6) US focus on containment on ISIS and other Sunni extremist groups.
7) Rebounding US economy--and with that growing confidence of Obama

I strongly think all above--in combination with other factors, are very likely to lead to a much-delayed (and much welcomed!) change in the US Policy in the UNSC with regard to a vote for a Palestinian State. And so, even after Netanyahu tried to do some damage control, the White House is adamantly against Netanyahu. And hence we see the following quote. If--there is still some 'if', the US does take this course then I see no reason we will NOT see a modern state of Palestine within next few months, even if 'occupied'.

Question is: Who can stop Obama from doing this Abstention in the UNSC? I think he has the 'Executive' Powers to do so. Congress can't stop him.

White House: US 'to reevaluate' backing for Israel at UN - Israel News, Ynetnews

"Steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations had been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome, said spokesman Josh Earnest.
"Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution. That means we need to reevaluate our position in this matter, and that is what we will do moving forward."

 

[Hindustani78]

Netanyahu backs away from rejection of Palestinian state; White House unmoved| Reuters

By Matt Spetalnick and Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:22pm EDT

(Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied on Thursday abandoning his commitment to the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, backing away from pre-election comments that deepened a rift with Israel's chief ally the United States.

But the White House, unmoved by Netanyahu’s post-election effort to backtrack, delivered a fresh rebuke against the Israeli leader and signaled that Washington may reconsider its decades-old policy of shielding Israel from international pressure at the United Nations.

The White House warned there would be “consequences” for Israel as the Obama administration "re-evaluates" its Middle East diplomatic strategy and monitors the formation of Netanyahu's new ruling coalition.

“He walked back from commitments that Israel had previously made to a two-state solution,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters. “It is ... cause for the United States to evaluate what our path is forward.”

President Barack Obama called Netanyahu to congratulate him on his re-election victory on Tuesday and used the opportunity to reaffirm "the United States’ longstanding commitment to a two-state solution" to the Middle East conflict, the White House said.

Obama told the Israeli leader he values the close security partnership between their countries and the two agreed to keep consulting on the "difficult path forward to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," the White House said.

"I haven't changed my policy. I never retracted my speech in Bar-Ilan University six years ago calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state," Netanyahu told MSNBC in his first U.S. television interview since winning the bitterly contested Israeli ballot.

"What has changed is the reality," Netanyahu said, citing the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and the Hamas militant group's continued control of the Gaza Strip.

The harsh U.S. response signaled that U.S.-Israeli relations, already at their lowest point since Obama took office, could deteriorate even further as an end-of-March deadline looms in U.S.-led nuclear diplomacy with Iran that Netanyahu bitterly opposes.

Among the most serious risks for Israel would be a shift in Washington’s posture at the United Nations. The United States has long stood in the way of Palestinian efforts to get a U.N. resolution recognizing its statehood, including threatening to use its veto, and has protected Israel from efforts to isolate it internationally.

QUESTIONS ABOUT U.S. SHIELD AT UN

While assuring the United States' commitment to military and intelligence cooperation with Israel, Earnest left the door open to the possibility that Washington might be less diligent about shielding Israel diplomatically in the future.

“Steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations had been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome,” he said. “Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution.”

Netanyahu touched off the diplomatic storm with his comments on the eve of Tuesday's election that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch, widely seen as intended to mobilize his right-wing base when his electoral hopes were flagging.

The goal of Palestinian statehood is a cornerstone of both U.S. diplomacy going back decades and Obama's Middle East policy. But Obama's previous peace efforts have failed and prospects for renewed diplomacy were already low.

U.S. officials scolded Netanyahu not only for abandoning his commitment to a Palestinian state but also for his election-day accusation that left-wingers were working to get Israel’s minority Arab voters out “in droves” to sway the election.

“It’s a pretty cynical tactic and there’s no doubt it’s divisive,” Earnest said.

Netanyahu denied he had been trying to suppress the votes of Arab citizens or that his comments were racist.

He also backed away from his pre-election statement rejecting Palestinian statehood, but made clear that he believed for now political and security conditions were not amenable.

“I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change," he told MSNBC.

Netanyahu's frosty relations with Obama worsened when he accepted a Republican invitation to speak to Congress two weeks before the Israeli election, a move assailed by Democratic leaders as an insult to the presidency and a breach of protocol.

In another sign that the administration is looking to turn up the heat on Netanyahu, the White House is sending Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to address the liberal pro-Israel U.S.-based group J Street on Monday. The group, a proponent of two states side by side, opposed Netanyahu in the election campaign.

(Additional reporting by Anna Yukhananov, Jeff Mason and Julia Edwards; Editing by Howard Goller, Toni Reinhold)

 

[Meengla]

In another sign that the administration is looking to turn up the heat on Netanyahu, the White House is sending Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to address the liberal pro-Israel U.S.-based group J Street on Monday. The group, a proponent of two states side by side, opposed Netanyahu in the election campaign.

Sending Obama Chief of Staff? On top of sending some campaign advisers to try to defeat Netanyahu during the recent Israeli elections?
"Lobby" or not, I have never seen Israel so vulnerable as now. One Abstention in the UNSC and we will have the same kind of UNSC vote as that led to the creation of Israel in the first place in the 1940s.

Let all the good forces in this world make President Obama safe and sound! If he really goes for the UNSC route then, I am afraid, even his personal safety cannot be guaranteed.

 

[Hindustani78]

Sending Obama Chief of Staff? On top of sending some campaign advisers to try to defeat Netanyahu during the recent Israeli elections?
"Lobby" or not, I have never seen Israel so vulnerable as now. One Abstention in the UNSC and we will have the same kind of UNSC vote as that led to the creation of Israel in the first place in the 1940s.

Let all the good forces in this world make President Obama safe and sound! If he really goes for the UNSC route then, I am afraid, even his personal safety cannot be guaranteed.

Here its not just about President Obama but the whole foreign policy of United States in Middle east. Palestinians see towards United states with full hope .

 

[East or West India Best]

obama is an anti-Semite

 

[Hindustani78]

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 19, 2015


QUESTION: It sounded from your colleague’s comments as though whatever he said today doesn’t make you – doesn’t change your opinion about what he said three – two days ago or three days ago --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu was the prime minister three days ago as well, and he made comments that we certainly have taken account of. And we obviously have stated and I’m happy to restate what our view is on the importance of a two-state solution and what it could achieve. So in that regard, we believe he changed his position just a few days ago.

 

[Meengla]

Here its not just about President Obama but the whole foreign policy of United States in Middle east. Palestinians see towards United states with full hope .

Bolded part. Would you care to elaborate?

obama is an anti-Semite

Joking?
Obama has resolutely stood behind Israel to the point of even the liberal Americans questioning his Nobel Prize. But I now believe Obama, instinctively, is a much more peace-loving President than GW Bush was. I also think Obama wants to secure his place in the 'history' as one of the giants of American leadership--the Mt. Rushmore statue stature.

And I also think Obama was waiting for Netanyahu to blunder--and blunder he (Netanyahu) did by basically backpedalling on the two-State solution.

 

[East or West India Best]

Bolded part. Would you care to elaborate?



Joking?
Obama has resolutely stood behind Israel to the point of even the liberal Americans questioning his Nobel Prize. But I now believe Obama, instinctively, is a much more peace-loving President than GW Bush was. I also think Obama wants to secure his place in the 'history' as one of the giants of American leadership--the Mt. Rushmore statue stature.

And I also think Obama was waiting for Netanyahu to blunder--and blunder he (Netanyahu) did by basically backpedalling on the two-State solution.

No offense but you see things with an islamobias.

 

[Hindustani78]

Bolded part. Would you care to elaborate?

GCC, Egypt, Jordan all are having partership with NATO and when situation is not so good in Eastern Europe, State of Israel has to decide where its going to stand. Even EU countries are working for the creation of independent Palestine state.

 

[Meengla]

No offense but you see things with an islamobias.

Because of my flag? Perhaps, though if you knew my posts you would not make the statements so casually.

Maybe then a large section of the world sees the Israeli-Palestinian situation because of an 'Islamobias'. You REALLY don't know how many countries would jump the ship should the Obama administration become more pro Palestinian. Basically, what I see as justice for Palestinians is thwarted by a few hundred Congressmen/Senators, a few hundred contractors in the Military Industrial Complex, and a few dozen media entities. It is a big $$ business.
The rest of the world--and now perhaps even the White House--has made up its mind.

 

[Vassnti]

obama is an anti-Semite

Thinking bibi is the worse thing to hapen to Israel doesnt mean you are an anti-semite it just means you can think.
60 seconds after the election was won bibi was backtracking on promises.

 

[Meengla]

Thinking bibi is the worse thing to hapen to Israel doesnt mean you are an anti-semite it just means you can think. 60 seconds after the election was won bibi was backtracking on promises.

To be fair to Bibi, he did use 'today' when he made that election speech about not allowing a Palestinian state during his tenure--though we all know of his true intentions anyway. But too bad: A global perception is established--enough for Obama administration to grab the opportunity to move through the UNSC. Some Israelis realize that danger of Obama UNSC move and are hoping that the Israeli President would appoint anyone other than Bibi for the PM job.

 

[Tshering22]

Bibi will do his nut to delay this process until 2016 when US gets a new more active president that is not left leaning. Though Republicans stand a fat chance of winning as Americans seem to be tired of both of the parties, a more balanced candidate may be expected, who could actually refuse Palestine.

GCC, Egypt, Jordan all are having partership with NATO and when situation is not so good in Eastern Europe, State of Israel has to decide where its going to stand. Even EU countries are working for the creation of independent Palestine state.

Mossad will most likely take care of EU countries' leaders.

Israel will get ruthless when its survival is at stake.

They almost went to war with France in 2006 when the French threatened to shoot down IDF jets who overflew French warships parked in Israeli waters itself.

 

[Meengla]

Bibi will do his nut to delay this process until 2016 when US gets a new more active president that is not left leaning. Though Republicans stand a fat chance of winning as Americans seem to be tired of both of the parties, a more balanced candidate may be expected, who could actually refuse Palestine.
Mossad will most likely take care of EU countries' leaders..

Yes, Bibi would really TRY to ride it out till 2016; however, as President of the United States Mr. Obama enjoys much more freedom than some people may think--AIPAC or Republicans notwithstanding--to allow the UNSC resolution to pass.

Bolded part: Really? And how would it help Israel to further antagonize the Europeans by killing EU countries' leaders? Come on, man, you know better than that.

 

[Tshering22]

Yes, Bibi would really TRY to ride it out till 2016; however, as President of the United States Mr. Obama enjoys much more freedom than some people may think--AIPAC or Republicans notwithstanding--to allow the UNSC resolution to pass.

Well it won't really do much good. In the Cold War era, French went all against them being a UNSC permanent member as well. Nothing much happened except Israel managing to make indigenous Mirages, crushing the UAR's air forces and winning the war.

Frankly put, you'd be thinking out of the box as well if your homeland's survival was at stake as well.

Like it or not, Israel here here to stay.

It is pragmatic if the middle eastern countries come together and make peace with its existence, therefore saving the world of another bloodbath like the one between 1938-1945.

Bolded part: Really? And how would it help Israel to further antagonize the Europeans by killing EU countries' leaders? Come on, man, you know better than that.

I am simply throwing the worst case scenarios man.

Remember, in survival even a single man resorts to cannibalism when deserted with no food, water or resources.

You're talking about a country here; a highly intelligent, highly educated and fiercely nationalistic country.