It has now been almost 3 weeks since the United Nations passed resolution 2334 because the United States did not exercise its veto. The resolution, the United States decision not to veto it, and the reaction in the aftermath, are all filled with problems. The whole sequence has done nothing to advance the possibility of peace. Rather, it has inflamed the attitudes of players on all sides, and made confrontation with sordid truths even more difficult than before.
Problems with the resolution:
First, by focusing on the settlements in yet one more UN resolution, this reinforces the false notion that the settlements are the cause of the conflict. I am not a supporter of most of the West Bank settlements, but they are not the cause of the conflict. Rather, they are a hindrance to progress in getting meaningful talks started. The causes of this conflict originate in many events and attitudes dating back to the late 19th century, and are filled with complications, nuances, and realities that most parties refuse to acknowledge anymore. Second, a resolution that lumps development in Jerusalem, particularly the Old City, in the same category as the illegal outpost settlements, obscures the simple truth that Jews (Israel) have a legitimate claim to Jerusalem. It ignores the truth that under Jordanian control (1948 to 1967) Jews were denied access to the Old City and the Jewish quarter of the Jerusalem was destroyed. It is only under Israeli administration that all religions have been granted access to their holy sites.
The final problem with the resolution is strategic. The timing is horrific. On the eve of a new administration that will take a very different approach, the controversy of abstaining from the vote instead of vetoing, it destroys the ability of the left to voice credible opposition to the settlements in the future. Why? Because it has shifted the focus from real issues to the conflict between Obama and Netanyahu. Because it has created inflamed rhetoric on the right accusing Obama of anti-Semitism despite the fact that his administration has provided record setting military aid to and cooperation with Israel. There are legitimate discussions to be had about various strategic moves the Obama administration has made in the Middle East; i.e. some real mistakes have been made; but I have never doubted that his and Secretary Clinton’s or Secretary Kerry’s intentions have been for the benefit of Israel and not to their detriment. This is further demonstrated by Obama’s opposition to the BDS movement that attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence.
Truths about the resolution
First, it is necessary to read the resolution. You can do so through this link: http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf Unlike numerous other UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions, it also condemns terrorist acts by the Palestinians. It makes clear that both are obstacles to peace. It asserts that the status quo is not sustainable. That is correct. If the 2 state solution will not happen, then the alternative is a one state solution. Does Israel really want that? Demographically this poses a problem for Israel to maintain a Jewish state. The current Jewish population from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River is about 6.2 million. The current Arab population is around 4.2 to 4.5 million – and that does not include Gaza. A higher birth rate among the Arabs would make a Jewish state unsustainable in a couple of generations. Further, unless Israel would grant full citizenship rights to the Palestinians, it will be forced to abandon democratic values and use their military in oppressive ways to control a huge proportion of the population, likely limiting them to very restricted areas and resources. I hate to use the word apartheid, but a non democratic state denying basic rights and citizenship to Palestinians would start to look like that. Let’s also look at the other side of this equation. Some on the left among Palestinians and Jews are pushing for a one state solution. But the hatred of Jews by Palestinian Arabs is way too intense to make this a workable scenario.
But the overriding truth about the resolution is that the settlements are a problem. Yes, those that are in areas likely to be part of Israel in a 2 state arrangement (we have a map of what that might look like from prior negotiations) are not either the cause of the conflict or prevent a solution. Rather, settlements being established in the middle of private Palestinian land, in areas that are clearly designated by the Oslo accords to remain Palestinian, are a smack in the face to a population facing major problems. The inability of Palestinians to simply commute to work, to get medical care, because of the location of certain settlements is an obstacle to even starting meaningful negotiations. There are many settlements that began as illegally established outposts (according to Israeli law) and there is currently a bill in the Knesset, introduced by the most right wing elements, that is trying post facto, to legalize these settlements. Someone please explain to me how any of this contributes to the peace process.
The aftermath of the resolution
This has reduced the chance that those who care about Israel across the political spectrum can even dialogue with each other because of the inflammation of rhetoric. The most obvious example is the hateful rhetoric by the right against Obama, his administration, and anyone who dares to oppose any position of the Israeli government. This reinforces the false notion that opposition to an Israeli policy or opposition to an Israeli leader – in this case Netanyahu – is anti-Semitic. It is not. The blind support for anything Israel does refuses to acknowledge some severe problems. One is the increasing movement in Israel towards a right wing theocracy. This is evident not just by the power of the most religious/conservative groups in the Knesset regarding settlement policies, but in recent legislation being considered outlawing any worship practice other than orthodox at the Western Wall.
A second result is it adds to the fictional picture of Netanyahu as a victim of an anti-Israel American administration. Americans, especially on the right, love Netanyahu. Why? Well, he grew up in Cheltenham, PA, was educated in America; speaks English like an American, so he feels like one of us. This means we overlook his flaws, which are deep. First, he is once again under investigation for corruption, being questioned recently by Israeli police. His Likud supporters in the Knesset have introduced a bill putting the Prime Minister’s office above criminal investigation. This is the third time Netanyahu has come under investigation for illegal activities. Further, unlike Ariel Sharon, a right wing military man who as prime minister understood the need to moderate for the good of the whole country, Netanyahu pays lip service to causes such as peace and religious plurality, but in his actions caters to the most extreme elements in Israel. His actions indicate his prime interest is keeping his power, not the betterment of Israel.
Finally, the bitter atmosphere created by the failure to veto the resolution makes it impossible to hear truths about the consequences of Israeli policy. In a speech made to explain why the US did not veto resolution 2334, John Kerry outlines the administration’s perspective and its fears of the long term consequences for Israel. He also speaks of the potential for a regional peace Israel has with its Arab neighbors if there would be even some progress on Palestinian issues. You can read the full text of the speech here: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/12/266119.htm
It is a speech that for the most part should have been given 4 years ago, as a vision and plan for working with Israel to move towards a 2 state solution, and not as an explanation for a stupid decision. In the hateful, polarized atmosphere exacerbated by the passing of UN resolution 2334, no one is paying any attention to some of the cold, hard truths Kerry outlines. He is being cast as anti Israel and even anti-Semitic. Read the speech. He is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
Conclusion
What is the Israel we wish to see? I grew up in a household dedicated to the Zionist vision of a Jewish state that practices democratic values. I have always been proud of Israel’s strength and audacity. At its best moments Israel is a model for the world to admire. Yes, elements in Europe wish to delegitimize Israel. Yes, Arab anti-Semitism is rampant and scary. But the Israel of my dreams holds onto its highest values in the face of pressure. Israel is no longer a weak nation. Its military is second to none. Its economy is based on brilliant technological and business innovations. So Israelis and Jews have to look at ourselves honestly and ask this question, how can we best fulfill the vision of Isaiah and be a “light unto the nations.”
The Jewish Observer 
In 1967 Nasser threw the UN peacekeeping forces out of Sinai in preparation for a general war against Israel. Israel then struck first. When Egypt had almost lost the war, Nasser told Syria and Jordan to join in, “cause we almost got em licked.” People living in land taken from Jordan and Egypt, somehow magically became “Philistines” after the Israeli victory. The “Philistines” idea originated with the KGB who wanted to foment as much hatred against all things Western as possible. (Show me a passport, national ID or any document dated prior to June 1967 issued by Palestina (the name given to the region by the Romans as an insult to Jews after the Bar Kochba rebellion.) So, magically, in 1967 people who were Jordanian or Egyptian one day, were Philistines the next. It should be noted that the most violent of all terrorist groups, Black September, was born out of a brutal military action against the Philistines by Jordan , not Israel, and Jordan had good reason to act. Had there really been a Philistine nationalist movement against Nasser or King Hussein prior to June, 1967, one can only imagine the level of brutality that would have been used against it. Let’s put things into perspective. Imagine a U.S. where you could ascend the St. Louis Arch in the middle of American and see the Rape of Nanking in one direction and the Battle of Stalingrad in the other. From Ramot Shapira, one can see right across the entire country of Israel. Israel, despite her formidable IDF (may G*d bless them all) and techno superiority, is the size of New Jersey (1/650th of the land mass of the Arab states) and needs every square meter of the strategic Jordan Valley to survive. I would like to thank Rabbi Romberg for a very balanced and informative piece that contains insights presented no where else despite the barrels of ink dispensed. If one still feels that hand-wringing is required over land stolen from indigenous people, I suggest getting the deed to your home and going to Bell Plains VA or Hobbs NM and finding a native American who wishes to have you sign it over to them. Thanks for reading, sorry about any typos. Bob Sargeant