and Israel, Strike and Counterstrike
By Caroline Glick
December 30, 2016
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was the first prong of
outgoing US President Barack Obama’s lame duck campaign against Israel.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday was
On January 15, stage 3 will commence in Paris. At
France’s lame duck President Francois Hollande’s international conference,
the foreign ministers of some fifty states are expected to adopt as their own
the anti-Israel principles Kerry set forth in his speech.
The next day it will be Obama’s turn. Obama can be
expected to use the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to present the
Palestinian war to annihilate Israel as a natural progression from the American
civil rights movement that King led fifty years ago.
Finally, sometime between January 17 and 19, Obama intends
for the Security Council to reconvene and follow the gang at the Paris
conference by adopting Kerry’s positions as a new Security Council resolution.
That follow-on resolution may also recognize “Palestine” and grant it full
membership in the UN.
True, Kerry said the administration will not put forward
another Security Council resolution. But as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
explained in his response to Kerry’s address, there is ample reason to suspect
that France or Sweden, or both, will put forth such a resolution. Since the
draft will simply be a restatement of Kerry’s speech, Obama will not veto it.
Whether or not Obama gets his second Security Council
resolution remains to be seen. But if he succeeds or fails, he’s already
caused most the damage. A follow-on resolution will only amplify the blow Israel
absorbed with 2334.
Resolution 2334 harms Israel in two ways. First, it
effectively abrogates Security Council resolution 242 from 1967 which formed the
basis of Israeli policymaking for the past 49 years. Second, 2334 gives a
strategic boost to the international campaign to boycott the Jewish state.
Resolution 242 anchored the ceasefire between Israel and
its neighbors at the end of the Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for
Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist in secure and defensible borders,
Israel would cede some of the territories it took control over during the war.
242 assumed that Israel has a right to hold these areas and that an Israeli
decision to cede some of them to its neighbors in exchange for peace would
constitute a major concession.
242 is deliberately phrased to ensure that Israel would not
be expected to cede all of the lands it took control over in the Six Day War.
The resolution speaks of “territories,” rather than “the territories” or
“all the territories” that Israel took control over during the war.
Resolution 2334 rejects 242’s founding assumptions. 2334
asserts that Israel has no right to any of the lands it took control over during
the war. From the Western Wall to Shiloh from Hebron to Ariel, 2334 says all
Israeli presence in the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is crime.
Given that Israel has no right to hold territory under
2334, it naturally follows that the Palestinians have no incentive to give
Israel peace. So they won’t. The peace process, like the two-state solution
ended last Friday night to the raucous applause of all Security Council members.
As for the boycott campaign against Israel, contrary to
what has been widely argued, 2334 does not strengthen the boycott of
“settlements.” 2334 gives a strategic boost to the boycott of Israel as a
2334 calls on states “to distinguish in their relevant
dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories
occupied since 1967.” Since no Israeli firms make that distinction, all
Israeli economic activity is now threatened with boycott. Tnuva is an
“occupation” dairy because it supplies communities beyond the 1949 lines
with dairy products.
Bank Hapoalim is an “occupation” bank because it
operates ATM machines in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
Fox clothing chain is an “occupation” chain because it
has a store in Gush Etzion. And so on and so forth.
Resolution 2334 gives Europe and its NGOs a green light to
wage a complete trade and cultural boycotts against all of Israel.
Obama is not using his final weeks in office to wage war on
Israel because he hates Netanyahu. He is not deliberately denying 3,500 years of
Jewish history in the Land of Israel because the Knesset it set to pass the
Regulations Law that will make it marginally easier for Jews to exercise
property rights in Judea and Samaria, as Kerry and UN ambassador Samantha Power
Obama’s onslaught against Israel is the natural endpoint
of a policy he has consistently followed since he first entered the White House.
In June 2009, Obama denied the Jews’ 3,500 years of history in the land of
Israel in his speech in Cairo before an audience packed with members of the
Muslim Brotherhood. Instead of the truth, Obama adopted the Islamist propaganda
lie that Israel was established because Europe felt guilty about the Holocaust.
Throughout his presidency, Obama has rejected the guiding
principle of resolution 242. His anti-Semitic demand that Israel deny its Jewish
citizens their civil and property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply
because they are Jews is just as antithetical to 242 as resolution 2334.
In his address on Wednesday, Kerry repeatedly castigated
the government while flattering the Israeli Left in yet another attempt to
divide and polarize Israeli society. Kerry’s professed support for the Israeli
Left is deeply ironic because Israeli leftists are the primary casualties of
Obama’s anti-Israel assault.
In the post-242 world that Obama initiated, the UN makes no
distinction between Jerusalem and Nablus, between Gush Etzion and Jenin, or
between Maaleh Adumim and Ramallah. In this world, Labor Party leader Yitzhak
Herzog’s plan to retain a mere 2-3 percent of Judea and Samaria is no more
acceptable than Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli
law to 60 percent of the area or to other plans calling for Israeli law to be
applied to all of Judea and Samaria. All are equally unlawful. All are equally
For the next three weeks, the government’s focus must be
centered on Obama and minimizing the damage he is able to cause Israel. Since
Israel cannot convince Hollande to cancel his conference or Obama not to give
his speech, Israel efforts must be concentrated on scuttling Obama’s plan to
enact a follow-on Security Council resolution.
To scuttle another resolution, Israel needs to convince
seven members of the Security Council not to support it. Only measures that
secure the support of 9 out of 15 Security Council members are permitted to come
to a vote. The states that are most susceptible to Israeli lobbying are Italy,
Ethiopia, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia.
Netanyahu’s furious response to 2334 advance the goal of
blocking a vote on a follow-on resolution in two ways. First, they create
Israeli leverage in seeking to convince member states to oppose voting on an
additional resolution before January 20.
Second, Netanyahu’s seemingly unrestrained response to
the Obama administration’s onslaught enables President-elect Donald Trump to
join him in pressuring Security Council members to oppose bringing a new
resolution for a vote.
By taking an extreme position of total rejection of
Obama’s actions, Netanyahu is enabling Trump to block a vote while striking a
In three weeks, Obama’s war with Israel will end. His
final legacy – the destruction of the land for peace paradigm and the
two-state policymaking model obligate Israel, for the first time in fifty years,
to determine its long-term goals in relation to the international community, the
Palestinians and Judea and Samaria themselves.
Regarding the international community, the Security Council
opened the door for its members to boycott Israel. As a result, Israel should
show the UN and its factotums the door. Israel should work to
de-internationalize the Palestinian conflict by expelling UN personnel from its
The same is the case with the EU. Once Britain exits the EU,
Israel should end the EU’s illegal operations in Judea and Samaria and declare
EU personnel acting illegally persona non grata.
As for the Palestinians, resolution 2334 obligates Israel
to reconsider its recognition of the PLO. Since 1993, Israel has recognized the
PLO despite its deep and continuous engagement in terrorism. Israel legitimized
the PLO because the terror group was ostensibly its partner in peace.
Now, after the PLO successfully killed the peace process by
getting the Security Council to abrogate 242, Israel’s continued recognition
of the PLO makes little sense. Neither PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas nor his deputies
in Fatah – convicted, imprisoned mass murderer and terror master Marwan
Barghouti and Jibril Rajoub who said he wishes he had a nuclear bomb so he could
drop it on Israel and tried to get Israel expelled from FIFA — have any
interest in recognizing Israel, let alone making peace with it. The same of
course can be said for the PLO’s coalition partner Hamas.
An Israeli decision to stop recognizing the PLO will also
have implications for the Trump administration. In the aftermath of 2334, calls
in Congress are steadily mounting for the US cancel its recognition of the PLO
and end US financial support for the Palestinian Authority. If Israel has
already ended its recognition of the PLO, chances will rise that the US will
follow suit. Such a US move will have positive strategic implications for
There is also the question of the Palestinian militias that
are deployed to Judea and Samaria as part of the peace process that Obama and
the PLO officially ended last Friday. In the coming weeks and months, Israel
will need to decide what to do about these hostile militias that take their
orders from leaders who reject peaceful coexistence with Israel.
Finally, there are the territories themselves. For 50
years, Israel has used the land for peace paradigm as a way not to decide what
to do with Judea and Samaria. Now that 242 has been effectively abrogated,
Israel has to decide what it wants. The no brainer is to allow Jews to build
wherever they have the legal right to build. If the UN says Israel has no rights
to Jerusalem, then Israel has no reason to distinguish between Jerusalem and
More broadly, given that for the foreseeable future, there
will be no Palestinian Authority interested in making peace with Israel, Israel
needs to think about the best way to administer them going forward. The obvious
step of applying Israeli law to Area C now becomes almost inarguable.
Shortly before Obama took office eight years ago, he
promised to “fundamentally transform” America. Trump’s election scuttled
any chance he had of doing so.
But by enabling resolution 2334 to pass in the Security
Council, Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the nature of the
Palestinian conflict with Israel. Israel’s actions in the coming weeks will
determine whether it is fundamentally transformed for better or for worse.