[The UN statement in question is just that: a statement, with no
tangible value and no legal repercussions.]
[[link removed]]

ON FALSE HOPES AND BROKEN PROMISES: BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE UN
STATEMENT ON PALESTINE  
[[link removed]]


 

Ramzy Baroud
March 3, 2023
CounterPunch
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The UN statement in question is just that: a statement, with no
tangible value and no legal repercussions. _

, Jakob Rubner

 

Rarely does the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations make an
official remark expressing happiness over any UN proceeding concerning
the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Indeed, the Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour
[[link removed]] is
“very happy that there was a very strong united message from the
Security Council against the illegal, unilateral measure” undertaken
by the Israeli government.

The ‘measure’ is a specific reference to a decision
[[link removed]],
on February 12, by the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to construct 10,000 new housing units in nine
illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank.

Expectedly, Netanyahu was angered by the supposedly ‘very strong
united message’ emanating from an institution that is hardly known
for its meaningful action regarding international conflicts,
especially in the Palestinian-Israeli case.

Mansour’s happiness may be justified from some people’s
perspective, especially as we seldom witness a strongly worded
position by the UNSC that is both critical of Israel and wholly
embraced by the United States. The latter has used
[[link removed]] the
veto power 53 times since 1972 – per UN count
[[link removed]] –
to block UNSC draft resolutions that are critical of Israel.

However, on examination of the context of the latest UN statement on
Israel and Palestine, there is little reason for Mansour’s
excitement. The UN statement in question is just that: a statement,
with no tangible value and no legal repercussions.

This statement could have been meaningful if the language had remained
unchanged from its original draft. Not a draft of the statement
itself, but of a binding UN resolution that was introduced
[[link removed]] on
February 15 by the UAE Ambassador.

Reuters revealed
[[link removed]] that
the draft resolution would have demanded that Israel “immediately
and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.” That resolution – and its strong language
– was scrapped under pressure from the US and was replaced by a
mere statement
[[link removed]] that
“reiterates” the Security Council’s position that “continuing
Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability
of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines.”

The statement also expressed “deep concern”, actually,
“dismay” with Israel’s February 12 announcement.

Netanyanu’s angry response was mostly intended for public
consumption in Israel, and to keep his far-right government allies in
check; after all, the conversion of the resolution into a statement,
and the watering down of the language were all carried out following a
prior agreement among the US, Israel and the PA. In fact, the Aqaba
conference held
[[link removed]] on
February 26 is a confirmation that that agreement has indeed taken
place. Therefore, the statement should not have come as a surprise to
the Israeli prime minister.

Moreover, US media spoke
[[link removed]] openly
about a deal, which was mediated by US Secretary of State Antony
Blinken. The reason behind the deal, initially, was to avert a
“potential crisis”, which would have resulted from the US vetoing
the resolution. According to
[[link removed]] the
Associated Press, such a veto “would have angered Palestinian
supporters at a time that the US and its western allies are trying to
gain international support against Russia.”

But there is another reason behind the Washington’s sense of
urgency. In December 2016, then US Ambassador to the UN, Susan
Rice, refrained
[[link removed]] from
vetoing a similar UNSC resolution that strongly condemned Israel’s
illegal settlement activities. This occurred less than a month before
the end of Barack Obama’s second term in the White House. For
Palestinians, the resolution was too little, too late. For Israel, it
was an unforgivable betrayal. To appease Tel Aviv, the Trump
Administration gave the UN post to Nikki Haley, one of the most ardent
supporters of Israel.

Though another US veto would have raised a few eyebrows, it would have
presented a major opportunity for the strong pro-Palestine camp at the
UN to challenge US hegemony over the matter of the Israeli occupation
of Palestine; it would have also deferred the issue to the UN General
Assembly and other UN-related organizations.

Even more interesting, according to the Blinken-mediated agreement
[[link removed]] –
reported by AP, Reuters, Axios and others – Palestinians and
Israelis would have to refrain from unilateral actions. Israel would
freeze all settlement activities until August, and Palestinians would
not “pursue action against Israel at the UN and other international
bodies such as the World Court, the International Criminal Court and
the UN Human Rights Council.” This was the gist of the agreement at
the US-sponsored Aqaba meeting as well.

While Palestinians are likely to abide by this understanding – since
they continue to seek US financial handouts and political validation
– Israel will most likely refuse; in fact, practically, they already
have.

Though the agreement had reportedly stipulated that Israel would not
stage major attacks on Palestinian cities, only two days later, on
February 22, Israel raided the West Bank city of Nablus. It killed
[[link removed]] 11
Palestinians and wounded 102 others, including two elderly men and a
child.

A settlement freeze is almost impossible. Netanyahu’s extremist
government is mostly unified by their common understanding that
settlements must be kept in constant expansion. Any change to this
understanding would certainly mean a collapse of one of Israel’s
most stable governments in years.

Therefore, why, then, is Mansour “very happy”?

The answer stems from the fact that the PA’s credibility among
Palestinians is at an all-time low. Mistrust, if not outright disdain,
of Mahmoud Abbas and his Authority, is one of the main reasons behind
the brewing armed rebellion against the Israeli occupation. Decades of
promises that justice will eventually arrive through US-mediated talks
have culminated in nothing, thus Palestinians are developing their own
alternative resistance strategies.

The UN statement was marketed by PA-controlled media in Palestine as a
victory for Palestinian diplomacy. Thus, Mansour’s happiness. But
this euphoria was short-lived.

The Israeli massacre in Nablus left no doubt that Netanyahu will not
even respect a promise he made to his own benefactors in Washington.
This takes us back to square one: where Israel refuses to respect
international law, the US refuses to allow the international community
to hold Israel accountable, and where the PA claims another false
victory in its supposed quest for the liberation of Palestine.

Practically, this means that Palestinians are left with no other
option but to carry on with their resistance, indifferent – and
justifiably so – to the UN and its ‘watered-down’ statements.

_RAMZY BAROUD is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine
Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These
Chains Will Be Broken
[[link removed]]:
Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons”
(Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research
Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul
Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
[[link removed]]_

_COUNTERPUNCH is reader supported! Please help keep us alive
[[link removed]]._

_The CounterPunch website is offered at no charge to the general
public over the world wide web. New articles, from an independent
left-leaning perspective, are posted every weekday. A batch of several
articles, including the Poet’s Basement, and Roaming Charges by
Jeffrey St. Clair, are posted in the Weekend Edition. After the
initial posting, these articles are available in the archives which
can be searched by using any of the search boxes on the website.
 CounterPunch also publishes books, and published a newsletter and
magazine from 1993 to 2020.  The COUNTERPUNCH+ Subscriber area of
our website features subscriber content and access._

* Palestine
[[link removed]]
* Israel
[[link removed]]
* United Nations
[[link removed]]
* United States
[[link removed]]
* Palestinian Authority
[[link removed]]
* Benjamin Netanyahu
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]