Yes, an Israeli victory

Those looking for pro-Israeli forums should probably stay away from the U.N. headquarters in New York and the Palace of Nations in Geneva.

Gone are the days when a U.S. veto was guaranteed. This makes the Israeli victory in the U.N. all the more impressive, since it was achieved without using the American defensive shield. Israel has every right to claim victory, having successfully stifled the Palestinians' effort to impose a solution based on their terms.

Once again, it was clear that the U.S. and Australia could be counted on when the rubber hits the road. Despite what others would like you to believe, Israel was never left to its own devices.

Israeli politics has hit electoral turbulence. Not a single day goes by without some political fire storm dominating the news. But despite all this, Israel's foreign service has actually stepped up to the plate and managed to explore old-new avenues of cooperation to facilitate this diplomatic victory.

Africa is a case in point. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's direct appeal to the African members of the Security Council was conducive for the Israeli victory. Both Rwanda and Nigeria heeded Netanyahu's request and abstained. The latter's decision was particularly important, because it denied the Palestinians of the necessary 9th vote. This also made a U.S. veto unnecessary.

In fact, this was a two-fold Israeli victory because Israel had essentially secured a U.S. veto, should it be needed. After all the Obama administration was determined to see the measure defeated.

Of course, some would prefer to see the glass half empty. Some would prefer to focus on the Palestinians and the fact that they had lost faith in the peace process. Some would probably focus on their unilateral decision to go to the U.N., essentially defying the spirit of the Oslo Accords (remember that document-). Some would say that the vote was a net negative because it saw France and Luxembourg voting in favor of the draft.

France's position is particularly troubling. Not only did Paris vote in favor of the draft resolution, it even helped Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas settle on its final language behind the scenes. Yes, France wanted to water it down, and had its proposed changes been accepted, the draft could have very well garnered the necessary 9th vote. In fact, had the French version been accepted by the council members, the U.S. may not have felt compelled to use its veto powers. But the Palestinians stuck to their guns and France ultimately sided with them. In any event, France's behavior over this resolution is a bad omen.

Why did Abbas refuse to accept the French proposal? The Palestinians could have submitted a different, less provocative draft resolution. They could have rewritten it so that it focused on the peace talks as the basis for any statehood initiative. They could have made the march to statehood contingent on mutual understandings. They could have inserted more accommodating language that everyone could live with. But Abbas chose to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Yasser Arafat. He opted for intransigence.

Did he go down that path because he was heading for defeat? Perhaps he figure that if he were bound to fall he might as well do so with his head held up high so that he could win some points at home? Maybe. But others believe Abbas did not anticipate such a big defeat. If that is true, that would explain why he stuck to the original language, even at the cost of triggering a U.S. veto. This would have isolate the U.S. on the world stage and cast the Palestinians as the victim, the role they have played so well throughout this conflict.

Whatever the reason, this does not bode well for those who want to see an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abbas, it seems, has cast himself as someone who is not really interested in compromise. In other words, like Arafat, he doesn't really want statehood, because independence means compromise. He would much rather go down in history as a hero who withstood pressure than to sign off on a compromise that would produce a state. But of course, this is not the end. Having failed at the U.N., Abbas quickly moved on and signed the Rome Statute so that he can take the fight against Israel to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. The Palestinians should keep in mind, though, that those who take people to court could one day discover that they too are on trial.

In fact, the drama of past few weeks, which culminated in the Israeli victory in the United Nations, only proves (for the umpteenth time) that the Palestinians never really wanted to move forward in the talks. They never really wanted to see a major breakthrough in their supposed quest for statehood. The path they chose was the path of provocation and victimhood. What's unfortunate about this ordeal is the French culinary choice. It appears that the chef decided to prepare a meal that catered to the Chadian, Russian, and Chinese palates, not to the American, Australian or British (the U.K. abstained). We have come to expect more from French cuisine.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו