Why didn't the US veto? - AKIF EMRE

Why didn't the US veto?

One of the week's most interesting developments was beyond any doubt the decision the United Nations Security Council took against Israel. Surprisingly, the U.S. President Barack Obama administration adopted an attitude contrary to the U.S.'s traditional politics against Israel.

The U.S. abstained from voting in the U.N. Security Council on the draft resolution declaring – also according to international law – all Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, officially occupied by Israel, as illegal, and most importantly, it did not veto this decision. As it is known, the Security Council's permanent five members have a right to veto the decisions made, and the thoughts of the rest are of no importance at all!

An unquestionable fundamental of Israel-U.S. relations is of course ensuring the security of the Zionist colonist management under all circumstances. This is a determinant fundamental of Israel-U.S. relations that cannot be discussed or questioned under any circumstance. For this reason, the U.S. administrations took the initiative to veto, even if it meant to veto the decision alone, any decision that would corner the Zionist administration against the U.N. However, an interesting result (a result that would normally be perceived as contradictory to the U.S.'s traditional politics) came out during the last voting session. The Israeli side especially had a serious burst of anger; for example, according to the minister of energy, the U.S. had lost its only friend in the Middle East. Another minister then asked for the Maale Audimim region, which divided the West Bank, to be annexed.

As you can remember, Netanyahu had showed the courage to make a derisive talk in the U.S. Congress despite Obama, who he does not particularly get along with. This decision can be interpreted as Obama wanting to teach Netanyahu a lesson.

According to the decision, any kind of Jewish settlement in the land that Israel occupied was illegal and it had to be ended immediately. The draft that was offered to the council previously by Egypt was later brought to the council's attention by Venezuela, Senegal, New Zealand and Malaysia. Let's take a look at the notion of Jewish settlement: Israel, which adopted a kind of Zionist colonialism in Palestinian lands it occupied after 1967, created a defacto status and supported Jewish settlement in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The aim was to surround Jerusalem with Jewish settlers and thus disconnect it from the rest of the Palestinian lands. Jewish Europeans and Russian migrants, who were not born in these lands, were brought in and strategically settled in these lands; thus, new cities were created.

These attempts, which were against all international agreements, were brushed off each time by diplomatic protests and reprimands, but the Zionist regime continued to be law unto itself each time.

Notwithstanding the fact of whether there will be any practical result or not, the opinion that the Obama-Netanyahu showdown was the main reason for the U.S. to overlook this decision, is rather strong. The Israeli side especially is interpreting the issue from this respect. Netanyahu and his circle goes to the extent of accusing Obama and his administration for planning and starting such a draft. Undoubtedly, if Clinton had won the elections, the question would be whether the U.S. would make a similar decision or not. But we should also note that, everyone from Democrat Party parliamentarians to Liberal Jews argue this attitude.

It is clear that Obama and his administration, who are still in government, want to teach Netanyahu and Israel a lesson. However, it can also be interpreted as, this is not just a revanchist reaction against Netanyahu's indiscreetness; more importantly, it is a foreshadow of change for America's power and Middle East policies. The big picture clearly shows that Israel's existence or security is unquestionable and guaranteed. But it can be read as a warning to Israel that the U.S. will not turn a blind eye to Israel's spoilt attitude, which has taken America's politics hostage.

Why would the U.S. administration feel the need for such a warning? It is clear that the U.S. does not want Israel to be a drawback with its own politics. As, especially the Middle East is no longer significant in terms of the U.S.'s strategic choices. We clearly saw this in the developments in Syria. Secondly, the U.S. probably does not want to be dependent on Israel in every respect. As it can be said that in the past decade, the U.S. gave this message to Israel by clearing the way for certain countries in the region. Besides, since there is no military power or country left to threaten directly, the U.S. does not have anything to worry about. When we put all these developments on top of each other and when we look at Obama's Middle East policies, we can see that a decision to abstain from voting or the lack of a veto was what happened. Israel was furious about the message it got from this incident: The U.S. veto will not always be guaranteed. In such a case, it can be expected that Israel will be more coherent and follow a policy that does not confront the U.S. with a fait accompli. While ending my article, I should not forget to remind that the Zionist regime has already started to flirt with other global powers in the region.



+

We use cookies limited for the aims specified in the data policy and in accordance with the legislation. For details please see our data policy.