http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=59253&s2=23
The UNHRC decision [supporting the Goldstone report] put all principal parties of the peace process on the spot. For the US, it can block consideration of the report by the Security Council in more ways than one through the council's rules of procedure. It can lobby against including the Goldstone Report on the work programme of the Security Council. If it gets there, which would initially be a significant condemnation of Israel, the US would try to lobby the 15-member council to deny any draft resolution based on the report the nine votes, or two-thirds majority, it would need to pass. Should the two-third majority seem available to support a draft resolution, the US would then use its no vote -- its veto power -- to foil it. The three Western permanent members of the Security Council -- France, the UK and the US -- usually act in unison, like a pack of wolves. The US and the UK would join together in casting a veto while France would abstain, to maintain its credentials with the Arabs. The US and the UK would either cite the usual pretext that the draft resolution was "unbalanced", or use the argument that a peace process is in progress and that the adoption of the resolution would discourage Israeli cooperation and wreck that process. Israel will mobilise all its lobby troops in the US to pressure the Obama administration to thwart any draft resolution against its interests as previous US administrations have consistently done. The charges are quite serious and any endorsement by the UN Security Council would be a turning point for Israel in the eyes of the global community.
Depending on the strategy of the Obama administration with regards to the Middle East peace process, the situation could be used as a bargaining chip to pressure Israel. The US has failed its first test of wills with the Netanyahu government: it could not persuade Israel to freeze settlement construction and give the discredited Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, a face-saving mask to continue the meandering peace process. It has helped Israeli intransigence by twisting the arm of Abbas to participate in a tripartite meeting in New York with Obama and Netanyahu to give the impression that despite Israeli stalling and continued settlement building the peace process was still alive and well. Israel has so far dictated the conditions and the Obama administration is only wringing its hands in frustration. It can do more to show Israel that it is serious about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem before the end of the Obama first term in office. It can send a strong signal by allowing the scheduling for debate by the Security Council of the UNHRC's recommendations. It can go one step further by indicating to Israel that unless it makes some serious concessions regarding the peace process the US might find it difficult not to abstain when the draft resolution comes to a vote, thus allowing it possibly to pass. Whatever strategy the Obama administration develops it has always to keep a wary eye on Israeli reaction and the backlash of the American Israel lobby. However, Obama, like any other US president, wants to serve a second term and has to weigh carefully how much damage Israel and its lobby can cost him if he should try to apply pressure. Obama has little experience, and Israel is not a peace-loving country but one that wants to annex Arab land and force a political settlement based on its military superiority.
For those Arabs who are not collaborators with the Israeli agenda the situation offers an opportunity to show the world that since its creation Israel has been led by war criminals. Hamas and other Palestinian resistance movements can live with an accusation that they lobbed a few primitive and misdirected rockets into Israeli occupied territories. After all, they are classified as "terrorist" organisations, not a state with international ties, UN membership and legal obligations. Libya could be the linchpin. As president of the current session of the UN General Assembly and a non- permanent member of the Security Council it could seek the support of African, South American, sympathetic European countries, and China and Russia to table the UNHRC decision for consideration by the Security Council. Failing this, Arab countries, which are currently sitting on the fence, should call for a special session of the General Assembly to act on the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment