International Herald Tribune/Daily Star Egypt 12/28/2006
By Michael Shank

Israeli government officials in charge of conducting an end-of-year review cannot be happy. While their mid-year review was equally disappointing, with the loss in Lebanon and lack of international support for Israel’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, the end-of-year review is worse.

In December only, Israel lost a major ally at the United Nations with the resignation of United States Ambassador Bolton, received recommendations by the Iraq Study Group to engage with Syria (i.e. return occupied Golan) and Palestine (i.e. respect UN resolution 242), and was reproached by majority vote in the UN General Assembly for its actions in occupied territories.

The key question, however, is whether or not Israel will listen, and change course appropriately.

Clue #1: Ambassador Bolton. Stepping down in December due to lack of necessary support within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Ambassador’s preferential treatment towards Israel was never in question. This summer, Bolton strongly defended Israel’s actions in Lebanon and ensured in the past that Israel remain unscathed for violating the Arms Export Control Act. (The Act prohibits the use of US weapons for non-defensive purposes.)

And remarkably, despite undermining US State Department protocol by meeting with the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, without authorization, the Ambassador was heralded by State spokesman Tom Casey as Israel’s strongest ally within the administration.

Bolton’s advocacy on behalf of Israel is not unique in the US. There is a legacy of US Ambassadorial support for Israel within UN headquarters. Within the Security Council, for example, the US consistently placed the sole veto vote in over 40 resolutions pertaining to Israel between 1972 and 2006.

What is unique about Bolton’s resignation, however, is that it indicates that the era of preferential treatment may soon be over. Bolton’s renomination failed to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee primarily because Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee was displeased with Bolton’s policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and voted “No” to a second year for the Ambassador.

With this referendum on Bolton, consequently, US public sentiment is calling for not only improved diplomacy at the UN, but improved diplomacy in the Middle East.

Clue #2: The Iraq Study Group. In December, the high-level bipartisan committee of former US diplomats, Members of Congress, and cabinet officials called on the US to “act boldly” saying that the US does Israel “no favors by avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict”.

Stating clearly that no military solution will solve the conflict, the ISG reaffirmed the notion that the basis on which a sustainable peace can be achieved is “set forth in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338”. Besides proffering an explicit endorsement of 1967-style border integrity, as stated in UN resolution 242, the ISG urged Israel’s immediate return of the occupied Golan Heights.

Granted, the ISG’s recommendations were accompanied by calls for comprehensive securitization throughout the Middle East.

The onus for action was not solely placed on the US or Israel in brokering a sustainable peace between Arabs and Israelis. However, given the ISG’s report, Israel is now bereft of the unfettered backing it once received from Washington in keeping the Golan and continuing settlement activity in Palestine. Israel’s unequivocal partner, i.e. Washington’s ruling elite, is starting to change its tune.

Clue #3: The UN General Assembly. In December, the Assembly affirmed overwhelmingly that the “settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, were illegal and an obstacle to peace”.

Additionally, the Assembly, voting 162 in favor, established an office for Palestinians to register claims stemming from Israel’s barrier construction and settlement activity. Unlike Israel’s recent response to the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission to Gaza’s Beit Hanoun, Israel cannot block Assembly plans nor claim Assembly bias — as it has done with the Council.
Moreover, even if bias exists within the UN General Assembly, then it is merely the bias of international law. The extensive legal background of Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa is certainly at play here, enforcing existing statutes within the UN framework.

In this columnist’s recent interview with Khalifa, an Ambassador with ample experience in civil and commercial law, she reiterated the importance of the Assembly’s capacity to enact and enforce policy.

Now that law is taking a front seat in Assembly deliberations, it is no wonder that Israel’s persistent abrogation is receiving punitive attention. And it is not the attention of the few, as in the case of the Council’s 47 members, but rather the majority. Nations feel that if they must adhere to international law, Israel must as well.

None of the three aforementioned indictments — the loss of US Ambassador Bolton, the Iraq Study Group’s endorsement of UN resolution 242 and the return of the Golan, and the General Assembly’s enforcement of international law — bode well for Israel.

December delivered news that undoubtedly lacked holiday cheer. With Washington wavering in its unequivocal support, Israel must now carefully review its annual report and ensure that 2007 begins anew.

The US and the UN are anxious for a fresh start in the Middle East and it is incumbent upon Israel to start listening to the changing of the tide. Paying heed to the unseating of Ambassador Bolton, the ISG’s report, and the General Assembly’s edict would be a good start.

Michael Shank is with George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR EGYPT