Obama To Netanyahu: I May Allow UN Support For Arabs

Neil Munro White House Correspondent
Font Size:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested March 20 that the United States would not veto a future anti-Israel resolution by the United Nations Security Council.

“What he’s pointing to is a [diplomatic] campaign underway… where the Palestinians have been going to the United Nations to declare a state unilaterally,” said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research.

So far, “the United States has shot it down,” Schanzer said.

The United States has chosen to block U.N. involvement in the Arab vs. Israel fight because it prefers the Israeli government and local Arab leaders negotiate a peace deal that creates two independent states, Earnest said at the midday press conference.

But, he said, “what has now changed… [is that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu] has indicated that they’re not committed to that approach any more.”

“If that’s the case, it means we need to rethink what our approach is going to be,” Earnest said.

If Obama refuses to use the U.S. veto, the security council could declare the Arab territories alongside Israel to be an independent state, complete with an army.

But “the Palestinians are not prepared [and soon] would be at war with Israel,” Schanzer predicted. A new Arab state “would be a recipe for conflict, for just a whole chain of events,” he said, partly because the Palestinian Arabs are already divided into two rival armed groups.

“I don’t know what [Obama] is doing… it is incredibly difficult for me to understand what the strategy is,” Schanzer said. “Part of it is personal [but it also] appears to be an attempt to punish the Israeli public for putting Netanyahu back into power again,” said Schanzer.

But Obama’s pressure on Netanyahu also serves to weaken Netanyahu’s strong public objections to Obama’s pending strategic deal with Iran. That deal would leave Iran’s Israel-hating Islamic theocracy with the funding, ability and legal right to build a large force of nuclear weapons by as early as 2025.

Netanyahu won the March 17 election victory by overwhelming an Obama-backed coalition of left-wing parties and Arab political parties.

Obama’s deputies and their allied progressives claim that Netanyahu tainted his win by reversing his prior support for a peace deal with local Arabs.

But Netanyahu has repeatedly denied any change in Israeli policy. “I haven’t changed my policy,” Netanyahu said March 17 interview on MSNBC.

“I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution, but for that, [current] circumstances have to change.. To make it achievable, then you have to have real negotiations with people who are committed to peace,” he said. Currently, Israel’s neighbors in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt are battling jihadi groups, including the Islamic State, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Earnest, however, repeatedly cast doubt on Netanyahu’s conditional support for a two-state deal.

“Words matter,” he declared March 20. “When the Israeli Prime Minister just days before an election, when the world is watching, comes out and makes a promise indicating that a Palestinian state will not be created as long as he’s prime minister, that, I think, raises obvious doubts about his commitment,” Earnest said.

Obama, too, isn’t crediting Netanyahu’s professions of support for a two-state deal. In a March 19 telephone call with Netanyahu, Obama didn’t raise the issue, Earnest suggested March 20. “That was not the result of the call,” Earnest said.

The White House’s claim that Netanyahu has walked away from the two-state plan is based on a pre-election interview that Netanyahu gave to an Israeli media outlet.

“If you are prime minister, a Palestinian state will not be established,” the Israeli reporter asked.

“Correct,” Netanyahu said, before adding “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the State of Israel. Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand.”

Netanyahu’s explanation — complete with the word “today” — are being ignored by progressives. For example, a March 20 article by the New York Times simply omits Netanyahu’s comments after “correct.”

Since the 1970s, many U.S. leaders have tried and failed to negotiate a peace deal between Arabs and Israelis. But no peace deal can work until the Arabs who sign the peace deal are willing to kill Arabs who want to break the peace deal.

Currently, no Arab government has the military and ideological power to enforce a peace deal on other Arabs. That’s party because any deal would require Arabs to recognize Israel as legitimate state on territory once ruled by defunct Muslim theocracies.

The Arab governments don’t have the power to suppress opposition because Jews and Israel are hated by many Arabs who feel humiliated by repeated military defeats which contradict the Koran’s repeated claims that Jews are “the worst of creatures.

Follow Neil on Twitter