Why Obama Refused to Shield Israel at the UN

A relationship in danger? Credit :psychologytoday.com

On December 23rd the UN took a vote against building in the settlements. This vote was due to the PA pushing for the UN to recognize them as a state, and the settlements as part of their land. The United States has the right to veto such votes, and generally does, due to the relationship between them and Israel and the fact that the UN is very bias when it comes to this issue. If this is all true, why didn’t they veto this vote?

Some may claim that it is because of Obama being pro-Palestinian, others might say that it is because this is the only way to keep the possibility of peace alive, and some might say that it is because of the cold relationship between this administration and Netanyahu’s government. In part, some of these explanations are correct, however, they serve a different purpose.

As I have claimed before, there is a two state solution on the way, but due to the harsh relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama is left out of this solution and will not get any of the credit. I am sure Obama has an idea that something is coming, and that he will not have a part in it. Letting this vote happen and then claiming that it keeps the possibility for peace alive, will be used by him to prove that he had a part in securing a two state solution. This is also being used by Obama to show that even at the end of his administration he is still relevant in the world and is working for peace.

The claim that Obama is doing this as vengeance against Netanyahu is also partly true, but it is not because of their relationship throughout the years. He is trying to hurt Netanyahu because he is not included in the two state solution, even though it was possible during his administration. It is a huge hit to his ego that Trump, of all people, will get the credit for this.

The main question here is what did this really achieve?

In my opinion it did nothing. As sad as this may be, the UN has no real power over any country in the world. It is run by many small countries that do not believe in the existence of the state of Israel. They present this by disproportionately attacking the state of Israel, instead of dealing with other, more pressing matters, such as the killing of civilians in Syria on a daily basis. Even the departing Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said this was true during his last speech. This vote will not prevent the building in the settlements, nor will it help with achieving a peace agreement between Israel and the PA.

But the real thing that should be understood is that the continuation of building in the settlements is not a bad thing, but will be a huge help with the solution to come.

When the time comes and Netanyahu decides where the new border is going to be, Israel and the UN will have to help the PA establish a country. The building of the settlements will be an important part of the Palestinian’s new infrastructure. Continuing the building will cut the time of establishing a Palestinian country. This is why Netanyahu did not push to stop Benett and the Bait Hayehudi from passing a law that will help continue the construction.

In my opinion this vote only serves Obama by giving him a way to get some credit for the solution to come, while also trying to stay relevant for as long as possible.

About the Author : Roey Nickelsberg  was raised in Arad and is currently completing his Masters in Under Water Archaeology at Haifa University.

10 Comments on Why Obama Refused to Shield Israel at the UN

  1. Israel= 20 000 km2, Arab lands= 13 000 000 km2 ! This UN resolution is nonsense. Peace is not about territory, is not about buildings, is about the right of self determination of non-Arab minorities ( Jews, Berberes, Kurds, …). Obama, who has been raised in an Islamic country, supports the Arab and Islamic domination against other non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities.

    • First of all, Obama was not raised in an islamic country. Obama was raised in the United States. His dad was barely present in his life and he went to kenya for the first time in his 20s and Kenya is not an islamic country. Most kenyans are christians(more than 80%) only 11.1% of the population are muslims. Educate yourself

      • Mary, Obama wrote in his biography : ´I was raised as an Indonesian child’. Indonesia is a muslim country.

  2. This is total BS ! The author may be a jew , but must bear in mind that above all he is a scholar who owes it to his readers to be objective and leave them better informed. But sadly he cannot dissociate himself from his religion and propagates a barefaced lie that would be scandalous if not for its utter ridiculousness.

  3. MR. Ronin I am not sure if you can tell the difference between a news report or an opinion say so of an individual writer. Also yes the writer Could be a Isrealy jew or an Isrealy Arab, how is that an issue? why can’t any writer from Israel be sympathetic to the interest and future issues affecting his country? Especially when its an opinion piece, not a breaking news. I personally didn’t see an issue with this article, and the writer has shown how the vote is more of an political statement than an immediate solution between ISPA ongoing issues.

  4. What a shitty article. Buildings by encroaching on Palestinian land to help the Palestinians in the days to come? Seriously? Ha ha ha.

  5. How true is this: ‘The building of the settlements will be an important part of the Palestinian’s new infrastructure. Continuing the building will cut the time of establishing a Palestinian country.’?

    Perhaps more facts would convince the reader?

    • Thank you for your useful insight Jon, Young Diplomats read and take into account all of its readers’ comments!
      We take in consideration your view concerning this highly debated topic.Feel free to send us information about this the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we would be happy to publish it if its remain neutral. Cheers!

  6. Hi Jon. What is presented in this article is my theory about how things are going to play out in the region, and why the settlement issue was not the real reason behind the UN resolution. If my theory is correct about a plan to create a Palestinian state, some of the settlements will be given back. When this happens it will be necessary to help build the new country’s infrastructure.
    The construction being done now in those settlements will end up being part of the new countries infrastructure and will make it much easier to establish the country, as there is a ready made infrastructure in some of the land.
    This is why, in my opinion the resolution did not have as much to do with the settlement issue rather the political game between the past US administration and the Israeli government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*