Israeli tantrums and diplomatic gamesmanship shift attention from Palestine

Last week’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 can be summarised as a collective international effort to provoke the type of drama in which opportunism and retaliation consolidate their dominion over oblivion. Outgoing US President Barack Obama departed conveniently from the usual veto over resolutions deemed hostile by Israel due to the unfolding timeline rather than a change in foreign policy.

Predictably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exposed his belligerence by recalling ambassadors and ordering the termination of aid to Senegal. The latter should count as evidence of Israel’s real interests in giving aid to Africa; it is simply a way to bribe developing countries into giving their support to its colonial ambitions in Palestine.

The rhetoric of abandonment has been rife since the UN vote on Friday. The same goes for a frantic regurgitation of the imaginary Zionist ties to the land of Palestine. “Neither the Security Council nor UNESCO will rewrite history and sever the link between the people of Israel and the land of Israel,” declared Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon. How absurd of him to accuse a normally compliant institution with rewriting history when research shows that Israel has invested heavily in fabricating its own historical narrative which has to-date been accepted and adopted without question by the UN. Had there been any vociferous and genuine objection to Israel’s false narratives, the international community would have opposed the very notion of the two-state compromise, which has proven to be a convenient diplomatic tool to delay concrete recognition of Palestinian rights in order to buy Israel the necessary time to complete its colonial project.

Resolution 2334 itself commences with a contradiction that serves Netanyahu well; citing the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force” while proceeding to distinguish between historical colonial expansion since 1948 and “settlement outposts erected since March 2001” is farcical, but to be expected. Not to mention the discrepancy between generalised recommendations of what should happen and the reality that is being constructed by Netanyahu. Ma’an has reported that 5,600 settler units have been approved for construction in East Jerusalem. This alone should constitute enough proof of the ineffectiveness of non-binding resolutions. In this scenario, even symbolism – a manifestation coveted by the international community and the Palestinian Authority – has failed to thrive.

Meanwhile, Palestine has been slowly but surely dismembered; freedom from colonial occupation is even further from reality than ever before. The exaggerated emphasis upon this draft resolution in the days prior to approval has ascertained the place of the pedestal reserved solely for Israel. Since 2334 is derived from a colonial narrative, it stands to reason that the visibility allocated to Palestinians ensures subjugation and deprivation of a proper, anti-colonial voice. As in other instances, Israel has remained the sole protagonist, bolstered by an international community that will not disrupt decades of historical manipulation to allow truth and reality to emerge.

By not resorting to its veto, the US has achieved a few objectives, none of which are of real benefit to Palestine. It provided an interlude of false hope and social media euphoria, while also attempting to enshrine symbolism within a different context. The overall, macabre accomplishment has been Israeli retribution against Palestinians for a resolution that fails to even articulate their rights within the proper historical context.

In government circles, such Israeli tantrums and diplomatic gamesmanship may be hailed as unprecedented and meaningful. For Palestinians, though, this is simply another episode in the colonial debacle which has translated into accelerated efforts by Israel to eliminate any evidence of the historic identity of the land and its indigenous population.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.