The 6 December was the first anniversary of US President Donald Trump's announcement that he recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital and that he would move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city. The announcement was cheered by Israel and its supporters for whom international laws and conventions are at best meaningless and at worst an irritant. Trump suggested that this move would help bring peace to the Holy Land. How wrong he was. Anyone but a diehard Zionist would have told him that he was deluded to think this, but nobody in his administration would have done so, because those tasked with developing a peace deal fall into this category.
One of these cheerleaders for Apartheid Israel is Nimrata Randhawa, better known to the world as Nikki Haley, the US Representative to the United Nations. In the UN Security Council, she can wield the US veto to protect Israel but she is unable to do that in the General Assembly, where no state has a veto. Her swansong in the chamber was an embarrassment for her and her country.
Haley left what was her final General Assembly with her pro-Israel tail firmly between her legs. Her resolution to condemn Hamas was voted down, while a resolution reiterating the call for a comprehensive peace based on the two-state solution, which she opposed, passed overwhelmingly. It is particularly galling that Haley wanted to use the UN to condemn Palestinians while defending Israel and its breaches of hundreds of resolutions passed by the very organisation she wanted to use to sanction the people of Palestine who are in breach of none.
The US envoy's period in office has been characterised by her complete dismissal of Palestinian rights and unwavering support for Israel to ensure that it never faces accountability for its crimes. Her support for Israel since she took on the role has been astonishing. Early on in her appointment she made the defence of the Zionist state at the UN her primary goal, insisting that, "The days of Israel-bashing at the United Nations are over." She added that the passing of so-called anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council, referring to the anti-settlement resolution 2334, "would never happen again."
Haley even blocked the appointment of former PA prime minster Salam Fayyad as UN Envoy to Libya. "For too long the UN has been unfairly biased in favour of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of our allies in Israel," she claimed.
Following Israel's murder of over 60 Palestinians protesting peacefully on one day at the height of the Great March of Return demonstrations in the besieged Gaza Strip, Haley blocked a call for an international investigation into Israeli tactics in dealing with the peaceful protests. Instead, she blamed Iran and terrorist proxies for causing the violence. Haley went on to praise the Israeli forces' performance throughout the protests: "I ask my colleagues here in the Security Council, who among us would accept this type of activity on your border? No one would. No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained." She did not refer to the right that the Palestinian refugees marching to the nominal border fence have to return to their homes inside what is now called Israel. Resolution 194 regarding the right of return is yet another of the UN resolutions which Israel has failed to implement, even though its membership of the UN itself was conditional on doing so.
Palestinians will not forget her action on the day when 21-year-old volunteer medic Razan Al-Najjar was killed by an Israeli sniper's bullet, possibly sourced from the US. Ambassador Haley fought to scupper a resolution in the Security Council calling for protection for the Palestinians.
One of Haley's most embarrassing moments came when she tried to defend the US President's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to move the embassy from Tel Aviv. A resolution calling for the withdrawal of such recognition was backed by every council member except the US, which then used its veto to block it.
The resolution demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UN Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Haley denounced the resolution as "an insult" and insisted that this action would not be forgotten.
"The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she blustered. "It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts. The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council." Haley walked out of the chamber as the representative for Palestine began to speak.
In October, she announced her resignation as America's UN envoy but her defence of Israel ran through to the last minute of her period in office, which concluded with the General Assembly on 6 December.
The outcome of the vote on the two resolutions tabled at the GA last week was important to Palestinians and supporters of a just resolution to the conflict. Haley's anti-Palestinian resolution called for condemnation of Hamas for "repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk", and for its use of resources in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, "including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas." The US-drafted text did not make any reference to Israel's killing of nearly 300 peaceful protesters since 30 March or the botched covert Israeli operation inside Gaza that led to the recent flare up. The result of the vote was 87 in favour, 58 against, with 32 abstentions.
While this resolution gained a simple majority, including support from EU countries, it did not pass the two-thirds majority that the GA agreed would be necessary for it to pass. While Palestinians and their supporters were relieved and pleased, a closer examination shows worrying signs of a possible shift in support for Palestinian rights, including the legitimate right to resist a 51-year long illegal occupation and a 12-year siege on Gaza.
The Palestinians, though, can take comfort from the passing of the second resolution. The General Assembly called for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine in favour of the two-state solution. Not only did Israel vote against the Irish and Bolivian resolution as expected, but the US did as well, giving the clearest possible indication that it no longer supports a two-state solution. Australia also voted against a two-state solution, but none of the five countries opposed to the second resolution offered any alternative.
This General Assembly was likely to be Haley's last public appearance as US Envoy. She has undoubtedly changed the role to one that takes its lead from both the US and Israeli administrations such that America's Security Council veto is also openly Israel's to use. This is a dangerous development, which together with the increasing support in the UN for condemnation of what Palestinians and international law regard as legitimate resistance is extremely detrimental to international law and order. The situation requires an urgent strategy to counter it.
Nikki Haley will not be missed by either Palestinians or their supporters. Good riddance, we say, to an apologist for Israel who has been the face at the UN of a completely biased, anti-Palestinian US administration. The Palestinians should be under no illusion that the next holder of the position, and those developing the "ultimate deal", will be working to liquidate the Palestinian cause. However, those working against Palestinian rights should also know that they have picked on a people who have demonstrated over decades that they will not give up on their rights, whatever the challenges.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.