UN resolution calling on Israel to stop resettlement activities in the Palestinian territories was absolutely balanced, taking into account the interests of both Israel and Palestine. The resolution came in the context of all the previous ones regarding the Middle East conflict settlement. Indeed, Israel’s resettlement activity is a key obstacle to a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel has been implementing this resettlement policy in violation of international law, in fact, committing a war crime, as it has been altering the demographic situation in the occupied territories.
Every year, the UN brings up the relevant draft resolution to a vote, and the United States used to traditionally veto it. But over the eight years of Obama’s tenure, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to spoil relations with the U.S. President so much that this year, right before leaving office, Obama decided to give Netanyahu a final slap for the way he behaved.
All this greatly complicates the position of Mr Netanyahu. He feels that it is impossible to cancel the UN resolution (though he says Donald Trump will do something about it anyway), that is, it would be extremely difficult to make a U-turn. It is also clear that Israel won’t stop the construction of its settlements on the Palestinian territory and will simply ignore the UN resolution.
Why has Ukraine supported the UN resolution? Understandably, Ukraine also has part of its territories occupied, and international law must be the same for all
This whole story reminds us of the situation that once arose around East Jerusalem. Back in the day, Israel annexed the area, and all UN Scurity Council member states voted against this move and condemned the annexation (the U.S. abstained). As a result, Jerusalem was never recognized as the capital of the Israeli state. That is, from a legal standpoint and in terms of law, Israel’s actions could be challenged through judicial mechanisms in the future.
Why has Ukraine supported the UN resolution? Understandably, Ukraine also has part of its territories occupied, and international law must be the same for all. In our case, Russia in the occupied Crimea is implementing a policy of population resettlement, which is reported by both the Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars: people from mainland Russia are being actively transferred to the Crimean peninsula. In fact, a war crime is being committed. The situation with Israel and the Palestinian territories is similar to what Russia is doing in Crimea.
So, Ukraine had no real choice. As far as I know, Ukraine tried to help Israel as much as possible, seeking the delay the consideration of the resolution by the UN Security Council. But the U.S. insisted that the vote took place. Actually, it was not Ukraine who submitted the draft to a consideration - the others did it. So in a game where such players as the U.S. are involved it was obvious that Ukraine did not have any options to prevent consideration of the resolution.
Many say that Ukraine should have abstained and not vote at all. I am sure, that Ukraine could not have abstained! Abstaining would be equivalent to voting against the resolution, which would mean "hanging in the air" the international law in relation to Ukraine. You might say: "But the U.S. abstained." Yes, but in this situation, having refrained from expressing their own position, the U.S. voted "for" the resolution. This is all subtle diplomacy that it difficult to understand.
As for the reaction of Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to Ukraine’s position, it should be noted that he is a rather unbalanced person. And here, Ukraine is a very convenient target to channel one’s frustration and irritation on
Overall, the balance is on the one hand between a quite predictable reaction of "Bibi" Netanyahu, on the other – predictable legal and political consequences for Ukraine and the reaction of other countries in case if we abstained from voting, given the fact that we also have the problem of the occupied territories. That is, Ukraine had to vote for this resolution.
As for the reaction of Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to Ukraine’s position, it should be noted that he is a rather unbalanced person. And here, Ukraine is a very convenient target to channel one’s frustration and irritation on. In this situation, Ukraine is in a weak position, and almost nothing really depends on our voice. So Mr Netanyahu can do with Ukraine whatever he pleases.
Despite the myth of the existing strategic relations, Ukraine and Israel are not strategic partners. They have never been and they will likely never become such partners. We are the country with no permanent seat in the UN Security Council and therefore our voice is not that important to Israel. But, obviously, in the short term, we will see a deterioration of relations with Israel due to the reaction of "Bibi" Netanyahu. However, I believe that in four to six weeks, the situation will change. Besides, in strategic terms, in terms of broader relations between Israelis and Ukrainians, the sympathy between the two nations, their mutual support and assistance, this vote has no real impact on anything.
Moreover, it is likely that this episode will trigger internal changes in Israel, where there will be a change of the government. After all, we've already heard the position of the Israeli opposition, which criticizes Netanyahu and will be doing so more intensively, because spoiling relations with the Americans is a real mishap in the Israeli foreign policy. This may actually cause the downfall of the Netanyahu Cabinet.
Ihor Semyvolos is a director of the Center of Middle East Studies
