Ted BelmanThe author is a retired attorney and the editor of Israpundit. In 2009 he made aliya and is now living in Jerusalem.
The mask is off. The US officials sympathize with Abbas and blame Israel's settlement construction as the cause of the failure of the talks. They warn that Palestine will rise ‘whether through violence or via int’l organizations’ which is another way of saying that the US won't veto the recognition of Palestine in the SC and will recognize them as a state contrary to the requirements of the Montevideo Conventions.
We knew the game was rigged the moment Obama agreed with the Arab position that the borders were to be based on the '67 lines plus swaps. Although Netanyahu made his position very clear on security, the Obama administration gave it only lip service and wanted Israel to have a time frame not exceeding 5 years on Israel's remaining presence in "Palestine". This wasn't remotely what Israel wanted or needed and Yaalon made that amply clear.
Also Israel adamantly refused to enter negotiations based on '67 lines plus swaps even though both Abbas and the US had agreed to do so. Their acceptance of Netanyahu's rejection of this formula, meant that Netanyahu had no obligation to negotiate on that basis. But now they blame him for not doing so. They must have thought they could force him to do so.
Furthermore, the Security Council, in passing Resolution 242 at end of '67 war, gave Israel the right to remain in occupation until they had agreement on "secure and recognized borders". Now the US is saying, Israel has the obligation to accept borders which are not secure and isn't entitled to negotiate the borders it wants.
The US supported Israel's demand for recognition as the state of the Jewish nation. But when they found out that this was a deal breaker with Abbas, they said they made a mistake. They were blind-sided because they didn't understand its significance and still don't. But for that support, Israel wouldn't have entered negotiations. Usually Israel demands they want an end of conflict agreement. This time it wasn't even on the table. Israel made do with the demand for recognition which for Israel amounted to the same thing. Such a recognition would deny the "right of return".
In this regard, Abbas agreed "that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness, Israel won’t be flooded with refugees,’ he promised.”. One would have to be crazy or stupid to accept such a promise but for the US it was enough. By citing Abbas' agreement they readily accept, that he will settle for a state rather than Israel's destruction. On what basis?
Now the threat of another intifada must be taken seriously. No doubt the CIA would be involved in supporting the intafada and using the US trained security forces. Even so Israel could contain it. The problem is that if it amounts to a mini war, the UN can spring into action to prevent war, which is their mandate and order all kinds of things against Israel including armed invasion. See: Can the UN legally impose a solution on Israel’. I answered in the affirmative. While you are at it look at, How Obama boxed Netanyahu in to an imposed solution. It's coming. Mark my words.
As for the settlements, Israel is under no obligation to cease construction in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem. Nor do they have any obligation to uproot 20% of the Jewish residents there, which would amount to 150,000 of all Israelis east of the Green Line, including in Jerusalem or 80,000 Jews if this refers only to the Israelis in Judea and Samaria. These settlements were legally build according to our rights in the Mandate itself. But Abbas and Obama didn't want to recognize that right.
Apparently Pollard's release "wouldn’t have helped his popularity in the American security system…". Why not after 29 years of incarceration? ANTI-SEMITISM.
Anti-Semitism would also explain why we have little support in the international community.
One more thing. The US official is wrong to say Israel was founded by a UN resolution. The UN only passed a resolution recommending partition. Israel declared itself a state along the suggested borders and a majority of states recognized Israel. The UN did not create it or found it. Finally Israel had to win the War of Independence to solidify its hold on the state.