The Arab League, that body that has stood in the way of peace with Israel for more than 60 years, has reportedly now added one more initiative to its long list of efforts to condemn and isolate the Jewish state. It has announced its intention to bring to the United Nations Security Council a resolution which, among other things, would oblige Israel to stop building settlements.Among the many anti-Israel initiatives of the Arab League, this is one of the more cunning and devious because of the widespread sentiment against Israeli settlement policy. At the UN, even at the Security Council, there is a significant number of countries who will always vote against Israel; there are those, like the Europeans, who sometimes back Israel, but who often vote against or abstain depending on the nature of the resolution being presented; and there is the United States, which mostly stands with Israel or, at least at the Security Council, prevents egregiously anti-Israel resolutions from passing, by using its veto.Since every American administration over the past 30 years has had a disagreement of one kind or another with Israel on its settlement policy, the Arab League undoubtedly thinks this is its opportunity to make a significant breakthrough at the Security Council. To clarify the history, and in response to periodic remarks by Israel’s critics that Israel is constantly violating UN decisions, it is only Security Council resolutions that can be binding. And in this regard, because of consistent US activity either vetoing one-sided resolutions or making sure that they are balanced by calling on Palestinians and Arabs to act as well, the Jewish state has never been in violation. Added to that is the failure of Palestinians to fulfill Security Council mandates, which meant that Israel’s obligations have been nullified. This brings us to the Arab League effort to get the Security Council to state that Israeli settlements are illegal and must be stopped. We believe the passage of such a one-sided resolution would make it impossible to achieve any progress toward peace. It would cause Israel to distrust any process that had an international imprimatur. And it would lead Palestinians to believe they have no need to do what has been the major imperative to reach peace, accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state and negotiate a compromise agreement on that basis. All of which leaves the Obama administration with three options to prevent such a setback. The best would be to persuade the Arab League not to go forward with such an idea. The administration has widely argued that peace can only be attained through direct negotiations. It can and should make the case to the Arab League that negotiations would be far more difficult to achieve and sustain with such a resolution. In this regard, Washington can enlist its European allies to influence the Arab League to back off. If this fails, the US has the option to use its veto. As noted, there is a history of such examples. It's something American officials don't look forward to doing but when insidious ideas reach the inner sancta of the Council, it becomes necessary. A third way is for American officials to insist on obligations for all sides. This may be an opportunity to address the delegitimization against Israel campaign. The US could put forward a provision saying that boycott efforts against Israel by member states of the UN go against the charter and should be deemed by the Council as out of bounds. I have no illusion that the Arab League, guilty of a variety of boycotts against Israel, would even consider such a clause. But it might get them to rethink the wisdom of a anti-settlement resolution. And it could begin a long overdue discussion about the free pass so many get while trying to delegitimize the Jewish state. It is becoming increasingly difficult for two tracks to exist at the same time. One track is the effort, led by the US, to bring Israelis and Palestinians to serious, good faith negotiations. The other track is the expanding delegitimizing activities against Israel. The Palestinians themselves say in one breath they want to live in peace and security with Israel and in the next are encouraging and participating in campaigns to boycott and sanction the Jewish state. The tension between these two paths is great and an explosion is almost inevitable if it continues. A UN Security Council resolution on settlements could bring everything to that breaking point.Abraham H. Foxman is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. His books include “Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype” (Palgrave Macmillan, November 2010) and "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”
