AS FAR as I recall, it was former prime minister Ehud Barak who coined the term “diplomatic tsunami” a few years ago, when describing what Israel could expect in the international arena in the absence of progress toward peace with the Palestinians. Since Barak first used the phrase it has become something of a joke in Israeli public discourse. Only a couple of weeks ago, during a popular radio show, a right-wing panelist arrogantly asked, “Where is the diplomatic tsunami promised by the Left?” His left-wing interlocutor simply went silent – after all no tsunami has been spotted on the horizon. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel's position in the international arena has never been better. “Leaders from all over the world come to Israel and want to meet with me… not only are we not isolated but I don't even have time to meet with all the leaders coming to Israel.” This is a popular refrain by the prime minister who lately likes to talk of Israel's relations with Africa and how countries there are establishing and renewing ties with Israel. So, has there been an improvement in Israel's international standing? On the one hand, Israel's bilateral relations – government to government – have not been harmed and have even expanded, but that is not the case when it comes to its standing in international organizations and in international public opinion. It's a lot more worthwhile for a country to be friends with the State of Israel than it is to be friends with the non-state of Palestine. When it comes to security, intelligence, the economy and technology, Israel has a lot to offer states, which after all operate according to their national interest. But that is not the situation when it comes to international organizations where countries have different considerations and operate in a different environment. That is exactly what happened on December 23 last month when Israel was hit completely by surprise by Security Council Resolution 2334. It was in the words of some commentators a “diplomatic Yom Kippur.” The rosy picture of Israel's international standing presented by Netanyahu and the ridicule of the possibility of a diplomatic tsunami meant that its waves were particularly devastating when they came crashing on shore. The overwhelming consensus at the Security Council, and the enthusiastic applause with which the resolution was met, caused anger and consternation in Jerusalem. The harsh and unequivocal language of the resolution was particularly difficult for the government of Israel and surprised even those who believe that the resolution is a lifeline for the two-state solution. Israel reacted furiously with sanctions against countries with less diplomatic clout like Senegal, New Zealand and Angola, but also took steps against Britain, France and all the other nations that supported the resolution – even the US ambassador to Israel was called in to hear Jerusalem's protests. Regardless of whether Israel's politicians erred in their calculus or whether its diplomats had been negligent, it is fair to say that diplomatically speaking, Israel was caught with its pants down. Why though was the content of the resolution seen as being so harsh? After all, 2334 repeats the principles enshrined in previous United Nations resolutions such as 242 and 338 which are over 40 years old. The blow was so stinging because until now Israeli governments could agree with the principle of “land for peace,” but the Netanyahu-Bennett-Liberman government is not willing to accept that principle. The terms “two states” (appears twice in Resolution 2334), 1967 lines (appears six times), and “occupation” or “occupied territories” (appears five times) infuriate this government. From its perspective, there cannot be two states (in fact the term was removed from the coalition agreement), there are no '67 lines and there certainly isn't an occupation. RESOLUTION 2334 is a lot more precise in its language than previous Security Council resolutions on the occupied territories. It makes a clear distinction between Israel and the territories, declares the settlements illegal and infers that settlement produce should be labelled and that the nations of the world should boycott the settlements diplomatically and economically. The resolution further calls on the Secretary General to report every three months on the implementation of its provisions, ensuring that even during Donald Trump's presidency the settlement issue will remain on the international agenda. Resolution 2334 is a game changer. It is no secret that a growing portion of the Israeli and Palestinian publics have despaired of the two-state solution in recent years. The growth in the number of settlers in the West Bank and their increasing influence on Israeli politics has led many people to consider the binational state option. Resolution 2334 will in that sense halt the drift in that direction among the Israeli peace camp and strengthen support for the two-state solution among the Palestinians. US Secretary of State John Kerry's speech on December 28 was no less painful for the Israeli government. Kerry's version of events very clearly places the greater portion of blame for the collapse of the peace process on Israel. The six principles he charted in his speech bring back into the international discourse the issues of Palestinian refugees and of dividing Jerusalem into two capitals – topics that the government of Israel hoped had become a thing of the past. An interesting point about the Kerry speech and one that from Israel's point of view is particularly damning is the standing ovation he received from a full auditorium of professional American diplomats. What will president-elect Trump do with those diplomats? Will he fire them? Who will he bring to the State Department in their place? Ahead of us we have the Paris Peace Conference. But its agenda reveals a missed opportunity. The conference will deal with peripheral issues such as economic assistance for the Palestinians, regional development and strengthening of Middle Eastern civil society. It is an agenda that avoids the real issues at hand. Coming in the wake of Resolution 2334 and the Kerry speech, the Paris conference should go forward not backward. There is no sense in bringing 70 foreign ministers to Paris and then not going to the heart of the matter – two states for two peoples, two states living side by side in security. The Paris conference should focus on the question of recognition of Palestine. The United Nations General Assembly voted to recognize Palestine as a state (“non-member observer”) in November 2012 (with a 138 to 9 majority, and 41 abstentions). Of the European nations, only Sweden and the Vatican followed up with governmental recognition of Palestine. But peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will not succeed as long as there is not complete recognition of Palestine as a state. The balance of power between Israel and the Palestinians is so overwhelmingly in Israel's favor that Israel will dictate terms if both sides do not have equal international and legal standing. The real challenge of the Paris Peace Conference is to continue the momentum of Resolution 2334 and the Kerry speech, and to call on the nations of the world who have yet to do so to recognize Palestine as a state. There is simply no other way to renew diplomatic negotiations under terms that will enable their success. Dr. Alon Liel is a former director general of the Foreign Ministry.
UN security council votes on resolution 2334