Three questions on the anti-settlement UN resolution

Obligatory link to context:  Ann Althouse (with links in her own post), BBC (containing the claim that Obama orchestrated the resolution), a tweetstorm by Omri Ceren.

Just before Christmas, the UN passed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as in violation of international law, and reiterating the demand that Israel must withdraw from all lands taken from Jordan in 1967, and all Jewish residents as well.  Not only did the U.S. abstain from voting rather than using its veto, but Israel accuses the U.S. government of having orchestrated the resolution behind the scenes.  This resolution is not a “binding” resolution in the sense that certain Security Council resolutions contain the threat of action against the violator, but  Legal Insurrection reports that there are worries that an upcoming “peace conference” in France on January 15 will produce a hasty passed-before-Inauguration-Day “peace deal” that will be imposed by force rather than negotiation.

So:

First, why now?

The Obama administration’s justification for standing back rather than vetoing is simply a “hey, Netanyahu brought it on himself by refusing to stop the settlements; he left us no choice” as well as a certain distancing of the U.S., that all the administration did is stand back while other countries voted.  But it seems improbable that a major change in U.S. policy happened, by pure coincidence, just before Obama leaves office.  Did Obama orchestrate the resolution?  I’m no expert, but it seems to have come out of nowhere, and it seems to me that there must have at least been some signalling that, this time around, the U.S. wouldn’t veto it.

Second, what did Obama hope to accomplish?

Sure, in the “we’re just bystanders” scenario, Obama had no expectation of accomplishing anything, but was simply standing back and letting other countries “do their thing.”  But that’s unlikely.  Did Obama think that this action would have a real shot at furthering the peace process?  (No, not a rhetorical question – a real question for readers.)

Third, what will the ultimate consequences be?

At this point, I happen to be of the opinion that, in all likelihood, my grandchildren will someday be reading about the latest developments in the Peace Process.  My opinion is that there should be a true “return to 1967 borders” in that the West Bank goes back to Jordan, but that individual Jewish property owners retain their property rights under Jordanian rule, rather than being ethnically cleansed, and that Israel retains Jerusalem because, well, it’s Jerusalem.

But the consequences of this particular resolution?

Look, the UN, and all kinds of other governments and other bodies have condemned the war in Syria.  It’s all talk.  Will this resolution be any different?

Image:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Western_Wall_and_Dome_of_the_rock_in_the_old_city_of_Jerusalem.jpg; By Yourway-to-israel (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons