Tuesday, April 24th | 9 Iyyar 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

January 5, 2017 5:14 am

Bernard-Henri Lévy: Israel, Obama and the United Nations

avatar by Bernard-Henri Lévy

Email a copy of "Bernard-Henri Lévy: Israel, Obama and the United Nations" to a friend
US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. Photo: Screenshot.

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. Photo: Screenshot.

I am an unwavering proponent of the two-state solution in the Middle East.

And I continue to think that, even battered and bruised, abandoned by some, rejected by others, it is the only solution that, over time, will allow Israel to remain at once the Jewish state conceived by its pioneers and the exemplary democracy whose spirit and institutions 70 years of war, open and otherwise, have not managed to erode.

Yet, inured as I am to disappointment, I was deeply shocked by the circumstances surrounding the adoption by the United Nations Security Council, on December 23, of Resolution 2334, which called upon Israel to “immediately … cease” what some view as the colonization of the occupied Palestinian territories.

I know that news moves fast. Given that fast pace — especially at a moment when the United States has eyes and ears only for the “transition,” for the acts and utterances of the president-elect, for the government that he is setting up, and for his wife, his daughter and little Barron — this story may strike some as already being ancient history. Nevertheless, it has been swirling around in my head for two weeks. And I would like to take a moment to explain why.

  1. There was the source, of course: the United Nations, an organization that for decades has not ceased to condemn, vilify, and ostracize Israel, becoming in the process one of the last places on earth where one could expect to encounter, on this question as on many others, a balanced or courageous stance.
  1. Then there was the spectacle of those fifteen raised hands, the same hands that were so pointedly not raised a few days before to stop the massacre in Aleppo. How could they dare to portray little Israel as the great barrier to peace? How could they imagine that by doing so they might recover in the applause of those in attendance a share of their lost honor? And what is one to make of the splintered and anemic international community trying to repair itself on the back of the Jewish state? All of this was as pathetic as it was ghoulish.
  1. There was the poor wording of the text of the resolution, which, despite the phrase condemning “all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror” (the words “including acts of terror” lead one to wonder about the other “acts of violence” that are being put on the same plane as these “acts of terror”), assigned responsibility for blocking the peace process primarily, if not solely, to Israel. What about Palestinian obstinacy? What about the double-speak of the Ramallah government? What about the Christmas trees on which, in some quarters of Arab Jerusalem, people hung, in place of garlands, photos of “martyrs” killed in “combat” — killed, that is, while trying to stab Israeli civilians? None of that, for the drafters of the resolution or for those who voted for and celebrated it, apparently was an “obstacle to peace.” Nothing was equal in perfidy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy of expanding the settlements.
  1. There was the question of the settlements and the manner in which the issue was, once again, presented. That the continued pursuit of settlements in the West Bank is wrong — that is obvious. And that there is a growing number of hawks on the Israeli right who, with Netanyahu at their head, dream of seeing the process accelerate into an irreversible situation — that is probable. But it is not true that we are already there. It is not accurate to present the building effort as a methodical and malign proliferation metastasizing throughout the future Palestine and dismembering it in advance. The reality, readily apparent to anyone who takes the trouble to analyze matters without blinkers or prejudice, is that the territorial concentration of the densest settlements is creating a situation that, except for the number of settlements, is not radically different from that which prevailed in the Sinai Peninsula before the 1982 agreement with Egypt or in the Gaza Strip before the redeployment undertaken by Ariel Sharon in 2004. In fact, the great majority of the building is still being done close enough to the Green Line to permit, when the time comes, an exchange of territory and, elsewhere (that is, at the most distant and isolated sites) to allow for admittedly painful evacuations. (Not to mention the option that I am amazed is so seldom raised — namely, that Jews should be invited to stay and live in the new Palestine, just as 1.5 million Palestinians now live in Israel as full citizens.)
  1. And finally there was, for the first time in forty years, the surprise abstention of the United States delivered by Ambassador Samantha Power, followed a few days later by Secretary of State John Kerry’s long speech in support. People can say what they will about this. But to see this administration, which has conceded so much to Iran, offered so little resistance to Russia, and invented, in Syria, the doctrine of a red line that turned out to be red only with the blood of Syrians sacrificed on the altar of a renunciation of power and of law; to see that same administration trying to compensate for all this by speaking up at the last minute against the planet’s black sheep, the scruffy prime minister of Israel — what could be more abject?

I no longer recognized, in this facile effort to regain lost authority on the cheap, the obscure young senator from Illinois whom I met in Boston one day in July 2004: he evoked for me, then, the shared glory — in his eyes, parallel and commensurate glories — of the American civil rights movement and the Jewish people’s new flight from Egypt, as represented by Zionism.

But I sense only too clearly now the early warning signs of a broken humanity, resounding more loudly than ever before with the clash of empires and of competing visions of the world, doomed to suffer the eternal recurrence of injustice and carnage — but in which “the longest hate” once again becomes a shared religion.

Bernard-Henri Lévy — French philosopher, filmmaker, and activist; defender of Israel and of Jewish values — returns to New York on January 11 for a conversation with Charlie Rose at the 92nd Street Y. On the previous day, Random House will publish The Genius of Judaism, an English translation of Lévy’s best-seller, L’Esprit du judaïsme. 

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Paul Caplan

    A lefty is a lefty is a lefty, and and this Bernard-Henri-Levey is no different from millions of other lefties. He has not one original thought in his head, and says nothing that has not been said ten million times before
    Paul Caplan
    author God Versus the Left

  • HolylandIsraelTours

    Bernard Henri Levy – how about exposing the truth to the world?

    Let me make this loud and clear to all ignorant people who have no understanding of international law concerning the ME conflict:

    No UN resolution can override Israel’s existing legal rights and title of sovereignty over any region of the Land of Israel based on the following earlier acts of International Law: The Jan Smuts Resolution of January 30, 1919, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, including the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919, the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine as confirmed on July 24, 1922 and the Franco-British Convention of December 23, 1920, all of which recognized the historical connection of the Jewish People with the Land of Israel.

    The Arabs have already received their lands under the Mandate system. It does not include “Palestine”.

    Return to your history books.

  • Motherofmultiples

    Why does the author describe Netanyahu as scruffy, when his tie is always straight and his collar clean, as far as I can tell? Secondly, why does he wonder why no-one suggests that 1.5 million Jews should live among the Palestinians. Maybe others believe Arafat and Abbas when they say that their future state will be Judenrein.

  • Harry

    The prosaic inferences of utter dismay in your article that this US regime could be so abjectly opposed to little Israel are quite hollow on the back of an opening lauding the very concept of a two state solution. Clearly a two state solution has been an option since San Remo. When Churchill handed over 76% to the Hashemites and now that area as the new state of Jordan is home to the Palestinian arabs, 86% of it is Palestinian arab and declared by King Hussein in 1981 as Palestine. Arab being the operative word and Hashemites are arabs. Then post WWII the embarrassed winners decided to give those lowly jews their promised land but only half or so of the 24% remaining and then the damned arabs attacked with Britain’s help to the arab league and Jordan which secured Samaria and Judea and Old city Jerusalem only to annex it all unilaterally in 1949 with only British and Pakistani recognition . So to open this conversation with an exclamation of support for a two state solution is utter naive stupidity. That anyone would believe that this wicked muslim arab race of animals would ever stop at any attempt to wipe out the jews entirely from their homeland or the world in general is utterly preposterous and extremely naive. Israel exists today because the founders of the modern state were prepared to fight and die because the alternative was to wait for salvation and end up in an oven. We as Jews need to realise that nothing has changed in the past 3,000 or so years. The world at large generally hates our guts. Whether we fight and die or give up all we have, as we have done countless of times over the centuries, we will anyway die at their hands. Therefore, hang the two state solution, we need a Jewish solution one for the Jews. Don’t forget, Arafat’s cousin Sheikh Haj Amin Al Husseini grand mufti of Jerusalem was part of Hitler’s advisory group for the final solution. Lets not fool ourselves that acquiescing to likes of the Obama’s,Kerry’s, Ban Ki Moons or other Nazis like Kurt Waldheim will win us any friends or save us from extinction. PC is done for, it is time to think of what is right for us the Jews, no one else will. If my memory serves me correctly, did the US not abstain in 1947 when there was the vote for the partition? Did the US not intervene in 1973 Yom Kippur war to stop it when the Israelis were winning, they were 103km outside Cairo and they had taken Damascus and could have finished it then? Think about it.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      Well said.

      I would only add a small personal note: I am sick of hearing from “elites” like Monsieur Levy how Obama, who to the less tutored has always been regarded as an obvious anti-Semite – evoked, in Levy’s words “the shared glory — in his eyes, parallel and
      commensurate glories — of the American civil rights movement and the
      Jewish people’s new flight from Egypt, as represented by Zionism.”

      This kind of naivety is not only repugnant, but it has also been profoundly detrimental.

    • imbit

      You are right, Sir. Yet, I think the point M. Lévy makes is much better than most other “experts” in “Middle Eastern affairs”. We should appreciate that. His idea of a two-state solution is not going to be realized anyway, so let him write this, if he either believes it, or he is trying to win over people with an ambivalent attitude towards Israel and the Arabs. But what seems to be missing in almost all discussions about that conflict is the application of the Laws of War. If Russia and Poland took a lot of German land after they defeated the aggressor in 1945, why can Israel not keep lands conquered in a war of self defense? Israel has a solid legal claim to all territories it captured in 1967 and 1973. As for the towns and villages in Judea and Samaria (let alone Jerusalem) most of them are built on land, which before 1948 was OWNED by the parents and grandparents of those who live there now. How that can be “occupied Palestinian land”? Unless all these experts don’t believe laws apply in equal measure to Jews… Which seems to be the root of all this.