The day after the vote, it dawned on me. As I was watching my daughter play with her kindergarten friends during a Hanukkah party, I saw exactly what the Europeans looked like. I witnessed my kid and her friends quickly decide on something, and then change their mind instantly to something opposite – you know, the usual kindergarten peer pressure. It reminded me exactly the European show of “diplomacy” I saw just the day before.

And I got angry. Because it’s not like the conflict started yesterday. It’s not like the upcoming resolution wasn’t heard of until this week.

But no, they were fickle like kindergarten kids. First France, then Spain, and each day up to the vote more and more joined. All in less than a week. Even Germany changed its mind, apparently less than 24 hours before the vote.

People die. Bombs are dropped on families. Rockets are fired on people in balconies. Land is stolen for years. Millions live without basic civic rights.

And all you can do in your posh government offices is say “Hmmmm look, France did it, Spain did, Britain looks a bit shaky… maybe we should switch, too?”

Is this some kind of game?

Do you “enlightened” have no stance whatsoever on the topic of Palestinian independence? Is it the first time you’ve come across it? You change your mind as easily as a child considers going for chocolate ice cream or vanilla. You change your minds based on what your kindergarten European buddy does first, and then follow suit.

These are how decisions are made concerning one of the longest, bloodiest conflicts around?

Peer pressure? In the space of hours?

Supporting Palestine is a good thing. But at least have some backbone when you go for it. Some maturity.

Many have said Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to build 3,000 units outside of Maaleh Adumim as punishment for the Palestinian UN bid is a childish move. I couldn’t agree more.

But it’s not like European leadership is any better.

Celebration in Ramallah over the Palestinian statehood bid, November 29, 2012 (photo: Activestills)

One week ago, the request to the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine status as a non-member observer state looked like a poor stepchild of the highly anticipated first “UN route” just over one year ago. The buildup to September 2011 was long; yet until about a week ago, it wasn’t even clear whether the current vote would really happen.

The 2011 application for UN membership turned into an anticlimax. This year, the dark-horse diplomacy won: 138 member states voted in favor and the emotional echoes of 1947 were hard to ignore.

But, detractors say, the vote cannot change the Palestinians’ main complaints against Israel: settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, division between Gaza and the West Bank, life under military occupation. Therefore it’s “symbolic,” meaning, meaningless. And it’s true that at present, the vote may mean more in people’s minds than in their daily lives. But when did hearts and minds become insignificant? Consider how the lead-up and the vote itself has already resonated for three major actors: Palestinians (leaders and people); Israel; and the international community. Each of those, of course, contains essential sub-communities – this is just a broad-strokes starting point.

International Reaction

Despite anodyne comments like this New York Times editorial, the international community put on a fairly nail-biting drama leading up to the vote. That the U.S. rejected the bid is no surprise; but France’s support was a powerful victory for the Palestinians. Germany’s decision to abstain, when translated from diplo-speak into English, is a critical shift: given historical constraints on defying the Israeli government, this is a clear sign of support for Palestinian statehood. The UK first rejected the idea, then very nearly found a way to say yes, and settled on abstaining – a very weak no.  Spain’s support for the resolution is also major statement, considering that it breaks Spain’s with its own policy of not recognizing Kosovo. Spain has steadfastly resisted recognizing the latter, despite being one of the last five EU holdouts; it has cited unilateralism as the reason, but clearly Spain feared the repercussions on its own separatist tensions. So Spain overcame both unilateralism and separatism (although its support for Palestine actually pre-dates even the 2011 bid).

Actually, on a historic level, the only question about the UN and Palestine is: What took it so long? The lack of recognition has been a glaring gap between rhetoric and practice. The United Nations (and many elements of the international community) has legitimized Palestine officially since 1947, with General Assembly Resolution 181 – the Partition Plan. UN resolution 3236 in 1974 explicitly cited the Palestinian right to self-determination – something the other unrecognized state-seeking entities can only dream of. Prior to today’s vote, Palestine already enjoyed more official recognitions from other states than any other such entity, over 120.

In other words, whether one is personally for or against the Palestinian statehood bid, at least certain international bodies are showing signs of internal consistency. Spain – and of course (conversely) the U.S. and its stalwart support for Kosovo – reminds us that for individual states, ad hoc, case-based policy still trumps logical or rule-governed decision-making.

Palestinian Reaction

Among leaders, the latest conflagration between Hamas and Israel set off a legitimacy-and-achievement competition: Hamas proclaimed its triumph despite civilian casualties, loss of top people, and destruction of its weapons. The PA was clearly itching for a victory. But Abu Mazen and the Fatah leadership need more than just an expedient success. They want to entrench the image of Fatah as an alternative to Hamas, which consistently pursues diplomatic, rather than military, strategy: Hamas plays dirty, we do things the good, acceptable way. Beyond immediate political points, they must show rewards for the whole approach. The audience for this statement is both internal and external: Palestinians, and the international community.

For Hamas and some Palestinians, the fact that the UN vote accepts Palestine based around the 1967 lines, implicitly accepting Israel, is a compromise. On Wednesday one Palestinian university student at a conference angrily insisted that “most Palestinians do not support the PLO [sic] in this UN vote!”

Interestingly, though, Hamas itself was conflicted: Political leader-in-exile Khaled Mashaal didn’t, then did, then confirmed that he supports the move. Gaza’s Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh reportedly denied it, then accepted it. That certainly throws Hamas’ major backer, Iran, for a loop – having totally rejected the idea over one year ago (Iran did in fact vote yes). But perhaps even hard-line Palestinians are reconsidering the wisdom of 1947-style rejectionism, or at least the wisdom of showing a fractured front. There have been renewed hints of unity efforts between Hamas and Fatah following the war, even talk of elections – and maybe Hamas doesn’t want to be seen as the spoiler by any party.

Israel’s Reaction

It is mildly interesting that Israel briefly worked with the U.S. to “soften” the resolution.  Israel does seem grudgingly prepared to refrain from severe economic or political punishment, but the vote continues to be portrayed as a blunt anti-Israel instrument. At first, just a few voices mainly from the Meretz camp called to recognize Palestinian statehood as a pro-Israeli position. And yet, on Thursday, Haaretz reported that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (a former Likudnik) views the vote as a positive foundation for a two-state solution; that could shift perceptions among the center-camp.

But mainly, the papers report, Israel is just trying to do “damage control,” whatever that means.

Here’s what it will NOT mean: any rollback or restraint on further settlement construction, any openness towards greater de facto Palestinian control in the West Bank; any softening of the increasingly entrenched separation between Palestinian and Israeli populations in the West Bank, who live under different infrastructures, under separate and unequal systems of law. Instead Israel is digging in: Haaretz reports  (Hebrew) that the government is planning to adopt the “Levy Report” (which concluded that Israel’s control over the WB is not an “occupation”), pave the way for further settlement construction and look to legalize existing settlements.

A brief historical glimpse does show declining panic: in the 1999 Israeli election campaign, the Likud made television ads showing a scary, shaky hand (supposed to be Arafat) counting down the days until Palestine would declare a state. It was intended to evoke nightmares. In 2011, Israel was much more outspoken against – read, worried – about the UN bid than today. Now, there’s “resignation.” Fear seems to be diluted. But I do not believe this is because Israeli elites have come to accept the idea.

Rather, as many Palestinians fear, I believe it reflects the current Israeli government’s overall plan to dissolve any remaining physical and conceptual basis for a Palestinian state. This is the best and perhaps only explanation for the government’s lengthy delegitimization of the Fatah leadership, the relentless and explicit policy of separation of Gaza and the West Bank, which is physical and, the government probably hopes, conceptual. The “Israel-Gaza” war was a good way to try and change perceptions (it was a conflict with Gaza, not the Palestinians), and get Egypt to take some responsibility for Gaza. The shifting frame became a new manifestation of the idea that “Palestine” can be broken up like crackers in soup: Gaza is Egypt’s charge, and only small enclaves of autonomy in the West Bank remain, circumscribed by Israeli military law. Notably, on the very same day as the vote, the president of the military court in the West Bank called to impose Israeli law over the whole West Bank – one small bite into the separation problem, and a giant leap towards an Israeli-dominated one-state reality.

Israel probably now hopes that following the war, the notion of “Palestine” has no real meaning on the ground. In calling the UN vote “diplomatic theater,” it certainly hopes that the vote will be “merely” symbolic. History may have other things in mind.

By Amer Zahr

This week, Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech in front of the General Assembly of the United Nations. As a Palestinian, I tuned in. It’s my duty. Plus, I say the guy’s name at least 3-4 times a day (I won’t tell you how), so the least I could do was to listen to his speech.

He started innocently enough, referring to how Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, their deep history, and their innovation. No problem. He called Jerusalem Israel’s “eternal capital.” Whatever. He said the Jewish people will “never be uprooted again.” Fine. “We restored our independence,” he said. Well, Israel wanting to “restore” its independence from 3,000 years ago is kind of like Barack Obama saying he’d like to “restore” the “hope” from four years ago. Some things happened along the way that complicated the matter a little.

But I always knew that Benjamin Netanyahu was a proud Israeli who used history to make political points.  Nothing surprising here.

Then Bibi began to describe the current war between the “modern and the medieval.” He told us that modernity “seeks a bright future in which the rights of all are protected,” while medievalism seeks to “suppress knowledge” and “glorify death.”  He spoke of Israeli inventions and praised Israeli innovation. I will note, as my dad constantly reminded me, that the medieval Islamic world did invent algebra, chemistry, universities, chess, shampoo, surgery, numbers, and coffee. Yes, Starbucks is entirely our fault. Oh, and we invented flying carpets, so take that!

Of course, according to him, the war between modernity and medievalism is most “stark” in the Middle East, and Israel is, of course, on the side of modernity. Translation: Jews, good… Arabs, Muslims, bad.

I always knew Bibi didn’t like Arabs and Muslims. It’s actually a job requirement for Israeli prime minister. So nothing shocking here.

Netanyahu then delved into the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. In order to solve the conflict, he told us all parties should avoid “libelous speeches” and “unilateral declarations.” But he called us a “demographic threat.” That’s pretty defamatory, mister. Israel “unilaterally” pulled out of Gaza and blockaded it. It “unilaterally” built more settlements and “unilaterally” united Jerusalem. It even “unilaterally” declared hummus the Israeli national snack! I don’t remember any negotiations about that.

He also said, “We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.”  It kind of sounds like he’s already decided the outcome of the “mutual compromise.” And why did he say it’s the “one and only” Jewish state? Is New York City trying to make a claim?

But I always knew Bibi held monumental double standards when it came to Palestinians and Israelis, so none of that stuff startled me.

But he couldn’t stop talking about those backward Muslims. He told us that “the medieval forces of radical Islam” want to “end the modern world,” namely Israel, Europe, and America. Perhaps he doesn’t know that those Arabs and Muslims hold a party whenever they get a visa to the United States. And if they get a green card, they set off fireworks. Maybe he thinks they’re just having one last big strategy session before they set sail, getting one last lesson on explosives.

He compared radical Islam to the Nazis. Now that’s just unfair. Muslims don’t have any kind of universal hand gestures, unless you count that circular hand motion they make when they’re fighting about who should go through the door first.

Then he started talking about nuclear weapons and Iran. “To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda.” Really? Al Qaeda?  We’re supposed to believe the group that conducts military exercises on a playground could build a nuclear weapon? They can’t even run a good boot camp.

And let’s be real. Al Qaeda is not doing that well. Every week CNN tells me, “Today, a military strike killed Al Qaeda’s number two man.” There’s really no job security in that organization.

He spoke of how close Iran is to producing a nuclear bomb, and how the world must act now to stop them. Then he claimed to know how close Iran is to achieving its goal of world destruction.

Then Bibi said, “I brought a diagram.” Now this is new. Israelis are not known for diagrams.  They usually hate maps and annoying things like borders. This was totally new for me. I started to get interested.

Now I always thought Netanyahu was a little imbalanced, but I didn’t think he was completely insane until he held up a drawing of circle with a squiggly black line coming out of it and said, “This is a bomb, this is a fuse.” I felt like I was watching an episode of “The Road Runner.” But I have to call Bibi out on this lie as well. I’m an Arab, and I can tell you with some authority, that is not what a bomb looks like.

Now, Bibi knows exactly what a bomb looks like. And he knows what a nuclear bomb looks like too. It is estimated that Israel could have up to 400 nuclear bombs in its arsenal. But the “only democracy in the Middle East” has a policy of “opacity” when it comes to its nuclear program. In other words, no one gets to know anything about Israel’s nuclear program, but everyone has to know everything about Iran’s.

Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  And in case anyone was wondering, every state in the “modern” world has signed it. In fact, almost every “medieval” Islamic nation has signed it too.

I have an important piece of paper I’d like to show the prime minster of Israel. And there’s something I need to tell him about it:

“This is a treaty, this is where you sign it.”

The author is a Palestinian-American residing in Dearborn, Michigan.  He is a comedian and graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.

Related:
Bibi and the bomb: Buffoonery or clever tactics at the UN?
Bibi’s ACME bomb at UNGA inspires Israeli meme artists
Why I hate those Bibi memes

Beware: Your Prime Minister is now being ironic (Photo: Avi Ochayon, Government Press Office)

On Thursday night, Ami Kaufman posted on this site a collection of memes dealing with the Looney Toons bomb Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used during his UN speech. Posted before any other local or international news source, it was one of the most successful items our site ever had (over 3,000 likes and counting). But did these memes aid the public debate, or truly criticize Netanyahu? I am not so sure.

Memes are part of a culture of irony, which has become the dominant approach to politics in certain circles – especially certain liberal circles. In the past, we used to lack irony in politics. People treated their leaders with too much respect, or took them too seriously. Now, it seems that we don’t take our leaders seriously enough.

Netanyahu’s UN speech is a good example: its topic was the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and perhaps even a nuclear war. There probably isn’t a more “serious” problem today. You need not agree with Netanyahu’s politics in order to acknowledge the gravity of the issue at hand; if you believe Iran poses an immediate existential threat to millions of Israelis, you must be anxious and tense as you watch this speech. If you feel – like me – that Netanyahu is creating an unnecessary escalation that could draw the entire region into war, and that his true aim is to divert attention from inner problems and the Palestinian issue, than the prime minister’s rhetoric can make you angry or sad.

Israelis watching this speech could feel either that their fate is in the right hands, or that a madman has taken over the throne. Their reaction to the speech could be hopeful or sad, admiring or upset – each of those reactions make sense. Each reaction, except for the sort of self-satisfied giggles that memes produce – the kind which seem to dominate the responses in the Left following Netanyahu’s speech. The aforementioned feelings could lead to political action. Giggling, like one would over pictures of babies and cats, can only generate “likes.”

In the past few months, I have been troubled by the prospect of war (“terrified” would be a more appropriate term) to the point of actually planning the evacuation of my family from Tel Aviv, in the event something does happen. I remember the missiles falling on Tel Aviv in 1991, and the thought of going through this with a child can literally keep us awake at night. Memes offer relief. They generate a feeling that “things are not that bad.” After all, we are only dealing with Road Runner bombs here.

I guess that this is a reason for the success of the ironic approach. Throughout history, irony has been a tool that has helped people deal with tragedies. But there is an important difference here: the Bibi memes do not deal with a past catastrophe but with a future one. Tragedy is a literary genre in which disaster is inevitable, while politics are about changing the future.

For me, memes represent desperation – a feeling that a catastrophe is around the corner and we cannot do anything about it. This is probably the worst approach to politics; the opposite of the existentialist notion that even when there is truly no hope, we should act as if there is one. And to be sure, I don’t think we are at a hopeless moment in history, not even in Israeli or Palestinian history.

My favorite Bibi-UNGA meme: The picture itself is funny, but also flatters my taste in cinema (Shira Glezerman)

On top of everything, those memes obviously help Netanyahu (not unlike the way Jon Stewart is helping Michele Bachmann). They serve as an echo chamber for the prime minister’s talking points. Take another look at those memes and you will find that some of them actually compliment Netanyahu.

Let’s think about it this way: if Netanyahu had a group of cartoonists sit in a room after his speech and asked them to produce highly viral content, I guess they could have come up with some of the same results as the leftists on my Facebook feed did. We feel those memes are critical because we place them in a critical context to begin with. Yet more often than not, they make everything seem playful and harmless; at other times, they increase the celebrity status of Netanyahu while avoiding a meaningful challenge to his politics.

Watch for example the “28 standing ovations” remix we posted here following Netanyahu’s speech in front of a joint session of Congress. At the time, it looked satirical. Now try to imagine this was a clip produced by the Prime Minister’s Office. Could it still make sense? I certainly think so.

It seems that sophisticated leaders like Netanyahu are by now well aware of the ironic approach to politics and are using it to their benefit.

On Thursday, as Netanyahu was preparing for “the speech of his life” (“his eighth,” noted a commentator on Israeli television), proxies to the prime minister hinted that the speech would contain a certain “surprise.” In the past, this kind of leak was meant to signal a political news item, perhaps a declaration of a new policy. But this surprise turned out to be a cartoon bomb. (Actually, the prime minister office couldn’t have been more literary, given the fact that most cartoon surprise “packages” contain bombs.)

Cartoons instead of policy – Netanyahu didn’t offer one idea or initiative since he agreed to utter the words “Palestinian state” somewhere in 2009. All he gave us were PR surprises, yet for the world media this is more than enough. The Israeli prime minister made the front page picture of all of America’s most serious papers on the day following his UN speech. I believe that the many editors who placed this front page picture found the cartoon bomb to be ridiculous and childish, but nevertheless, played along with the trick. (I remember similar dynamics in the media desks I have worked on.) As it is often the case with “progressives,” the ironic enjoyment of the moment overcame the editors’ political and professional judgment, to a point where playing along with the gimmick becomes the professional thing to do.

Even The New Yorker had its own highbrow version of the Bibi meme industry. Like others, the magazine’s editors preferred the performance to the content of Netanyahu’s speech. If Netanyahu was indeed trying to divert attention from the Palestinian issue, his worst critics were the first to play along. The ironic zeitgeist allowed for this.

At this point, it is clear that the brilliance of Netanyahu’s move was that the bomb was so lame. If he was quoting reports and scientific data on an actual nuclear bomb, or showing a proper diagram, he would not have gotten the same effect. In the end, the joke was on us.

Political powers, it is worth remembering, are never ironic. An amused approach to politics helps drive attention away from the true meaning or consequences of their actions.

In fact, Iran inspired Netanyahu to draw a diagram so that his simple-minded audience would understand how close that state was to developing a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu uses a sophisticated diagram to explain how close Iran is to developing a nuclear bomb (photo: screenshot)

A few people commented that it looked as though it were drawn by Acme Cartoons and that it should have had the word BOOM!! drawn across it in red letters.

Netanyahu followed up by taking out a red marker and drawing a thick line at the 90 percent line – i.e., *this* was where the red line had to be drawn. Or else!

Bibi and the red line (photo: screenshot)

But even as people jeered on Twitter at the cartoonish diagram, Buzzfeed’s Zeke Miller suggested that Bibi’s buffoonery might have disguised a clever tactic. Who, now, remembers the speech Mahmoud Abbas gave less than one hour earlier?

A lot of people thought it was premature. They thought it would either never reach the UN to begin with, or that it was not a significant event anyway – it would just be like the declaration in 1988. A lackluster event.

I’m glad I trusted my instincts and stuck with it. It reached the UN, all right. And it’s certainly not going to be lackluster – despite not knowing for sure yet what the repercussions might be.

But more importantly, I have to accept my defeat. The campaign failed. In the upcoming days, America and Israel will shame themselves in ways that will send shivers down the spines of many. It’s going to be hard to watch.

President Barack Obama, together with his angry-little-chihuahua-who-for-some-reason-thinks-he’s-a-great-dane, Benjamin Netanyahu, will in fact bring the two-state-solution to an end this week.

Obama, despite the fact that he supports a Palestinian state, and despite the fact that his country believes settlements are illegal, will veto the Palestinian bid if he already doesn’t have enough UNSC members on his side to oppose the vote and spare him some extra embarrassment (as if his whole Mideast policy isn’t an embarrassment to begin with).

And what cracks me up is that AIPAC, the people who hold U.S. presidents in a vice term after term, actually think they’re saving Israel when they’re doing exactly the opposite.

And Bibi? Ah, Bibi will do what he does best: Nothing. Nothing but talk.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m happy Bibi decided to speak at the UN on Friday. I’m glad that he will be there, probably just as Shabbat is entering in Israel, to take responsibility for the end of Zionism. This Friday, during that speech, without even knowing the exact words he’ll use, Bibi will give the final push that forces Israelis and Palestinians into a one-state solution – whether they like it or not.

We’ll have to give up on a lot of stuff. The flag, the Tikva, probably the supremacy (darn, I was so used to being favored for decades) and maybe just a few more “things”.

But at least we’ll know who to blame, and when. Bibi, September 23, 2011. Erev Shabbat.

Many homes in Israel will be saying Kiddush at that time. But I just might take out my prayer book and say Kaddish. On Zionism.

Oh well. I gave it a shot, right?

The summer will be spent largely aligning pieces for the big September showdown at the UN. Luckily for the Palestinians and supporters of Palestinian statehood, the Israel effort to stop the General Assembly will be spearheaded by Ron Prosor. For those of you who haven’t had the guilty pleasure of following Prosor’s tenure as Israel’s ambassador to the UK, today’s Haaretz interview is a good opportunity to make an acquaintance.

The good thing about  civil servants like Prosor is that they so fiercely loyal they rarely take the time to step back and take a critical look at the contradictions assailing their side of any conflict. Instead, they simply plough on through everything they’ve heard said in briefings and consultations. The result is a little like accidentally tuning into the radio communications of an army on the run. (Note that I’m using the Hebrew original of the interview, not the corrected and somewhat polished English translation).

Did you hear the word “September” a lot today?

“I don’t have to hear it from others – from our perspective, September now stands in the middle of our mission’s work. It’s really my first day here, with going around the UN, the first meetings, and basically, the unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state is quite a challenge. But I believe that the chance of this act succeeding very small – it will only push things back and not forward.”

Either you believe September is the main thing going right now, and is “quite a challenge”, or you think it’s chances of succeeding are very small. You can’t put up a brave and a terrified face at the same time, it’ll make people think you’re panicking – which surely cannot be the case.

Isn’t there an automatic majority against Israel?

“The fact that there is an automatic majority is a matter of math – you don’t need a PhD in math for this. One can see it at the Human Rights Council and other forums. But there is still what I call the moral minority of countries, and I believe that with the right work, we can convince them in favor of something that can be useful.”

This teaches us two things: One, that Israel has finally come to terms with its looming defeat at the UN and is now trying hard to rebrand the handful of countries that will vote to support its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories and procrastinating “negotiations” as the “moral minority.” Well, that’s very nice, but in macro politics of this kind the only thing that matters is that you are in a minority. It can be a moral minority, amoral minority, pineapple-lemongrass-and-lime minority or a minority in a chequered suit with a cane and a bow-tie that makes for more than a passing resemblance to a disoriented Fred Astaire; it’s still a minority, and you’re still losing the crucial vote. Two, this shows us Israel appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with that minority other than to moralise: Why do you working so hard to secure that moral minority? “To convince them in favor of something that can be useful.” Like what? Weeding the garden? Buying a long-term stock of Tupperware?

There are other gems in the interview – like Prosor candidly stating that “the processes of delegitimization and demonization are our top priority”, without specifying who’s demonising and deligitimizing whom. But here is the crucial bit, as far as I’m concerned:

We’ve heard already terms such as “diplomatic tsunami” from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Do you see the situation in such dramatic terms?

“It’s the matter of character. There is certainly an attempt to change the rules of the game. “

I myself have a very resigned view on September – in terms of actual changes on the ground, it will not end the occupation, will not bring about a two-state solution, and might – might – spark a new round of violence (although chances for that now appear to be smaller than they did a few months ago). But there’s one thing I have to hand it to the September camp. If the Israeli defeat at the UN is spoken about as if it’s already happen, if the US declines to act forcefully in any way to prevent it (it might veto, which won’t change that much – the vote is all about a show of solidarity, and the US veto will not cancel out the image of most of the world supporting a Palestinian state); if Israel is now reduced to going around begging to fourth-size players like Bolgaria and to rebranding its own defeat as “moral” – then this is certainly no longer “an attempt to change the rules of the game.” It’s a successful turning of the tables that already happened. The rules of the game for Israel on the diplomatic and public diplomacy arena have already changed, and September will merely make it official.