Since the U.S. election, we have witnessed another mini-war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza; the upgrading of the status of the Palestinians to a non-member state at the United Nations General Assembly; and most recently a series of retaliatory moves by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These included a decision to build thousands of housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and holding back some tax receipts that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

Some of Israel’s supporters in the U.S. Senate tried to weigh in this week with a draft resolution that punishes the Palestinians by closing their office in Washington, D.C. The draft was one of 20 amendments submitted to the Defense Authorization Act of 2012– but it was mysteriously withdrawn on Wednesday before coming to a vote.

Hamas, which emerged from the most recent confrontation battered, but with its political prestige boosted across the Arab world, is still committed to Israel’s destruction. Listed by the United States as a terrorist organization, it is not considered a partner for negotiation. However, absent the Palestinian mission in Washington, the United States would have no official Palestinian partner for its diplomacy efforts.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that the amendment might have been dropped when it became clear that it would garner disproportionate Republican support and thus embarrass its Democratic backers. It also may have failed because the Obama administration lobbied against it. The administration considers the conduct of foreign policy, including which foreign missions are allowed to operate in Washington, its business and not that of Congress. Nonetheless, in an extremely rare example of a U.S. lawmaker publicly criticizing Israel, California Senator Diane Feinstein was quoted by Congressional Quarterly as criticizing Israel for undermining peace. It seems clear from Feinstein’s comment that some Democrats were angered by Netanyahu’s action.

Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is Israel’s partner for peace – as acknowledged repeatedly by Netanyahu. If the amendment in Congress was a genuine reflection of feelings toward Palestinian representation in the U.S., that undercuts Obama’s efforts to negotiate a solution that prevents further conflict.

The most serious recent move was the Netanyahu government’s decision to build a huge new settlement in a tract of land in the West Bank known as E1. The strategic significance of this area is huge. The construction would cut off the north of the West Bank from the south, meaning that any future Palestinian state would not rule a contiguous territory but would be reduced to a series of cantons separated by massive Jewish settlement blocks.

A peace settlement would require the recognition if a contiguous Palestinian state with the E1 zone as its north-south corridor. Netanyahu’s E1 move is nothing less than a dagger aimed at the heart of the two-state solution.

Faced with this, the Obama administration’s tepid response has been indicative only of his unpreparedness to act. While Britain, France and a growing list of other nations summoned the Israeli ambassadors in their capital to hear tough messages of grave concern and intense displeasure, State Department spokesman Mark Toner merely reiterated “our longstanding opposition to Israeli settlement activity” and urged Israel to “reconsider its actions and exercise restraint.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a forum last week that Netanyahu’s decision “set back the cause of a negotiated peace,” but the outgoing secretary seems disinclined to become more involved. She won plaudits last month for helping to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but she seems to have little appetite for more substantive work in the closing weeks of her tenure. The last thing Clinton, who is mulling a possible 2016 presidential bid, may want is to bump heads with Israel.

With Obama handling the fiscal cliff negotiations, Clinton effectively out of the game and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, her possible successor, hamstrung with her own political troubles, it seems that no one high up in the administration is minding the Israel-Palestine account.

Officials are no doubt working quietly through diplomatic channels to persuade Netanyahu to back down from his E1 decision. But this may not be enough.

The Israeli leader is in the thick of an election campaign during which his Likud Party has shifted sharply to the right. In internal party primaries that determined the party’s slate for the Jan. 22 election, well-known moderates such as Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor and Benny Begin were effectively shunted aside while right-wingers who back more settlement activity and oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state took top positions.

In the weeks remaining before the election, Netanyahu is liable to take even more extreme steps to shore up his position. Defying the international community has always played well with the Israeli electorate, large portions of which feel victimized by the rest of the world.

But criticism from the United States is different. While Israeli politicians may be able to dismiss criticism from European nations and even from close friends like Australia, they cannot do so when the censure comes from Washington.

Israeli politicians and the Israeli public have always understood the degree of their dependence on the United States. Without U.S. diplomatic backing, Israel would be almost entirely isolated in the world. Without deep U.S. military, scientific and financial involvement, Israel would struggle to maintain its prized technological edge over its enemies.

Obama may have wished to wait until after his inauguration to get tough with Israel – but he may not have that luxury.

PHOTO: U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, March 5, 2012. REUTERS/Jason Reed

The international media is awash with speculation that some kind of agreement is in the offing between the six nations that make up the so-called P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) and the Iranians.

Such a deal, we read, would require Iran to stop enriching uranium above 5 percent and ship its stockpile of 20-percent-enriched uranium (currently estimated at more than 100 kilograms) out of the country. Enrichment at the reinforced underground facility in Fordo, near Qom, would have to stop.

This is a key demand. It is clear from the size of the site that it has a military purpose: It can hold only 3,000 centrifuges – far fewer than the number needed for industrial-scale fuel production, but ideal for quick production of 90-percent-weapons-grade-enriched uranium.

In return, the international community would agree not to impose further economic sanctions, though current measures would remain in place. Additionally, the six powers would agree to help the Iranians fuel a small reactor for medical purposes and send them fuel rods for a civilian research reactor.

No one knows if the Iranian leadership will agree to such a package. But their past record leaves little room for confidence, and many analysts believe the Iranians are engaged in this process in an effort to buy yet more time so that they can continue enriching uranium and move even closer to a nuclear weapon.

Although not part of the P5+1, no country has more at stake in these talks than Israel, which remains the most likely target of a nuclear-armed Iran. Just this past weekend, the chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, told a defense gathering in Tehran that the Iranian nation remained committed to the “full annihilation of the Zionist regime of Israel to the end.”

It is worth remembering that the requirement that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment is not an Israeli demand. In fact, it has been enshrined in a series of resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council starting with Resolution 1696 passed in July 2006. This and subsequent resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, making them legally binding on Iran.

Tehran continues to maintain that its program is purely civilian and peaceful – but such protestations can have no credibility in light of the Iranian record. Much of what we know about their nuclear program was disclosed by dissident groups or by Western intelligence after the Iranians tried their best to conceal the information from the world.

For example, the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was revealed in 2002 by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a dissident group. In September 2009, Western governments disclosed the existence of a second underground enrichment facility near Qom.

Now we have the controversy surrounding the high-explosives weapons-testing site at Parchin. The International Atomic Energy Agency has asked repeatedly to visit the site, which it suspects is used for high-explosives tests related to nuclear weapons development – but its requests have been refused. At the same time, satellite imagery suggests that the Iranians may be trying to clean up the site, removing signs of suspicious nuclear-related activity.

It is unclear what Iran’s motivations are in agreeing to this latest set of talks. Possibly, the sanctions are biting so hard that the Iranian leadership is finally looking for a way out of the crisis. But if the past teaches us anything, it is that Iran’s leaders are deeply committed to the goal of developing nuclear arms and have been steadfastly working toward that goal for decades.

It is incumbent on the P5+1 to approach these talks with deep suspicion. Any deal they accept has to have real teeth and real verification procedures. Such a deal should in no way walk back from resolutions adopted by the Security Council. And international sanctions should remain tightly in place until it is clear beyond all shadow of a doubt that Iran is complying.

PHOTO: After his trip to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano briefs the media upon his arrival at the international airport in Vienna, May 22, 2012. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

On Monday, unless the Palestinians can be persuaded to back down, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) will vote to accept Palestine as a full member state, triggering an automatic cutoff of U.S. funding and wreaking havoc with many of the agency’s programs.

Under legislation adopted by Congress over 15 years ago, the United States is mandated to withdraw from any U.N. agency that accepts Palestine as a full member state in the absence of a peace treaty with Israel.

The U.S.’s withdrawal means that it would no longer fund about 22 percent of the UNESCO budget – around $70 million a year. According to the website of the U.S. mission to UNESCO, some of the programs it funds that presumably will be affected include:

• Systems to provide early warning on tsunamis including special coastal hazards affecting Haiti.
• The study of earthquake threats in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Turkey, which was hit by a major deadly quake last weekend.
• Literacy training throughout the world.
• Vocational schools in Afghanistan.
• General support for World Heritage sites, including the Borobudur Buddhist Temple in Indonesia.
• Programs to study and preserve the health of the world’s oceans … And the list goes on.

A senior U.S. official says Washington has mounted a massive diplomatic effort to try to get friendly countries to put pressure on the Palestinians not to move forward with a vote. This official says there is widespread international dismay at the prospect of the United States being forced to pull out of an agency that does so much valuable work around the world.

“Within a few short months, without discussion at the White House or debate in Congress, the U.S. could find itself shut out of a great many international decisions that have a direct impact on American jobs, lives, safety and security,” former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, now President of the United Nations Foundation, wrote in the Los Angeles Times this week.

“The Obama administration and U.S. allies are scrambling to put together a diplomatic solution, at least in the short term. But in the long run, Congress must also take a fresh look at a law that could literally force the U.S. off the international stage,” Wirth wrote.

So far, the Palestinians have refused to step down despite the harm that their membership will cause to many nations entirely unconnected with the conflict in the Middle East. Sources close to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas say he is desperate to show his people some tangible success following last week’s prisoner exchange with Israel which boosted the prestige of his Hamas rivals at his expense.

Sadly, a majority of the agency’s 193 member states, whatever their private views, are unwilling to go against the Palestinian bid should it come to a vote. No one wants to vote publicly against a Palestinian state, which these countries are on record as supporting. Quite a few nations (mostly European) probably will abstain but abstentions don’t count — only yes and no votes are counted. The Palestinians would need a two thirds majority of those present and voting to win membership, and there are enough Islamic and “non-aligned” states to deliver that majority.

This is one of those situations where everyone will lose – and yet no one seems to have the will to avert disaster.

In a letter to the Washington Post UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova wrote:

UNESCO supports many causes in line with U.S. security interests. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we are helping governments and communities prepare for life after the withdrawal of U.S. military forces. We are bolstering the literacy of the Afghan National Police and are leading the country’s largest education program, reaching some 600,000 learners in 18 provinces. We work with the United States to advance democratic freedoms. Mandated to promote freedom of expression, UNESCO stands up for every journalist attacked or killed across the world. In Tunisia and Egypt, we are leading education reform and training journalists. We target the causes of violent extremism by training teachers in human rights and Holocaust remembrance.

This would not be the first time the United States withdrew from UNESCO but it would be the first non-voluntary withdrawal. Responding to a perceived anti-Western bias, the United States withheld its contributions and withdrew from the organization in 1984 and did not rejoin until 2003 when it reached the conclusion that the organization was working positively to address important issues.

Why are the Palestinians so anxious to join UNESCO? Apart from their perception that such international acceptance will boost their claim for statehood, they can use the membership in all kinds of ways to cause problems for Israel. By adhering to the World Heritage Convention, to give one example, they could seek to have Bethlehem declared a Palestinian heritage site along borders that they would define. Other sites that could be so defined include the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus, which was looted and razed by Palestinians in 2000 shortly after Israel handed over control of the site to the Palestinian Authority.

UNESCO would be the start of such processes. The Palestinians will almost certainly go from agency to agency seeking membership – the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, the International Criminal Court and even the International Atomic Energy Agency. The latter one truly represents the nightmare scenario for Washington, which could conceivably find itself effectively forced by the same legislation to pull out of the very agency that is taking the lead in monitoring Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program.

The Palestinian statehood issue has now gone way beyond the realm of public relations. It literally threatens U.S. engagement in the world through the United Nations. Millions will suffer – in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.

If this happens, everyone should know who is responsible for it. The Palestinian President could choose not to proceed to a vote right now and that would avert the issue. If he decides to go forward, he does so knowing the consequences.

Alan Elsner is Executive Director for the Americas of The Israel Project, a privately-funded educational group based in Washington DC.

Photo: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (R) gestures during a meeting of the Fatah Revolutionary Council in the West Bank city of Ramallah October 26, 2011. The Palestinians will seek a vote on their bid for full membership of UNESCO next week, Foreign Minister Riyal al-Malki said on Wednesday, despite what he called U.S. threats to pull funding from the U.N. cultural agency. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas seems firmly embarked on an attempt to win recognition of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations General Assembly this September but his strategy will only further delay real independence for his people.

Abbas himself outlined his strategy in an oped in The New York Times on May 16, which made it clear that achieving a state through negotiations with Israel was not his immediate aim. Instead, he intends to try to mobilize the international community to impose a peace on Palestinian terms by hounding Israel in every international forum — to isolate and weaken the Jewish state so it will be forced to settle.

“Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice,” Abbas wrote.

A week of intense Middle East activity in Washington, highlighted by major addresses by U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to change the equation. Palestinian leaders reaffirmed their determination to move ahead with their plan.

There are two major problems with this strategy: first, resolutions at the General Assembly are not binding and have no force in international law. Palestine cannot be admitted as a full member of the U.N. without Security Council approval and the United States is virtually certain to exercise its veto if necessary to prevent this from happening.

Second, as a strong democracy with a formidable military and an economy that would be the envy of many in Europe, Israelis are not about to bow to international pressure. Even countries like China and India, which will probably cast their ritual, symbolic votes with the Palestinians in September, are unlikely to do anything that would endanger their burgeoning bilateral trade relationships with Israel. Israel-China trade was $6.7 billion in 2010 while Israel’s trade with India, excluding military exports, was around $5 billion last year and is forecast to triple in the next decade with the signing of a free trade agreement.

Of course, as usual, Palestinians will try to take advantage of a symbolic victory in the General Assembly by passing anti-Israel resolutions in other international organizations. Israel has been singled out and persecuted in such bodies for decades without any effect on its determination to defend itself. The Israeli people have withstood wars, intifadas, countless terrorist incursions and suicide attacks as well as boycotts and delegitimization campaigns — none have weakened their determination to endure.

Abbas was quick to dismiss Netanyahu’s speech but in fact there were several important concessions contained within it that might have provided a basis for a resumption of negotiations. The Israeli leader said openly for the first time that some Israeli settlements on the West Bank would have to be evacuated; he also reiterated his commitment to substantial territorial concessions so that Palestinians could build a viable and prosperous state.

“They (the Palestinians) should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish,” Netanyahu said.

Since the beginning of the peace process, the international community has always assumed that the only way to end this conflict would be through a negotiated solution acceptable to both sides. Every single step forward, from the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty to the Oslo Accords of 1993, was achieved through negotiations. Never has one party succeeded in imposing its will on the other.

By going the U.N. route, Abbas is leading his people down a blind alley. He is squandering precious time and energy on a strategy that will lead nowhere. For the sake of the Palestinians, he should return to the negotiations without delay.

Alan Elsner is the senior director of communications for The Israel Project.

Photo: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is seen during his meeting with Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (unseen) in the West Bank city of Ramallah May 19, 2011. REUTERS/Mohamad Torokman

Interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,” show, Gibbs said: “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he’s likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed.”

Gibbs did not confirm reports that the Obama administration has begun looking for places other than the heart of New York City to prosecute self-professed mastermind Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in the face of fierce criticism tied to security and costs.

“We are talking with the authorities in New York. We understand their logistical concerns,” Gibbs said. “We will work with them and come to a solution that we think will bring about justice.”

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” senior White House adviser David Axelrod said President Barack Obama still wanted Mohammed and the other September 11 defendants to be tried in the U.S. justice system.

“The president believes we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying. But he also believes this: He believes that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice, swift and sure, in the American justice system.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decided in November the trials would be held in New York, where the federal courthouse is connected to a fortified detention center with a tunnel.

But U.S. officials said last week Holder has begun considering other venues.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, also on CNN, said the accused plotters should be tried by a military commission, preferably at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He said Republicans would deny the administration the funding to mount a trial in New York and predicted that many Democrats would join them.

“Interrogate them, detain them and try them in a military commission offshore at Guantanamo,” McConnell said.

Obama promised to close the Guantanamo prison, which became a focus of anti-American feeling worldwide, within a year of taking office, a pledge he failed to meet. The administration now plans to transfer some of its remaining 192 prisoners to a state prison it hopes to acquire in Illinois.

The decision to reconsider the location of the Mohammed trial came as Obama faced increased political pressure to refocus his agenda. Obama has been trying to push through a health care reform initiative and reduce high unemployment.

LOOKING OUTSIDE NYC

Last week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his support for holding the trials in Manhattan.

“I can tell you I would prefer if it was done elsewhere. I think some of the suggestions make sense, like a military base, because it’s far away from people and you can provide security easily,” Bloomberg said.

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana told “Fox News Sunday” it would be hard to justify having the trials in New York because of the cost alone.

“I think this is one of those things that sounded good in theory, but in practice doesn’t work so well,” he said.

In addition to security concerns, some lawmakers — as well as some relatives of the almost 3,000 people who were killed in the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington — have said the defendants could use the criminal courts as soapboxes to propagate their anti-American beliefs and turn the trials into a media circus.

In one previous trial connected to the hijacked plane attacks, Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison in 2006 after being convicted of conspiracy. The trial was in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)