Does Trump’s ‘West Bank’ Wording Forewarn of an ‘Obama 2.0’ at the UN?
IF a US president abstains at the UN—even once—Israel can be isolated overnight.
One word makes all the difference: IF.
We’ve lived this already. On December 23, 2016, President Obama refused to veto UNSC Resolution 2334. It passed 14–0 with a US abstention and declared Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and even East Jerusalem “without legal validity.” That wasn’t neutrality; it was abandonment.
I don’t say this as someone predisposed to dislike Obama. I’m a Jew who voted for him twice—regrettably, I admit. Like many, I wanted to believe the rhetoric. But the 2016 abstention empowered a legal and diplomatic campaign to box Israel in. Analysts at Brookings called the move “neither sensible nor productive.” UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer warned it would “encourage rejectionism and undermine negotiations.” They were right.
Today, people are parsing Donald Trump’s latest remarks about the West Bank—Judea and Samaria—and asking whether he might be willing to let a similar resolution through. The danger is clear: Does Trump’s West Bank warning forewarn of an Obama 2.0 at the UN?
The Precedent We Can Prove
- The vote: 2334 passed 14–0 with a US abstention. The text brands all Jewish communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines—including East Jerusalem—as illegal.
“UNSC 2334 was the most serious attack in decades on Israel’s legitimacy.” — John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN
- The eve of the vote: Israeli media reported that Secretary Kerry refused to commit to a veto in a call with Netanyahu the day before. That wasn’t neutrality; it was a choice.
- The legal frame it weaponized:
“The abstention constitutes an unwelcome reversal… likely to entrench PA maximalism.” — Harvard Law Review
Jerusalem Is Not a Bargaining Chip
Some will say: “But Trump recognized Jerusalem.” Correct—and that recognition was both lawful and just. The Jerusalem Embassy Act (1995) and Trump’s Dec 6, 2017 proclamation formally recognized that reality and moved the embassy.
“Recognizing Jerusalem corrected a historic wrong; it did not obligate Israel to surrender anything in return.” — David Friedman, former US Ambassador to Israel
The danger now is treating Jerusalem like a bargaining chip: I gave you this, now give up Judea and Samaria. That is not friendship. It is coercion.
Borders Were Meant to Be Negotiated, Not Dictated
After 1967, the Security Council deliberately chose wording in UNSC 242: “withdrawal from territories occupied,” not “from the territories.”
“Israel is not obliged to withdraw from all the territories it occupied in 1967… the resolution calls for negotiations.” — Eugene Rostow, US Undersecretary of State & drafter of 242
“242 was intended to leave room for secure and recognized boundaries, not to restore indefensible armistice lines.” — Ruth Lapidoth, legal scholar
That principle matters because 2334 tried to foreclose negotiation by pre-judging outcomes.
Reclaiming What Jordan Undid
Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem is not the start of something new — it is the rebalancing of what was undone by Jordan’s illegal conquest in 1948.
During those nineteen years, Jews were expelled, more than fifty synagogues destroyed, cemeteries desecrated, and Jewish prayer forbidden.
“Not a single Jew remained in the Old City under Jordanian rule.” — Sir Martin Gilbert, historian
“Fifty-eight synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were systematically destroyed or desecrated.” — Jewish Virtual Library
Israel’s return in 1967 did not create an “occupation” — it restored what had been violently stripped away.
Why “IF” Matters More in 2025
In 2016, the abstention was damaging. In 2025, it would be devastating. Western governments have begun recognizing “Palestine,” and UN bodies are bolder.
“Resolutions like 2334 don’t bring peace closer — they make Palestinians more rigid and Israelis more defensive.” — Dennis Ross, former US peace envoy
Strip away the American veto, even once, and you don’t just pass a resolution—you re-anchor the diplomatic consensus. Israel’s friends spend years fighting uphill to undo it.
The Moral Core
Jerusalem is our eternal capital, recognized in US law and affirmed by history. Judea and Samaria are not bargaining chips. They are the historic heartland of the Jewish people.
“Jerusalem is above politics. It belongs to the Jewish people and is part of our history.” — Elie Wiesel
A “deal” that says, “We gave you Jerusalem, now give up Judea and Samaria,” is not peace—it’s coerced amputation.
Israel as the Jew Among Nations
What an American abstention really does is more than pass a resolution. It reinforces the pattern of Israel being cast as the Jew among nations. Just as individual Jews were once judged by double standards, denied rights, and accused collectively, the Jewish state is judged today.
At the UN, Israel is treated differently from any other democracy: condemned endlessly, denied legitimacy, and told it must surrender land simply to be tolerated. An abstention doesn’t just abandon Israel in one vote — it continues this long tradition of singling us out.
“Israel is judged guilty before trial, isolated by standards that apply to no other state.” — echoing my earlier framing in “The Jew Among Nations”.
Obama’s abstention in 2016 set that pattern in motion at a new level. Trump’s warning about the “West Bank” risks forewarning a sequel. The difference now is that the stakes are even higher, with the international community already having rushed toward recognition of “Palestine” while 48 hostages are still being held in captivity.
If Israel is again left alone at the UN, the world will not just be passing a resolution. It will be confirming, once more, that Israel remains the Jew among nations.
A Word to Trump—and to Any US President
If you truly support Israel, then veto any one-sided UN text that pre-judges borders, erases Jewish ties, or converts diplomacy into lawfare. Do not repeat Obama’s mistake.
“An abstention is never neutral. It’s a loaded political act.” — Hillel Neuer, UN Watch
If you abstain, you own the consequences of letting the wolves through the gates.
If you veto, you uphold the firewall that stops the UN from rewriting reality — and ensure “Never Again” still means it.
The choice could not be starker.
