„But the most dangerous consequence of this resolution is that it makes peace much more difficult to achieve because it sends a false message to the Palestinians that they can achieve a state through the United Nations rather than through direct negotiations with Israel.
The Palestinian leadership has refused to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s offer to negotiate without preconditions, and this refusal has now been rewarded. The resolution neglects to mention that Israel offered the Palestinians a state, an end to the occupation and settlements, and peace in 2000 – 2001 as well as in 2008, but the Palestinian leadership did not accept either of these offers. They will continue in this rejectionist mode, fortified by this one sided resolution. Why then did President Obama, in his parting days, tie the hands of his successor? He was certainly not reflecting the will of the people or of congress. Both the Senate and the House are strongly opposed to this resolution, as are many people within the Obama administration. (…)
President Obama would never have allowed it to go forward before the recent presidential election, but now that he has nothing at stake he can place his personal interests above those of the country, his party and peace. He may believe that this action (or inaction) will burnish his legacy, but he is wrong. It will only solidify his reputation as one of the worst foreign policy presidents in modern history. A president who bears significant responsibility for the tragedy of Syria, the empowerment of Russia and Iran, and the weakening of America’s standing in the world. (…)
Israel will survive this resolution as it has survived many other biased attacks. The real question is: Can the peace process survive? There is little doubt that this resolution has not contributed to peace, to the status of the U.N., to the reputation of President Obama or to basic decency.“ (Alan M. Dershowitz: „Peace-hindering UN resolution that U.S. failed to veto leads Palestine to think it can bypass talks with Israel“)
