This report is loosely confirmed, but, if true, it shows that Israel’s position is slipping. The Palestinians appear to have 14 votes (or nearly so) on the 15-member United Nations Security Council for a resolution “condemning Jewish settlement and calling on Israel to stop the construction in occupied Palestinian territories.” A resolution passed through the Security Council has the force of international law. Despite the fact that every American administration since the 1967 war has held settlement activity to be illegal, we should expect the United States to veto such a resolution. The Obama administration, however, does not want to veto a resolution that conforms with stated and established U.S. policy. Therefore, they have been in negotiations with the Arab Group to pass something called a “statement” which doesn’t have the same force in law.

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal…

…Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Council visit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel’s settlement policies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet.

The U.S.-backed draft statement — which was first reported by Al Hurra — was obtained by Turtle Bay. In it, the Security Council “expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.” The statement also condemns “all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples.”

For now, Arab leaders and the Palestinians have rejected the administration’s proposal. However, this is probably a negotiating tactic since a statement that cleaves the U.S. from Israel is much more valuable than a resolution that the U.S. vetoes.

Of course, as can be seen by a passing glance at Jennifer Rubin’s coverage in the Washington Post, even this compromise by the administration, which seeks to shelter Israel, arouses the shrieking monkey contingent.

This remarkable deviation from past administrations’ treatment of Israel was not lost on Pawlenty. His spokesman provided a statement via e-mail, “The Obama administration has shown an astonishing unwillingness to stand by Israel at the United Nations, an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for just about every problem in the Middle East. It’s time for our UN ambassador to finally show some leadership, draw a line in the sand, and defend our historic ally. Global stability depends more than ever on a respected America that is loyal to our allies and realistic about the malice of our adversaries.”

Pawlenty is exactly right. Because this administration does not want to do what its predecessors did — exercise the Security Council veto to shield Israel from one-sided resolutions seeking to isolate the Jewish state in the international community — it instead has offered to join the pack of jackals that seek, at best, to extract concessions and impose a deal on Israel and, at worst, delegitimize Israel.

Ms. Rubin doesn’t even deign to mention the merits of the resolution, let alone the near unanimity of support it enjoys, nor the fact that it doesn’t contradict the official U.S. position from Lyndon Johnson to today. She just starts yelling “betrayal.”

This kind of bullying still has real power in our domestic politics, but it’s isolating Israel to an unprecedented degree. Haaretz reports today that Benjamin Netanyahu does not enjoy the trust of crucial European allies, has infuriated the Chinese by canceling a visit there, has been spurned in his effort to visit India, and has no plans to visit any countries other than Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. His foreign travel has dropped off dramatically in recent years. The King of Jordan is not eager to welcome him and Mubarak is no longer around to lay out the red carpet. Even Obama dissed him when he visited the White House by cutting dinner short and returning to the residence upstairs. He’s basically persona non grata. The bit about German Chancellor Angela Merkel is telling:

A lack of faith in Netanyahu could clearly be seen during German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s last visit to Israel. She had a tough conversation with him on the Palestinian issue, asking: “What is your plan?” She seemed particularly disappointed when Netanyahu made do with general statements such as “I may make a political speech in the future.”

Merkel told Netanyahu he would have to take practical steps, not make do with mere statements. She also made a tough speech in Tel Aviv the day after their meeting, which angered Netanyahu. Neither would admit it publicly, but mutual suspicion and tension had never been as high.

The problem is that Netanyahu’s policy is not to take concrete steps but to preside over a permanent annexation of Palestinian territory, rendering a two-state solution untenable. That is not only his policy, it’s the policy of the coalition that elected him and that sustains him in power.

But, while this immoral and politically unsustainable policy continues on, Israel witnesses headlines like this in its own newspapers:

At least 14 anti-government protesters reported dead in Libya
At least three killed, 231 wounded in crackdown on Bahrain protests
Dozens wounded as protesters clash with loyalists in Yemen
UNSC expected to vote on anti-settlement resolution

Honestly, I don’t think my views on Israel differ too substantially from J Street, which is certainly not an anti-Israel organization. All I have been saying for years is that Israel must seek its security and legitimacy in the lands authorized for them by the United Nations, and that efforts to “change the facts on the ground” by building settlements in the West Bank are not going to work and are, in fact, the biggest threat to Israel’s security and legitimacy. The status quo that allowed them to pursue this terrible strategy is eroding very quickly.

Israel can choose to blame Obama for that, but it’s their own fault that they didn’t listen to well-meaning critics who are very concerned about Israel’s future and really only want the best for them, and their neighbors.

So, once again, please listen. Sometime soon it will be too late.