The United States has vetoed anti-Israel resolutions or condemnation of Israel in the UN Security Council fifty-three times since 1972. This is the diplomatic shield with which Washington has protected its ally for decades. In case you're wondering, the US president that most Americans vetoed was 21-year-old Barack Obama. As he neared his departure from the White House in December 2016, it was also Obama who ordered the US delegation to abstain from a resolution condemning the US. settlements What really stands out is not Obama's deviation from the norm, but other times when the decision is fully consistent with stated US policy, sometimes word for word, and yet the Americans veto it. On Monday, the Security Council is scheduled to discuss a resolution by the United Arab Emirates condemning Israel. The draft calls on Israel to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory". "It reaffirms that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law." It also calls for an end to "all Israeli settlement activities and all other unilateral measures aimed at changing the demographics, character and status of the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem." exists. Transfer of Israeli settlers, seizure of land, demolition of houses and displacement of Palestinian civilians.” In a joint statement with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the UK, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: "We are deeply concerned that the Israeli government has announced that it is advancing approximately 10,000 settlements and intends to initiate a process in this regard. Nine previously considered illegal under Israeli law. "Normalize the outpost. We strongly oppose these unilateral actions that will only serve to increase tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and undermine efforts to reach a negotiated two-state solution." Open gallery view Women and their babies at Beit Hogla police station in the West Bank on Wednesday. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters On Thursday, the White House released a statement of its own: "We were deeply frightened by Israel's announcement that it will establish thousands of new settlements and retroactively legalize nine outposts in the West Bank that have so far been illegal under Israeli law. He strongly opposes these unilateral measures, which undermine trust between the two states and undermine the geographical viability of the two-state solution.” Alongside the harmless clichés of "extremely appalled", "deeply concerned" and "strongly opposes", he agreed with the old credible "US opposes unilateral action" and "US calls for restraint and stability". These bland themes have no consequences. They are not so different from the "thoughts and prayers" offered by American politicians after a mass . These hollow statements from Washington have become the foreign policy version of "nothing to see here, go ahead". Also Thursday, the State Department said it believed the draft resolution was "not helpful", but declined to say whether it would veto the document or try to dilute it to avoid a contentious vote. Monday will be a test to see if the US continues with such bromides, or at least shows signs of a policy change rhetorically. Israel's actions in the West Bank over the past decade and the clear intentions of the new Netanyahu government are in complete contradiction with US policy. It's not a disagreement over policy or emphasis, it's strategic disparity. It will be interesting to see if Americans think they can and how they can reconcile these differences with an explanation. Most of these 53 resolutions vetoed were openly anti-Israeli statements and excluded Israel while criminal regimes were ignored by the United Nations. But others related to occupation, settlements, or military activity, particularly in the West Bank, have been commensurate with US policy since 1967. The United States reconciled the contradiction using two main arguments: 1) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be settled at the United Nations, where anti-Israeli sentiments, disinterested considerations, and power blocs mean that issues are not being addressed on the merits. 2) Israel and the Palestinians should have bilateral negotiations and the United Nations is not a forum to solve anything. These resolutions almost always went beyond condemning settlements and spoke of Jerusalem, so Washington rightly claimed that the United Nations really questioned Israel's connection to Jerusalem, which was highly vetoable. Open gallery view Palestinians waving Palestinian flags at a new Israeli settlement near Qalandia in the West Bank last month. Majdi Muhammed/AP Yet the upcoming Security Council resolution comes at a time when there has been no "peace process" for at least nine years since then-Secretary of State John Kerry's shuttle diplomacy in 2014. And now a new right-wing government is promising to expand the settlement initiative. and that annexation is imminent, and that the "peace process" is not imminent. What can the US do now? Apparently a lot. Realistically, based on previous patterns, no one should expect a major and abrupt policy change, but it is clear that the Biden administration is uncomfortable having to spend time and political capital on this issue. Instability in the West Bank is compounded by the constitutional and political crisis in Israel that Washington has had to step on. To begin with, the administration may be reluctant about an imminent visit by Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington. These trips are a coronation ceremony for the newly appointed Israeli prime ministers, especially Netanyahu. The United States can make it clear that it will become increasingly difficult to defend Israel in international forums on settlements. Cooperation and coordination can be reduced gradually, but only concretely. Americans may consider distinguishing between Israel and the West Bank in terms of exports. Columnist Michael Koplow, writing on the website of the Israel Policy Forum, bluntly said: “When Blinken went to Jerusalem, one of two things happened. He sent a clear message to the Israeli government that this is something the US strongly opposes, and Netanyahu either ignored it or sent the message in a more roundabout way, and Netanyahu's conclusion was that this was not something the US really cared about. Either way, the United States, which had been particularly humiliatingly ignored by its closest regional ally in the immediate aftermath of Blinken's visit, is now in a position to appear utterly incompetent. Despite the focus on US policy and the impact of Israeli actions on US-Israeli relations, Israel also has a distinctive political angle. Supposedly, this is a golden opportunity for Netanyahu's far-right government to take ownership of its policy and ideology. All right, put your money where your mouth is. Instead of whining about the inherent prejudices and hypocrisy of the United Nations, instead of lobbying Washington to veto the resolution, stand up and embrace the policy. This government has promised to expand settlements. In its "Basic Guidelines," it clearly states that the Jewish people have "exclusive rights over the Land of Israel." Government ministers have repeatedly said that there will never be a Palestinian state between the Jordan River in the east and the Mediterranean Sea in the west. So where is the problem? Go to the United Nations and say it openly, loudly and without shame. Own the policy and have the consequences, chickens.