iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

US Vetoes Israel Settlement UN Resolution

Us Israel Settlements

EDITH M. LEDERER   02/18/11 06:33 PM ET   AP

UNITED NATIONS — The United States vetoed a U.N. resolution Friday that would have condemned "illegal" Israeli settlements and demanded an immediate halt to all settlement building, a move certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world.

The 14 other Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution, reflecting the wide support for the Palestinian-backed draft which had over 100 co-sponsors.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States agrees with the rest of the council and the wider world "about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity." But she said the U.S. believes "it is unwise" for the U.N.'s most powerful body to attempt to resolve key issues between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The vote put President Barack Obama in a difficult position, both internationally and domestically.

The U.S. veto was strongly opposed by Arab nations and much of the rest of the world, especially at a time of growing street protests in the Mideast, fueled by hopes for democracy. An abstention would have angered the Israelis, the closest U.S. ally in the region, as well as Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in the U.S. Congress.

The Palestinians insist they will not resume peace talks until Israel halts settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which they want as a capital. Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed just weeks after they restarted in September because Israel ended a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer, called the U.S. veto unfortunate, saying the Security Council failed to respond to the Israeli-Palestinian "crisis" and send "a clear and firm message to Israel that it must ... cease all of its violations and its obstruction of the peace process."

"We fear ... that the message sent today may be one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence and impunity," he said.

But Rice said the proposed resolution risked "hardening the positions of both sides" on negotiations, even while speaking out very strongly against settlement construction.

"Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens prospects for peace," she said.

Israel's U.N. Ambassador Meron Reuben thanked the U.S. for its veto saying direct negotiations between the two sides remain the only way forward and called for Palestinian leaders "to return to the negotiating table without preconditions and without delay."

The resolution "should never have been submitted," he said, warning that the Palestinian attempt to win approval was "likely to harm" efforts to resume negotiations.

It was the 10th U.S. veto on a Mideast issue since 2001 and the first by the Obama administration. The last U.S. veto in the Security Council was Nov. 11, 2006 on a resolution calling for an end to Israeli military operations and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians rejected U.S. efforts to substitute a weaker Security Council presidential statement for the legally binding resolution and decided to go ahead with a vote after Palestinian leaders meeting in Ramallah earlier Friday gave their unanimous approval.

In a U.S. attempt to find a compromise, Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke by telephone for 50 minutes on Thursday and Abbas spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday.

Rice expressed regret that the U.S.-proposed presidential statement wasn't accepted as an alternative.

It would have reaffirmed that the Security Council "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process." It also would have had the council condemn "all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza" and stress the need for "calm and security" for Israelis and Palestinians.

The veto was applauded by Jewish organizations and Israel's supporters in Congress.

Rep. Howard Berman called it "a bold demonstration" of U.S. support for Israel and for peace between Israel and the Palestinians."

But Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said the veto undermines enforcement of international law.

"President Obama wants to tell the Arab world in his speeches that he opposes settlements, but he won't let the Security Council tell Israel to stop them in a legally binding way," Whitson said.

___

Associated Press Writers Aron Heller in Jerusalem and Anita Snow at the United Nations contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

Filed by Cara Parks  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,612
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (54 total)
FreeAmerican7
It's hard to soar like an Eagle around Turkeys!
12:59 PM on 02/24/2011
Examine closely the Picture ABOVE !

Who looks like the HAPPY MASTER?
&
Who who looks like ...wel... the ?!?! SLAVE?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fein
Either everybody counts or nobody does.
10:54 AM on 02/22/2011
There goes the last shred of the U.S.'s credibility.

And for such a great cause.
06:45 AM on 02/22/2011
"Jews, like any other group, have the right to settle anywhere in the world."

True or False?
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
01:41 AM on 02/24/2011
Can the 6 million Palestinians who have been forced by Israel into refugee status from their own homes and land settle where THEY want? (Like in the homes and land that THEY OWNED?)
FreeAmerican7
It's hard to soar like an Eagle around Turkeys!
01:24 PM on 02/24/2011
If NOT the LAND they OWNED....... Then how about in the LAND & Homes of the few "Americans" who are STAUNCH SUPPORTERS of Israel and who OBVIOUSLY control the USA... as the 14 to 1 recent UN Vote proves it!
PS. Madagascar (currently a Republic in AFRICA) was ONE of countries that was "offered" to the Zionist Jews by the British Colonials (Root of all EVILS).
Had they accepted; the NATIVES of Madagascar would have been massacred like the Palestinians of Deir Yassin and other Villages and the Bedoiuns......
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
07:04 PM on 02/26/2011
If they wish to apply for local citizenship, start following local laws and start paying taxes, then yes. Anywhere. True.

Alternatively, If they want to bring government issued weapons from their own country, keep their Israel passports, receive government funding, not pay any local taxes whatsoever yet use 99% of the resources then no. False.
06:30 AM on 02/22/2011
I hate to spoil the party here folks but all Jewish settlements are legal...and they are going to get even legaller... :-)

Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Jewish Villages in Judea and Samaria are Perfectly Legal and Legitimate
by Eli E. Hertz
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2011/02/jewish-villages-in-judea-and-samaria.html
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
01:31 AM on 02/24/2011
Sorry, but they are violations of the Geneva Accords -- specifically the IV Geneva Accord which forbids any occupying power from transfering any of its civilian population into occupied territory.
 
Just WHAT do you think this provision is intended to prevent, if not a colonization JUST LIKE Israel's settlement plan.
 
Israel SIGNED the Geneva Conventions and is LEGALLY BOUND by it -- one cannot pick and choose which parts to obey and which parts to disregard.
 
Furthermore, Israel's government has known since 1967 that such settlements are ILLEGAL. Their PM at the time sought an official opinion from the Israeli Foreign Ministry (and its legal experts). Levi Eshkol was TOLD by his own government that any settlements would be illegal!!
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
01:39 AM on 02/24/2011
Ok, I have read the relevant parts of this blog. One question.
 
IF the West Bank is not "occupied"-- then WHY are the Palestinians governed under Martial Law, and in IDF courts instead of civilian courts?
 
WHY hasn't Israel annexed the West Bank -- in refusing to do so, Israel ITSELF recognizes that the Territory in question IS occupied! (This was the basis for the opinion rendered in 1967!)
 
“After the 1967 war Prime Minister Levi Eshkol asked the legal council of the Israeli Foreign Ministery for legal advise as to settlements on the west bank.
 
"The legal counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
 
Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The pre-war border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.
 
But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.”
 
And here is the relevant clause in the IV Geneva Convention:
 
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
 
Just WHAT PART of this is NOT CLEAR?
 
 By the way, a territory CAN be both "disputed" AND "occupied" at the same time. The Geneva Conventions (which Israel SIGNED) is still binding.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:11 AM on 02/24/2011
Well said my friend.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny2Bad
12:13 PM on 02/21/2011
1 vote derailing 14 is not how democracy works with the exception of when Israel is entered into the equation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Nwo2012
Sue me, I boycott products from the settlements
01:55 PM on 02/21/2011
There is one good outcome. It displayed how completely isolated Israel is in the world.

It was a public display of condemnation of Israeli settlements by every single country not occupied by AIPAC. The good news is in. Its a long list and getting longer.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
01:42 AM on 02/24/2011
While this vote is about Israel, this is a perfect example of why the five permanent members of the Security Council need to surrender the Veto power.
 
THAT is the REAL problem.
12:11 PM on 02/21/2011
What does it take to make AIPAC happy?

I think we would be better off if we replaced our entire Congress and Executive Branch with the Cirque de Soleil, as they are more adept at contortionism, jumping through hoops, acrobatics, and illusion than this sorry bunch of dual loyalists and meretricious hacks.

And at least the public would get some entertainment for their tax dollars.
11:12 PM on 02/22/2011
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! Definitely on point.
11:29 PM on 02/22/2011
Thanks. It's time Americans face reality, and elect politicians who will put America's interests first.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CT Independent
10:36 AM on 02/21/2011
US is Israel's biggest ally, but Israel is nobody's friend.
FreeAmerican7
It's hard to soar like an Eagle around Turkeys!
04:56 PM on 02/21/2011
The people of the US are NOT " Israel's biggest ally" !
It is the US POLITICIANS (Both Democrats & Republicans) who are "Israel's biggest ally"
Democrats = MUBARAK I
Republicans = MUBARAK II
... and just like MUBARAK; Both Democrats & Republicans always win which means the FINAL WInner is the Foreign Country: Israel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fein
Either everybody counts or nobody does.
12:16 AM on 02/22/2011
US is Israel's ONLY ally.

And that sure doesn't include many US citizens as this thread indicates.
photo
piul05
Are you looking at my ears?! (Mo-om!!!)
09:00 AM on 02/21/2011
That is one unfortunate photo - it says it all, really.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
fairwayhill
1948 Palestine belongs to the Palestinians
06:14 AM on 02/21/2011
There is onIy one word. Shame. Shame on Obama. Shame on the US.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Big Jake
09:26 PM on 02/21/2011
Fanned and faved for taking the right position on this issue and on other issues in your posts!
05:25 AM on 02/21/2011
Excellent! GOBAMA!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred303
Let's Be Friends ^_^
04:36 AM on 02/21/2011
The U.S. has proven to the world that it cannot be an objective arbitrator in the peace process.

http://thepoliticalelite.com/objective-arbitrator-in-the-peace-process/
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
01:49 AM on 02/24/2011
One has to remember that the US's special relationship with Israel really began in 1967, and went from there.
 
It is a relic of the Cold War, when the USSR was arming the Arab states (especially Syria, and until Sadat threw them out, Egypt).
 
The US, however, seems stuck in the rut of viewing this confilct in those terms (the fatal mistake we made in Vietnam) and thus has trouble being an impartial mediator.
01:20 AM on 02/21/2011
Israel and America have to accept the fact that actions speak louder than words.
01:31 AM on 02/21/2011
That only goes for Israel and America, I suppose. A history of conquest, terrorism, female near-slavery, church (well, mosque) run governments, intolerance to science and the arts, near-total censorship of the press, etc...those don't count for anything in the Arab world, eh?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:53 AM on 02/21/2011
Israel as a zionist state has no future...time to settle for what you can get since you will not be the most powerful in the Mid East for much longer, and the US is growing broke and will eventually be forced to terms....it is a new world.....you can twist history as much as you want....the facts are, the world is changing, America is broke, China and others are rising, and the zionists are in trouble at home and abroad.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
tpk
having a sense of humor is priceless
02:22 AM on 02/21/2011
Everything you said is true, however, none of it excuses building settlements on occupied territories.
12:55 AM on 02/21/2011
Israel infuriates me.

I was just reading about the USS Liberty. What great allies we have in the Israelis.
07:02 AM on 02/21/2011
israel is no one's ally austserlitz 1805 . . . keep reading . . . . fanned