The United States killed a UN Security Council resolution that would have declared Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories illegal by vetoing a draft resolution that reflected American sentiments.
The isolation of the United States, which did not want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Security Council, was palpable. The 14 other council members voted in favor. And more than 100 countries, including some US allies in Europe and South America, signed up as co-sponsors of the measure (see full text of the draft resolution here).
However, the underlying questions -- the dispute over Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the stalled peace negotiations and the impact on Israel and Palestinians of uprisings against Middle East dictators were far from being resolved in Friday's uproar.
The American action is bound to be criticized by many in the Middle East and beyond. US Ambassador Susan Rice originally wanted a council statement (which does not carry the weight of a resolution) that American supporters of Israel roundly condemned.
In the meeting, Rice emphasized a council resolution would not move the parties closer to negotiations and "risks hardening the position of both sides." At the same time she rejected "in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity." In a telephone conference with reporters later she said Washington opposed the word "illegal" in the draft resolution she called one-sided.
Israeli Ambassador Meron Reuben told the council that only direct negotiations would do. "The road to peace lies between Israel and Ramallah, only 10 minutes apart." And Lebanon's ambassador, Nawaf Salam, who introduced the resolution, said settlements were against international law and "that is why we came to the Security Council, and that is why we will continue to come back to the Security Council."
Contradictions and Perceptions
The Israeli position on the lack of negotiations is that during the 10-month settlement freeze, the Palestinians procrastinated for nine months. As soon as the freeze ended, they stopped negotiations unless it was extended. The Palestinian version is that they had submitted a detailed position paper, including maps based on negotiations in Annapolis that ended in November 2007, and that should have been considered.
Sometimes discussions resemble the film Rashomon, where the same incidents evolve into opposing facts and perceptions. For example, a large majority of the Jewish population has opposed the continuation of the settlement-building moratorium. But public opinion surveys also show a majority support a two-state solution and are not sympathetic to the settlers.
Gershon Baskin, the co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, writing in the Jerusalem Post, attempts to bridge the gap:
"How can this contradiction be explained? Simply, Israelis hate being told what to do. It is the davka principle (orneriness) at work. But most Israelis don't want to see their resources being wasted building roads and buildings in settlements they know will be vacated. When the world told us to leave Gaza, we resisted, but when we came to the decision ourselves, it had the support of the vast majority. With the clock ticking, this is now becoming a 'cut off your nose to spite your face' mentality.'"
Palestinians now want international recognition as an independent state (or as Israel's deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon called it, a Facebook state), an attempt the US would most likely veto. Still, the strategy of a virtual state would change the rules of any negotiations, conducted on a state by state basis rather than a state and a territory.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, speaking on behalf of Britain, France and Germany, condemned Israeli settlements as "illegal under international law." He said that the three nations hope that an independent state of Palestine would join the United Nations as a new member state by September. Portugal's ambassador, José Filipe Moraes Cabral, then added his voice to the statement.
Middle East protests
With the turmoil in Arab nations, will there be non-violent demonstrations in Gaza and the West Bank? In Gaza, they may be against Hamas but in the West Bank it would be against Israeli occupation. If Israel's response is violent, the world could look at Israel just as it looks at Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.
The Jerusalem Post in a February 18 editorial saw it differently:
"At a time when it has become more clear than ever that repressive, bellicose autocratic regimes are the main source of instability in the regime -- and not an Israeli- Palestinian conflict that remains unresolved because of Arab intransigence -- the US should be placing itself staunchly in Israel's corner. It should not be entertaining compromise proposals that imply the further delegitimization of some of Israel's historic and security imperatives."
Not so, said the Haaretz paper in its February 16 editorial:
"Israel should not wait until this new Arab and American policy develops into a steam-roller. It would do better, in contrast to its usual policy, to view the changes in the Middle East as an opportunity and to preemptively propose a diplomatic initiative... The prime minister cannot make do with "carefully monitoring" developments. He must present a realistic plan, complete with a timetable that will enable (Palestinian) President Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiating table."
"I say that Netanyahu is an intelligent man; his understanding of the issues is not shallow. He knows what a potential agreement looks like. He knows exactly what the parameters of peace are. He knows how far the Palestinians can compromise, and he also has to be aware of the consequences of not reaching an agreement."
"That is exactly what is so perplexing about the question."
Follow Evelyn Leopold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evjournalist
Richard Grenell: Susan Rice Fails to Convince the Palestinians, and Offers a Rebuke to Israel
MJ Rosenberg: Obama Pledges to Veto UN Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements
David Moshman: Jews, Israel and Free Speech: A Response to Rabbi Wolpe
Josh Ruebner: U.S. Veto on Israeli Settlements Resolution Would Be Nadir for Obama
If they really wanted peace, they would work it out without any intervention from outside countries, namely the US. And if they are to actually ever attain peace, that is how it must be worked out. Others, outsiders cannot make peace for them.
America has stuck it's nose out many times over for Israel and to no avail. They recieve the bulk of our foriegn aid monies, and have the largest lobbying group in DC. It's all just a bit too lopsided.
We are the only country who vetoes anything that not favorable to Israel. Something is wrong with that.
Israel is the best equipped military in the mideast bar none, and that is thanks to the US for that. Perhaps if the playing field was leveled more, they would negotiate in good faith rather than push forward with their settlements, and the Palestinians could have their state.
Understand, I am not anti anything, but pro peace.
That being said there is one thing I am opposed to though, especially at this time in our own country. That would be shelling out monies for foriegn aid , monies we don't have. This charity... while our own people are giving up so many things and taxed to the gills.
its 2 for 2.
Interesting summary article on all the US votes against Palestine during Obama's term thus far:
Obama has supported not a single General Assembly resolution on Palestine, and voted with Israel on 30 of the 34 resolutions over the two-year period of 2009 -2010
And even though the Israelis refused the infamous Dennis Ross bribe for a 3-month Israeli settlement freeze - which promised a carte blanche US veto on anything UN vote Israeli considered anti-Israel (which offered an almost criminal level of corruption, to my view) - we STILL gave them the UN Veto!
==
The U.N. Voting Record of Susan Rice on Palestinian Rights, 2009–2010
In 2009, the U.N. General Assembly passed 18 resolutions on “The Question of Palestine”:
Overall, Obama, Clinton, and Rice, by voting with Israel, voted against 16 of 18 General Assembly resolutions in 2009, which were otherwise approved by an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states. (The U.S. abstained on two of the 18 resolutions in 2009)
Likewise, in 2010, the General Assembly passed 16 resolutions concerning The Question of Palestine: Again the US voted with Israel, against 14 of 16 General Assembly resolutions, all of which passed with a huge majority of votes. (The U.S. abstained on two of the 16 resolutions in 2010.)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/21-9
Muammar Qaddafi's 42-year rule of Libya appeared to have begun disintegrating Monday, Feb. 21, as civil war swept the country with no sign of him quitting. Instead, he ordered the army to redouble its brutal assaults on the opposition. The Air Force began bombing crowds at random – except for pilots who preferred to defect and fled with their warplanes to Malta - while army tanks and armored vehicles fired live ammunition. The day's casualties were estimated at 600, with 250 in Tripoli.
Why don't some of you, take a break from your Israel bas-ing and use some of that energy where it is needed?
The Palestinian territories are part of Israel now? Pray tell, are Palestinians given Israeli citizenship?
"Arab dic-tators are mass-acaring their own citizens, and none of you mentions it"
You mean, apart from a dozen or so threads in this site? Do you even look at the titles here?
But this is nice. "omg, Arabs are nasty, so let's not pay attention to the misdeeds of Israel".
Thereby admitting that it is controlled by them.
“In explaining the veto decision, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, denounced the ‘illegitimacy’ of the settlements and stressed that Obama agreed with the resolution’s sponsors but had to oppose it for political reasons.”
Is Ambassador Rice forgetting that the Palestinian Papers made it qutie clear that Israel isn't going to negotiate on ANYTHING.
Forcing Israel's hand on peace is LONG overdue
Ha'aretz - Feb. 21/11
"Netanyahu should view U.S. veto at the UN as a warning"
EXCERPT:
"After hesitating until the very last moment, U.S. President Barack Obama decided to have his envoy veto the UN Security Council resolution condemning the settlements. The Palestinian-initiated proposal would have declared the Israeli settlement enterprise in the territories illegal. Fourteen members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution, and only the U.S. veto kept it from being passed.
"The Palestinians lost the vote, but achieved their goal: They exposed for all to see the international isolation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's administration and embarrassed the U.S. administration by revealing it as two-faced.
"In explaining the veto decision, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, denounced the 'illegitimacy' of the settlements and stressed that Obama agreed with the resolution's sponsors but had to oppose it for political reasons.
"Once again, the American superpower appeared to lose some of its prestige and international standing in order to defend the Israeli settlement enterprise, which enjoys the support of powerful patrons in Congress.
"Netanyahu celebrated his victory over Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, but he should view the U.S. veto as a warning. The world's patience over continuing construction in the settlements is wearing thin... Palestinians are making suspension of building a prerequisite for negotiations, a position which has international support..."
Too bad Obama had to show himself and his administration as biased against the people of Palestine. Like nearly every other US politician, he has apparently been corrupted by a foreign lobby.
You must understand that the DAY the Arab's declare total recognition for the state of Israel to exist, peace will be had within 24 hours and the Palestinians will have a home to there own.
It is pretty simple, but Arab’s don’t want peace, will not accept that Israel is a sovereign nation, and that is always noted by the rhetoric coming out of Iran.
Along with all Arab states and the PA, the Beirut Initiative has been accepted by Hezbollah and non-Arab Iran. Even Hamas has indicated it will sign on.
To quote Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Jewish Congress: "Israel has never presented the Arabs with a single peace plan. She has rejected every settlement plan devised by her friends and by her enemies. She has seemingly no other object than to preserve the status quo while adding territory piece by piece."
To quote Professor Avi Shlaim, the renowned Israeli historian, as summarized by Ha'aretz (11 August 2005) in its review of his highly acclaimed book The Iron Wall (2000): “...based on facts, he surveys the history of Israel's contacts with the Arab world from 1948 to 2000, and states decisively ('The job of the historian is to judge,' he says) that the Israeli story that Israel has always stretched out its hand to peace, but there was nobody to talk to - is groundless. The Arabs have repeatedly outstretched a hand to peace - says Shlaim – and Israel has always rejected it. Each time with a different excuse."
"Isreal wants Hamas controlled. They are not, and have always been a main instagator in this conflict."
It was Israel, not Hamas that instigated the conflict in 2006 and 2008.
"Palinstinians at one time thought with Hamas help, they could have a stronger position, but what happened, unfortunately - was when Isreal and the Palistine finally reached a good agreement, it wasn't enough for Hamas involved and they continued the war."
Wrong again. Before Fatah and Hams were scheduled to hold unity talks, Tel Aviv and Washington ordered Abbas to call off the talks and launch a coup to overthrow Hamas. In spite of US and Israeli support, Hamas prevailed.
http://www.inebriateddiscourse.com/2011/02/obama-administration-blocks-un.html
Al Jazeera interviewed Rice after the vote, and she said that they agree with the resolution, but it wouldn't have changed anything. Remember that the next the US wants to pass a resolution at the Security Council because you'll be able to say the same thing.
But they do tell US what to do!
Check the US veto on UN resoulutions for 30 years and see the pattern.
We must not forget that Palestinians are the victims and Israel is their victimizer.