International News
See other International News Articles
Title: In Sharp Reversal, U.S. Agrees To Rebuke israel In Security Council
Source:
Foreign Policy
URL Source: http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/ ... uke_israel_in_security_council
Published: Feb 17, 2011
Author: Foreign Policy
Post Date: 2011-02-17 00:41:52 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 3717
Comments: 10
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. But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council. Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. The Palestinian delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council's only Arab member state, have asked the council's president this evening to schedule a meeting for Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today to reject the U.S. offer is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from Washington. 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." U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal. The Arab Group was scheduled to meet this afternoon to formulate a formal response to the American offer. Council diplomats said that the discussions were fluid and that there was still the possibility that the U.S. draft would be subject to further negotiations. They said it was also not yet certain that the U.S. offer would satisfy the Arab Group, and that the U.S. may be forced to veto the Palestinian resolution. U.S. officials argue that the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is through direct negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians. For weeks, the Obama administration has refused to negotiate with the Palestinians on a resolution condemning the settlements as illegal, signaling that they would likely veto it if it were put to a vote. The Palestinians were planning to put the resolution to a vote later this week. But Security Council statements of the sort currently under consideration are voted on the bases of consensus in the 15-nation council. The United States has, however, been isolated in the 15-nation council. Virtually all 14 other member states are prepared to support the Palestinian resolution, according to council diplomats. A U.N. Security Council resolution generally carries greater political and legal force than a statement from the council's president. The U.S. concession comes as the Middle East is facing a massive wave of popular demonstrations that have brought down the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and are posing a challenge to governments in Algeria, Bahrain, and Iran.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
The jihaddis are taking over the entire Mideast, the Iranians are still nuking up, the Pakis have our diplomats in prison, and that idiot Barack Hussein Osama still thinks they'll love us if he gives them just one more lewinsky.
I saw this last night and was going to post it. But I knew you would post it when you saw it if someone else didn't. You are constantly whining that Israel is the bastard state and that it should be destroyed. Ok you want Israel destroyed. To do this would obviously take a war. Here is the question. How many Jews do you think they should have to kill to fulfill satans fantasy of destroying Israel.
War? Stop giving them American tax payer dollars and they won't last long as is I recon. Why do you think Israel is deserving of such American attention - more so than say Cyprus?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
None if they was utilize just a tad bit of common sense and get the hell off that land. Just look at the map. The 'state' is doomed and the quickening of that event is taking place as I type. Can't say I didn't warn "them", years ago.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Just look at the map. The 'state' is doomed and the quickening of that event is taking place as I type. Can't say I didn't warn "them", years ago. So if they don't leave they should all be murdered? Got ya.
Didn't say they "should" but most likely will.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Oh you were talking about how you were giddy about this. That it gave you a hard on. Anyway it isn't going to happen. You should go down to the store and buy you a Bible and read what it says what happens when Israel is surrounded and seems doomed. It is indeed interesting times we live in.
challenge.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
challenge. I was paraphrasing on that one. But you did use the word giddy.
I can agree with you there.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone, Brian S (#2)
Ok you want Israel destroyed. To do this would obviously take a war.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
How many Jews do you think they should have to kill to fulfill satans fantasy of destroying Israel.
#5. To: Brian S (#4)
None if they was utilize just a tad bit of common sense and get the hell off that land.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
(Edited)
So if they don't leave they should all be murdered? Got ya.
#7. To: Brian S (#6)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)
That it gave you a hard on.
#9. To: Brian S (#8)
That it gave you a hard on.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
But you did use the word giddy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]