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.”
Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!
(Source: Turtle Bay / Foreign Policy)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
That’s what you get with an Obama. We need a Bush.
With friends like these who needs enemies? Dont make this Bush vs Obama bc then you open the forum to dumb policies of Bush i.e. invasion of Iraq.
Let us examine Obama who is the most anti israel president in 50 years, when was the last time the US voted at the security council to condemn Israel? I do not recall it. But then again I have never seen such an incompetent and bi-polar approach towards the chaos in Egypt the past few weeks, which could threaten the security of Israel in the coming decades. His policies on Iran were incredibly stupid and why is there no call for Kohemeni to step down like Mubarak? It seems like he likes Kohemeni better than Mubarak not surprising for someone who is an extremely close friend of Rashid Khalidi.
Obama may be the most anti Israel president in over 50 years; but Bush was the most pro Israel president in over 50 years. And taking down Iraq took out Saddam Hussein.
Obama = Carter II.
So what do you expect?
Carter was the DIRECT cause of Khomeini and the world-wide loss of respect for the US and who knows what Obama will cause.
#2 yes and now Iran pulls the strings in Iraq is that worth a trillion dollars, thousands of american lives, and 100,000 iraqi lives?
The US “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” has been US policy for 43 years, under nine Presidents. Including your hero Bush 43.
yswo,
Khomeini died in 1989; there is no point in calling for him to step down now.
canine wrote:
” And taking down Iraq took out Saddam Hussein”
Iraq was in a state of “hot war” with Israel before Saddam Hussein, and remains in a state of “hot war” with Israel now that he is gone. The country’s policy towards Israel has not changed in 63 years. And at a cost of nearly a trillion dollars and over a hundred thousand deaths.
#7
Sorry I mean Khamenei.
There is a diff between it not being US policy and condemning it in the UN security council. You are trying to ignore the issue here to defending your hero here Obama.
yswo & charliehall:
Better the post-Bush 43 Iraq, then Saddam Hussein’s Iraq shooting scud missiles into Israel.