U.S. Agrees to Rebuke Israel in the U.N.!

[Dusty]

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/p...curity_council

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. U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal.

The Palestinian delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council's only Arab member state, asked the council's president late Wednesday 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 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.

[Dusty]

Yeah-shit on Israel, but don't worry about the Muslim 'Hood.

This is loco.

[T-Rock]

I bet Kill da wabbit Carter's pearly whites are showing...

[Paslode]

It is going to be quite interesting to see what kind of harvest we get out of this new seed the Administration is sowing.

[Guntry Kong]

The old saying of "don't mess with the wildlife" comes to mind..... When will we learn that Israel is our only true ally in the region. Let them do their thing quit pissing in their Wheaties, it could come back and bite us in the arse......

[Sohei]

IMO, Israel is only going to "hold their dogs back" for so long before they decide to eventually release them. It appears they are perceiving that the noose is tightening around their necks and they are going to have to ratchet up their survival mode. I'm not so sure they are feeling that we are their staunchest ally anymore. Their philosophy of "Never Again" is going to take over at some point. The only question is when.

[silentreader]

Originally Posted by Dusty

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/p...curity_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. .

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

I'm not so sure they are feeling that we are their staunchest ally anymore.

If we're not still their staunchest ally then I don't know who is.

I understand why people are reading this as Obama turning his back on Israel, but that's not my reading. I see it as him giving in to letting them get slapped on the wrist in order to avoid having a 14-1 vote against them on a much more serious charge. Either way, the US will shield them from all consequences of their actions.

[Richard]

It's a verbal rebuke - a warning to you to think about what you're doing, that we don't necessarily agree with a specific policy you've taken despite our expressed concerns and, therefore, we may not publicly support any actions you then choose to take as a result of your decision to pursue such a policy.

It's multi-national level politics. I don't see this as our 'foreclosing' on Israel. It is what it is...and we'll see.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by silentreader

If we're not still their staunchest ally then I don't know who is.

I understand why people are reading this as Obama turning his back on Israel, but that's not my reading. I see it as him giving in to letting them get slapped on the wrist in order to avoid having a 14-1 vote against them on a much more serious charge. Either way, the US will shield them from all consequences of their actions.

I agree that we are still their ally, but I am alluding to the fact that if they feel pushed enough into a corner, ally or not, they will get to a point where they are going to do what they feel is necessary to preserve their state. I also understand that we are going to support them whether or not it is open support or behind closed doors.

Jerusalem Post....."Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the planned crossing of the Suez by the Iranian ships a “provocation that proves that the overconfidence of the Iranians is growing from day to day.”

Speaking at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem, Lieberman lashed out at the international community which he said was regretfully not doing enough to confront the Iranian provocations. Lieberman also said he expected the world to "put the Iranians in their place. We are the true allies of the United States in the region, and the only ones that share its values."

“The international community needs to understand that Israel will not be able to ignore these provocations forever,” he said."
"
We will have to see how things continue to work out in the ME.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by silentreader

I understand why people are reading this as Obama turning his back on Israel, but that's not my reading. I see it as him giving in to letting them get slapped on the wrist in order to avoid having a 14-1 vote against them on a much more serious charge. Either way, the US will shield them from all consequences of their actions.

You're absolutely correct; and the stance is taken straight out of Neville Chamberlain's Guide to Global Diplomacy.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

I agree that we are still their ally, but I am alluding to the fact that if they feel pushed enough into a corner, ally or not, they will get to a point where they are going to do what they feel is necessary to preserve their state. I also understand that we are going to support them whether or not it is open support or behind closed doors.

Jerusalem Post....."Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the planned crossing of the Suez by the Iranian ships a “provocation that proves that the overconfidence of the Iranians is growing from day to day.”

Speaking at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem, Lieberman lashed out at the international community which he said was regretfully not doing enough to confront the Iranian provocations. Lieberman also said he expected the world to "put the Iranians in their place. We are the true allies of the United States in the region, and the only ones that share its values."

“The international community needs to understand that Israel will not be able to ignore these provocations forever,” he said."
"
We will have to see how things continue to work out in the ME.

I think it sucks!.......... We have always supported Israel,that was before Obamas efforts have done more harm to our original relationship with his wishy washy attitude towards them..........

Big Teddy

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Yeah-shit on Israel, but don't worry about the Muslim 'Hood.

This is loco.

It's the obamanation way.

[silentreader]

Well, as predicted, Obama ended up standing up with Israel and against the world.

UNITED NATIONS — The Obama administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution on Friday condemning Israeli settlement building in occupied territory as illegal, choosing not to alienate Israel and risking the anger of Arabs.

The lopsided vote in the Council, where among the 15 members only the United States voted no, as well as the more than 100 co-sponsors of the measure, underscored the isolation of the United States and Israel on the issue.

But the American ambassador, Susan E. Rice, said the veto should not be misconstrued as American support for further settlement construction, which the United States opposes. The issue should be resolved through peace negotiations, she said, and not mandated by a binding resolution.

Brazil’s ambassador, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, who holds the Council’s rotating presidency this month, summed up the mood of the body by saying not only that settlements were an obstacle to peace, but also that adopting the resolution, which called for an immediate halt to further construction, would have “sent some key urgent messages.”

Among the messages, she said, were that further settlement construction threatens peace in the region, and that halting construction has been misrepresented as an Israeli concession while in fact international law requires it.

The Obama administration had tried to halt Israel’s settlement building, and failed, but Ms. Rice said the Security Council was not the place to try to halt it, either.

“Will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement?” Ms. Rice said of the resolution. “Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the position of both sides.”

Ambassador Meron Reuben of Israel said settlements had to be negotiated directly between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He also questioned whether the Council should be discussing the issue now given that the political changes sweeping the Middle East seem more important.

The Palestinians suspended peace negotiations last fall, after Israel refused to extend a moratorium on West Bank settlement construction. The Palestinians say they will not rejoin the talks without a settlement freeze; Israel has refused, despite pressure from President Obama’s administration, and insists on negotiations without preconditions.

The Lebanese ambassador, Nawaf Salam, who introduced the resolution, said the fact that settlements were continuing at an accelerating clip made it imperative for the United Nations to address the issue. “The main objective of this institution is to uphold international law,” Mr. Salam told reporters. “That is why we came to the Security Council, and that is why we will continue to come back to the Security Council.”

The European Union also supported the resolution, saying that continued settlement building threatened the realization of the two-state solution that had been a goal of the peace process for years.

The widespread eruptions of antigovernment protests in the Middle East have focused on domestic issues and have not been tinged with anti-American sentiment. The Obama administration said it hoped that the veto, which it has as one of the Council’s five permanent members, would not change that public sentiment.

Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said the United States expected that the protesters knew that Washington supported their aspirations and opposed the use of violence against them.

In Ramallah, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a Palestinian Authority spokesman, said the American veto would only add complications and “encourage Israel to continue with its settlement activity and dodge from its obligations.”

The administration had hoped to work out a compromise with the Palestinians to avoid using the veto, but a lengthy telephone call on Thursday from Mr. Obama to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, failed to persuade Mr. Abbas to call off the vote.

The Palestinian Authority has been under pressure from its constituents to take a harder public line on negotiations since documents leaked recently that showed that it was prepared to make major concessions in negotiations with Israel.

Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

[T-Rock]

How freaking ridiculous, the Middle East is near spontaneous combustion, while the UN security council gets its panties in a wad over Jews building apartments in Jerusalem. But hey, apartments are far more dangerous than Nuclear Bombs or Mullahcracies This should have been vetoed long ago…, nor allowed to come up for a vote.

“Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity”
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/02/18/u...-obama-regime/

If the Palestinians lay down their weapons today there will be peace, but if Israel lays down its weapons, there will be no more Israel.

Wonder what's next on the agenda for the OIC...

[Dusty]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hilla...ry?id=12952834

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Israeli settlements "illegitimate" shortly before the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning continued Israeli settlement expansion as illegal.

In an exclusive interview with "This Week" anchor Christiane Amanpour taped on Friday afternoon, Clinton said, "I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians."

The U.N. resolution failed as a result of the United States' veto. The Security Council vote was 14 countries in favor of the resolution and one country, the United States, opposed. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that the resolution risked harming the peace process.

"It is the Israelis' and Palestinians' conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them," Rice said after the vote at U.N. headquarters in New York City. "Therefore, every potential action must be measured against one overriding standard: Will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement?

"Unfortunately," she added, "this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse."

In December 2010, Clinton took a similarly harsh line against continued Israeli settlements.

"We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity," she said in a speech at the Brookings Institution. "We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself."

The full Amanpour interview with Clinton -- focusing on the uprisings in the Arab world, how the U.S. is redefining its strategic interests there and what she thinks this new Arab People Power means for the U.S. -- will air Sunday on "This Week."