The U.S. has informed Arab governments 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. [...]For the millionth time, we also spot moral equivalence in motion in several ways. Politico reports that Rep. Anthony Weiner, has announced that pro-Israel Democrats aren't going along with this. Let's hope not. He says:
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.”
This is too clever by half. Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the U.N. The correct venue for discussions about settlements and the other aspects of a peace plan is at the negotiating table. Period.Ahem. There's NO negotiating with Islamists or anyone else over things like these. Period.
- JEWS AND ZIONISTS WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA ARE DUPES OR TRAITORS - JUDENRATE.
- IF OBAMA REALLY REALLY WAS A CRYPTO-MUSLIM, WOULD HE BE DOING ANYHTING DIFFERENTLY? NOPE.
- HE'S ACTUALLY WORSE FOR ISRAEL THAN JIMMY CARTER.
- JEWS AND ZIONISTS WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OBAMA ARE TRAITORS - JUDENRATE.
US seeks to avoid UN vote on Israeli settlementsTHANK G-D THAT THESE OBAMANUTS ARE INCOMPETENT ANTI-ZIONISTS!
Stuck in a diplomatic bind, the Obama administration scrambled Thursday to avert a difficult U.N. Security Council vote on a Palestinian-backed resolution condemning Israeli settlements. President Barack Obama raised the subject in a call with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas after other attempts to sway him failed.
Though Israel's closest ally, the United States has nonetheless opposed new settlements, saying they are an impediment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But the U.S. also does not want the Security Council taking up the issue, arguing it would complicate peace negotiations.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the Security Council vote planned Friday would be counterproductive as the United States focuses on advancing talks that will lead to a two-state solution.
"We have consistently over many years said that the United Nations Security Council and resolutions that would come before the Security Council are not the right vehicle to advance that goal," she said at a news conference after a briefing with senators.
The vote places the Obama administration in a predicament. A U.S. veto would place Obama at odds with the Palestinians and its supporters in the Arab world; abstaining from the vote would anger Israelis. The issue also places Obama in a political fix at home where he already faced criticism for trying to avoid a veto from Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in Congress.
On Wednesday, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, proposed a weaker Security Council presidential statement instead of a legally binding resolution, a step that represented a shift from the long-held U.S. view that the Security Council is not the proper forum to address the issue of Israeli settlements. Palestinians rejected the offer.