- Join the France 24 community here
- Log in
Latest update: 19/02/2011
- Israeli settlements - United Nations
US blocks UN move to condemn Israeli settlements
The Obama administration on Friday vetoed a widely supported United Nations resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as "illegal" and "a serious obstacle to the peace process".
By News Wires (text)
AP - The United States vetoed a U.N. resolution Friday that would have condemned “illegal” Israeli settlements and demanded an immediate halt to all settlement building, a move certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world.
The 14 other Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution, reflecting the wide support for the Palestinian-backed draft which had over 100 co-sponsors.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States agrees with the rest of the council and the wider world “about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.” But she said the U.S. believes “it is unwise” for the U.N.’s most powerful body to attempt to resolve key issues between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The vote put President Barack Obama in a difficult position, both internationally and domestically.
The U.S. veto was strongly opposed by Arab nations and much of the rest of the world, especially at a time of growing street protests in the Mideast, fueled by hopes for democracy.
An abstention would have angered the Israelis, the closest U.S. ally in the region, as well as Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in the U.S. Congress.
The Palestinians insist they will not resume peace talks until Israel halts settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which they want as a capital. Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed just weeks after they restarted in September because Israel ended a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer, called the U.S. veto unfortunate, saying the Security Council failed to respond to the Israeli-Palestinian “crisis” and send “a clear and firm message to Israel that it must ... cease all of its violations and its obstruction of the peace process.”
“We fear ... that the message sent today may be one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence and impunity,” he said.
But Rice said the proposed resolution risked “hardening the positions of both sides” on negotiations, even while speaking out very strongly against settlement construction.
“Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens prospects for peace,” she said.
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Meron Reuben thanked the U.S. for its veto saying direct negotiations between the two sides remain the only way forward and called for Palestinian leaders “to return to the negotiating table without preconditions and without delay.”
The resolution “should never have been submitted,” he said, warning that the Palestinian attempt to win approval was “likely to harm” efforts to resume negotiations.
It was the 10th U.S. veto on a Mideast issue since 2001 and the first by the Obama administration. The last U.S. veto in the Security Council was Nov. 11, 2006 on a resolution calling for an end to Israeli military operations and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.
The Palestinians rejected U.S. efforts to substitute a weaker Security Council presidential statement for the legally binding resolution and decided to go ahead with a vote after Palestinian leaders meeting in Ramallah earlier Friday gave their unanimous approval.
In a U.S. attempt to find a compromise, Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke by telephone for 50 minutes on Thursday and Abbas spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday.
Rice expressed regret that the U.S.-proposed presidential statement wasn’t accepted as an alternative.
It would have reaffirmed that the Security Council “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.” It also would have had the council condemn “all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza” and stress the need for “calm and security” for Israelis and Palestinians.
The veto was applauded by Jewish organizations and Israel’s supporters in Congress.
Rep. Howard Berman called it “a bold demonstration” of U.S. support for Israel and for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.”
But Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said the veto undermines enforcement of international law.
“President Obama wants to tell the Arab world in his speeches that he opposes settlements, but he won’t let the Security Council tell Israel to stop them in a legally binding way,” Whitson said.
Related Content
Breaking news from the MIDDLE EAST
‘Darth Vader’ demands free land from Ukrainian government
Browse all editions
FRANCE 24 PARTNERS
Comments (3)
US veto of condemnation of Israeli settlements
The U.S. has gone to hell, and the sooner every citizen of every country realizes this and gets ACTIVE, the better the chance for peace in the Middle East, and by extension, in the world.
Avoid repeating mistakes
President Obama Arab- Israel policy failure.
Obama diverted the focus from the basic issue:
!! Arabs refusal to recognize the Jewish right to a independent state in the 3500 years old homeland is the key peace blocking factor!!
It was in 1947 and in 2010:
As a result of his policy the Palestinians are avoiding negations.
For years Palestinians and Israeli negotiated with some with some achievements and some drawbacks.
Recorded on Oslo agreement, President Clinton+ Barak+ Arafat cape David summit and Taba discussion/
PM Barak on Taba negotiations made an unprecedented offer to Arafat in exchange for a :
****formal letter stating that the conflict is over and no additional future requirements will be made****:
---The Palestinians open the deadly terrorist war against Israeli civilian---
------------
Wikileake disclosed: Arab leaders demand USA to stop Islamist Iran by any means without any connection to Israel.
Obama required Israel to give up major heritage and security assets, pretending that this is a key issue to form a coalition with Arabs states against Islamist Iran NUK's.
Obama knew first hand that his linkage is incorrect.
The politicians and people willing to contribute to a long standing peace are advised to require:
1: Arabs recognition of:
- Jewish right for their single state: Israel
-Palestinian right to create the number 23 Arab state.
2: Muslims governed by Arabs.---Jews and others governed by Israel.
-Israel will hand over to Palestinian government land inhabited by Arabs from Israel and the Jews from settlements will be governed by Israel.
-Arabs and Jew will remain in their current homes nobody will have to move physically.
3: Defining the boarders.
4: Solving the Refugees issue- Both Arabs and Jews from Arab countries.
5; Put and end to the Jews hate teaching and preaching in Arab world.
6; Arabs end of conflict declaration.
No additional issues are open for conflict continuation.
----------------
Background:
Every group of people prefers to be governed by their own.
Artificial boarders or imposed boarders are major reasons to conflicts.
Examples|::
Canada-French want their state: Belgian Flames want separations. Basques in Spain.
Czechoslovakia partition in 2 states
Irish and Scotts want independence from UK .
Tibet a nd China.
The many wars in Africa because tribes have been separated or united by Europeans in artificial state.
Kashmir- Cyprus- Kurds in Turkey and Iraq.
The Balkan wars.
The USSR partition into many states. Current wars in Russia.
US Veto of UN Resolution
Israel's settlement policies not only harm the Palestinian people, it harms Israel. It is unfortunate that an extremist like Netanyahu is allowed to set both Israeli and American policy. We should be thankful that the Obama administration did not bow to Netanyahu on the question of Mubarak. It was a rare example of US independence from Tel Aviv's wishes.
Post new comment