'Palestinians' say US threatened to veto Security Council resolution
The 'Palestinians' say that the United States has threatened to veto their proposed UN Security Council resolution, which would condemn all Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria and 'east' Jerusalem and all 'settlements' as 'illegal.' “The Americans don’t want us to take the issue to the Security Council,” said Hammad, who is PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s political adviser.Well, of course, they're unable to do so. They've looked at a map. A contiguous 'Palestine' means no more Israel and Obama's 2012 re-election chances go out the window.
“They say that discussing this issue in the Security Council would prompt the US to veto it. They want the issue to remain under their auspices,” said Hammad.
The US administration has, on the other hand, refused to publicly state that the settlements are illegal, Hammad said.
“When we ask the Americans if they could issue a statement publicly outlining what they always tell us – that the settlements are illegal and that they support a geographically contiguous and viable state – they say that they are unable to do so.”
Hammad said that despite the PA’s disappointment with Washington, “We don’t want our problem to be with the US, but with Israel and its aggressive policy and the pro-Israel lobby in the US.”Don't you love how he picks up on the Left's anti-Bush rhetoric?
He added that the present US administration began with a “policy of cooperation with the world and distancing itself from the policies of the former administration, which turned many against the US. Let’s see what their position will be in the UN Security Council when it’s expected to vote on the settlements.”
The Palestinians won’t accept any agreement that does not include a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, Hammad said.It doesn't look like there are going to be 'negotiations' anytime soon. The 'Palestinians' are still up the tree Barack Obama chased them up with his insistence on a 'settlement freeze.'
“Freezing settlement construction is not only a Palestinian demand, but also an international one,” he added.
The US has voiced opposition to settlement building, but it also opposes the proposed resolution on the grounds that it will not move both sides closer to a two-state solution. It has thrown its support behind direct negotiations as the best way to solve the problem.
The Palestinians, for their part, have refused to negotiate with Israel unless it halts construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Nimer Hammad, settlement freeze, UN Security Council
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:37 AM
2 Comments:
It looks like Abu Bluff's initiative to get the UN to condemn Israel is going nowhere fast and the Palestinians are now using the Shepherd Hotel demolition as another excuse to avoid negotiating with Israel. They'll never run out of excuses not to sit down at the table.
Don't look for a Palestinian state to happen in 2011.
As a relative "lefty" here, imo the problem has long ceased to be territorial--there could then be arguments among Israelis re: competing visions of sanctity, purpose, and borders--but existential. Since the Palestinians insist on Judenrein E. Jerusalem, Judenrein "Palestine", no recognition of Jewish state in any borders, and (so far) unlimited right of return in the Israel they refuse to recognize as Jewish, why should Israel "play chess with itself" or give pieces away to opponents who have no intention to play by the rules? Maybe they could come to the table and prove me wrong. Ha ha.
Post a Comment
<< Home