Israel Matzav

US to veto 'Palestinians' UN resolution?

She didn't come out and say it, but if Barack Obama agrees with Hillary Clinton, this statement makes it difficult to believe that the United States will not exercise its veto over a 'Palestinian' resolution in the UN Security Council calling Israeli settlements 'illegal.'

"The only way that there will be a resolution of the conflict... is through a negotiated settlement," Clinton said. "Therefore we do not see action at the UN or any other forum as being helpful in bringing about this desired outcome," the report cited Clinton as saying.

...

Clinton did not say whether Washington planned on vetoing the resolution, AFP reported.

"Ultimately, the Palestinian and Israeli people have to make a decision about whether they can engage in a negotiation that will result in compromise on both sides to obtain," Clinton said.

Jennifer Rubin also believes that the United States will veto the 'Palestinian'-sponsored resolution.

Clue #2: Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and sixteen Senate colleagues have also written to the president. They urge the opposite course:

We are very concerned about reports that the Palestinian Authority is drafting a resolution intended for consideration at the United Nations Security Council regarding issues that have been and should continue to be pursued through direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, namely borders and settlements. We believe such a move hurts the prospects for a peace agreement and is not in the interest of the United States.

We strongly urge you to make clear that the United States will veto such a resolution if it is raised at the Council, and to clearly communicate United States' intent to do so to other Security Council members. . . .

Attempts to use a venue such as the United Nations, which you know has a long history of hostility toward Israel, to deal with just one issue in the negotiations, will not move the two sides closer to a two-state solution, but rather damage the fragile trust between them.

Now, do we think the signatories to Gillibrand's letter, including prominent Democrats, would have taken this step without some clear indication from the administration as to which way it was leaning?

The signatories on Gillibrand's letter include Senators Schumer (D-NY), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Menendez (D-NJ), Crapo (R-ID), Moran (R-KS), Casey (D-PA), Johanns (R-NE), Snowe (R-ME), Collins (R-ME), Vitter (R-LA), Kyl (R-AZ), Barrasso (R-WY), Boozman (R-AR), Wyden (D-OR), Lieberman (I-CT) and Cardin (D-MI).

I wonder why there are not more signatories. Perhaps the letter was not circulated for long enough. If anyone knows, please stick a note in the comments.

I believe that the Obama administration will ultimately veto the resolution, because letting it pass would be extremely harmful to the President's re-election campaign. The longer the vote is delayed, the more likely that the US will veto it. And something tells me that the 'Palestinian people' might be willing to agree to a real territorial compromise (or even to agree to some form of autonomy rather than a 'state'). But their leadership is not willing to compromise.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Hillary Clinton, Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, Kristen Gillibrand, UN Security Council

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:56 PM