But for one word, US would not have vetoed resolution
The Wall Street Journal reports that but for one word in that Security Council resolution on Friday, the United States would not have exercised its veto. President Obama telephoned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Thursday night, offering to either adopt or abstain on the resolution if the Palestinians agreed to replace the word "illegal" with "illegitimate" in reference to the settlements, according to a person briefed on the call.For reasons I've discussed many times on this blog, the 'settlements' are most definitely not illegal.
But Mr. Abbas refused, this person said. Mr. Abbas told Mr. Obama that his domestic position is so too fragile to risk any further compromises, especially now that he believed the peace process was dead, according to this person.
The Palestinian leader explained to Mr. Obama that he is facing internal challenges to his rule from within his Fatah party, and that he has been weakened by the release of classified internal Palestinian negotiating documents known as the Palestine Papers, which appeared to show Mr. Abbas and his subordinates agreeing to make generous concessions to Israel while getting little in return, according to this person.
Mr. Abbas also told Mr. Obama that he feared the wave of unrest sweeping the Arab world also threatened to sow unrest in the Palestinian territories, according to this person.
"Abbas recognizes that this wave that's hitting the Arab world may also hit him, so he's trying to make it look that he's actually sticking firm to Palestinian rights by pushing forward with this resolution," this person said.
The U.S. had tried to head off the vote because it feared entangling the settlement issue with the popular uprisings across the Arab world, according to a senior U.S. diplomat. Until now, he said, the U.S. and Israel haven't been targets of the pro-democracy protesters. But the veto threatens to change that.
Labels: Barack Obama, Judea and Samaria construction, UN Security Council, US veto
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:27 AM
4 Comments:
If they aint' illegal and are under negotiation they ain't illegitimate. Why does Bibi go through the motions of talking with this prima donna tool?
One wonders why the Palestinians quibbled over a word that meant practically the same thing. They are not willing to compromise even when it would have benefited them and gotten the entire world including America, in their corner!
For the record, under the League Nations Palestine Mandate, revanants west of the Jordan River have not then and not now ever been illegitimate and the world, even if it hated the Jews as it surely does not today, cannot take away from them a right belonging to them that it had previously acknowledged in international law.
carl...does it really matter why the us vetoed the resolution? they did..that is all that counts
i suggest you go back in the records and see how many times the us upheld a resolution against israel
plenty during the late 60s...when that good pal of israel...richard milhouse, sat in the wh.
who cares....the un is a joke anyway
In the spirit of recent street actions:
Where is the title search! Where is the title search!
We need the GIS title search layer, starting with the burbs and J/S communities, and eventually the whole place!
Post a Comment
<< Home