Arabs preparing to take 'settlements' to Security Council, US won't veto

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Source:  Israel Matzav

By:  Carl in Jerusalem

I suppose that this was to be expected.

Arab states and the Palestinian Authority are drafting a statement they plan to submit to the U.N. Security Council in the form of a resolution denouncing Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and calling for international pressure on Israel to halt construction.

Israeli officials fear that Washington will not rush to exercise its veto power against such a resolution.

According to a senior figure in the Foreign Ministry, representatives of the Arab bloc in the United Nations convened in New York on Friday and Saturday to start framing the resolution. The meetings are expected to continue and could produce a draft that will be distributed to Security Council members by the end of this week.

Some analysts believe the resolution will contain not only denunciations of Israel but also calls for international sanctions against the Jewish settlements, in the form of a boycott of businesses based there. Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that even if the resolution does not go that far, it could nonetheless encourage Western states to impose their own sanctions against the settlements.

Israel's Foreign Ministry is doing its best to keep this out of the media. But what's behind it is actually something that's not such bad news for Israel.

"The Palestinian issue, which until recently was at the top of the administration's agenda in the Middle East has now become unimportant to them," one Palestinian official said. The officials said that last week's meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell was difficult and that the PA president was disappointed by the results.

Mitchell presented to the Palestinians a "non-paper," an unofficial document, related to the talks with Israel that shocked the Palestinians.

The Palestinians said that the positions in the non-paper constituted a step back and that even the previous administration of President George W. Bush had presented a more pro-Palestinian position. They were particularly incensed by a clause stating that the negotiations were to be over the borders of the Palestinian state with Jordan, Egypt and Israel - excluding the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley and the no-man's-lands from 1948, which they say the Bush administration had agreed to.

If the 'Palestinians' are complaining, things can't be that bad, can they?

I would guess that the resolution passes - provided that it has no real teeth. No Chapter 7 sanctions. It wouldn't be the first time that the Security Council condemns us for allowing Jews to live in the liberated territories, and it probably won't be the last.


My Note:


Is it possible that due to the House of Representative's vote earlier this past week, supporting Israel and the prospects of the new Senators arriving in January asking tough questions about Obama's administration supporting ALL the Arab Muslim demands, plus funding the Palestinians ... Obama now sees the "handwriting on the wall" and has had to CHANGE his approach between the Palestinians and Israel?  If so, good news for Israel and America!


Bee Sting