Obama administration blocks UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements

I’ve seen some convoluted explanations in my time, but this one from the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, is at the top of the pile. Rice was on Al Jazeera (English) a few days ago trying to explain why the Obama administration last week had used its first veto at the UN Security Council to kill a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The proposed resolution was defeated 14 to 1, or I should say 1 to 14 because being one of the five permanent members with veto power, the US was able to block its passage all by itself. The resolution, which you can read here, had more than 100 cosponsors.

Rice was clearly uncomfortable and occasionally hostile during the exchange. Asked why the Obama administration vetoed the resolution, Rice offered this:

Our goal is and must remain—as soon as possible—establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And we looked at the resolution in the light of whether it would advance that goal or harden positions and set it back. As I said today in the Security Council and as President Obama has said on many occasions, the United States strongly opposes continued Israeli settlement activity. So our objection was not on that point. On that point we were united with the rest of the Council. The question for us was, would this resolution and its adoption advance that goal of achieving an independent Palestinian state or cause one or both parties to dig in and make it even harder to resume the very necessary process of direct negotiations?

Rice then said that it is the administration’s position that the resolution would have encouraged the latter scenario, saying further,

We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. There’s no question about that. We have been clear and unequivocal. But the question is, if you simply try to make declaratory statements, will that lead to the halt of settlement activity? No. In fact, it might even encourage increased settlement activity...I think perhaps there would have been more settlement activity had the resolution been adopted.

Rice went on to say that the resolution was an effort to “divert attention” from resolving the conflict.

Before I get into the substance of her explanation, I’d just like to point out to Ambassador Rice that a UN Security Council resolution is not a “declaratory statement,” but international law. Here’s the UN ambassador from the most powerful country in the world likening a binding international resolution to a mere “declaratory statement.” That tells us a lot about what the Obama administration thinks of the UN and international law. In fact, Rice said outright that passage of the resolution wouldn’t lead to a halt in Israeli settlement building (and might even increase it, but more on that in a moment), and this was the main reason she voted against it.

Now it’s probably true that passage would not have prompted Israel to halt its current settlement expansions. Indeed, Israel is currently violation of multiple UNSC resolutions, ignoring them with impunity. And the main reason is because it faces no negative consequences whatsoever. On this front, Obama is simply continuing the policy of his predecessors: pledge unwavering support to Israel with billions of dollars in annual foreign aid, block UNSC resolutions that are critical of Israel, and occasionally condemn Israeli settlement activity as “counterproductive” or “illegitimate” (but not illegal), while doing absolutely nothing about it.

Considered in light of these facts, Rice’s explanation is tautological: We vetoed the resolution because it would not have halted settlements and also because we refuse to encourage Israel to stop building them anyway. And one of the ways in which we refuse to do that is by vetoing resolutions critical of settlements.

But what about Rice’s other assertion that passage of the resolution would lead to an increase in settlement activity? What she’s essentially saying is, Israel has such contempt for international law and even its main ally, the US, that ratification of such an agreement would have prompted Israel to accelerate its settlement building just for the sake of defying the resolution. In other words, even if we voted in favor of it, Israel would have given us, and the international community, the middle finger by doing the exact opposite of what we called on them to do.

If that’s the case, then what the hell? If Israel is going to be unresponsive to US attempts to rein in its settlement building, then why continue supporting—politically and financially—this ally which clearly has no interest in heeding our calls to halt such activity?

Such a question is rendered inapplicable by the fact that the US does not really care about settlements or the Palestinian right to self-determination. For more than three decades, this has been made clear through America’s actions and inactions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Obama administration’s veto is just the latest US enablement of illegal Israeli expansionism, which will surely continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of who occupies the White House.

– Max

max.canning@gmail.com