PALESTINE: U.S. Veto Blocks U.N. Criticism of Israeli Settlements

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 8 1997 (IPS) - The U.S. veto Friday of a U.N. Security Council resolution asking Israel not to constuct new settlements in occupied Palestinian territory caused no suprise here and diplomats said it was just other sign of enduring U.S. support for Israel.

Washington has consistently used its veto power in the Security Council to block any U.N. role in the thorny Israeli-Palestinian dispute over Jerusalem, they noted.

“The United States did what it always does,” said one U.N. official. “Ultimately, it sided with Israel, alone against the world.”

Even U.S. officials acknowledged this was nothing new.

“The United States is used to standing alone on the question of Israel,” one U.S. diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Washington has increased its criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s support for the settlements in Arab-majority zones such as east Jerusalem, the veto tendered by U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson showed the limits of that criticism.

“The decision of the government of Israel (to construct some 6,500 new settlements for Israelis) runs counter to the progress and achievements of the parties to date,” Richardson contended. “As President (Bill) Clinton said earlier, we wish that this decision had not been made.”

Richardson, however, cast the lone vote which scuppered the resolution which had been supported by the other 14 member-states on the Council. “We have never believed, despite the useful role that the Council can and has played in working for Middle East peace, that it is an appropriate forum for debating the issues now under negotiation between the parties,” he argued.

Palestinian envoy Nasser al-Kidwa countered that the Council had failed its obligation to uphold peace and security in the Middle East, and point to the long history of U.S. vetoes concerning Jerusalem. The lack of Council action, he argued, has not helped to solve the question of how the status of Jerusalem, a holy city for Islam, Judaism and Christianity, will be determined.

Calling for an emergency meeting of the 185-nation U.N. General Assembly, al-Kidwa warned of the “larger damage because of the failure to adopt this draft resolution.” Currently, he contended, Israel can adopt policies which change the face of the occupied territories, but Palestinians must abide scrupulously by 1993 peace accords. “This has not been and will not be acceptable to us,” he said.

The Palestinians were especially angered that the U.S. veto on Jerusalem occurred after Clinton and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat enjoyed a rare degree of agreement on Jerusalem in a meeting in Washington Monday.

Clinton chided the rightist Israeli government’s decision to construct 6,500 new houses for Israeli settlers — 2,500 of which are to be built in Jabal Abu Ghunaym, an Arab-majority area south of the largely Arab East Jerusalem.

“I would prefer the decision not have been made, because I don’t think it builds confidence,” Clinton said. “I think it builds mistrust.”

Netanyahu countered that Clinton was “not saying anything new,” and maintained his confidence that Israel could proceed with the settlements without any problem. He also ordered the closure of several Palestinian offices in east Jerusalem, which has been under Israeli occupation since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Diplomats here agreed the Israeli leader is right about one thing: There is a limit to the amount of support Washington can give to the Palestinians. Although U.S. officials have underscored their dismay at Netanyahu’s reversal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, begun in 1993 by the centre-left Labour Party, they are wary of Israel paying too heavy a price at the United Nations.

Similarly, when Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinian worshippers at a Hebron mosque in 1994, the United States allowed the passage of Security Council resolution condemning the act – only after it had used its veto to delete language concerning Jerusalem.

According to the White House, the issue of Jerusalem’s status should not be addressed at the United Nations or any other venue because it is a sensitive topic reserved for “final status” talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. But Arafat argued that the status of the city – which both parties claim as their capital – is already being changed as Netanyahu plans new settlements and closes Palestinian offices in the eastern part, called Al-Quds.

Ultimately, the problem for Clinton is political: how to convince the Palestinians that Washington is an “honest broker” that can address their strongest grievances and still maintain its traditional strong alliance with Israel (the recipient of more than three billion dollars in U.S. aid yearly).

Richardson noted that the United States decided during the past week to set up a joint committee with the Palestinians to discuss economic and cultural issues.

Arafat also received another choice plum during his visit to Washington when the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Tuesday signed an agreement with his Palestine Liberation Organisation to provide risk insurance for businesses intending to invest in the Palestinian Authority. MIGA is hoping for a fund of some 50 million dollars which it can then use to provide coverage in case of nationalisations, war or civil unrest.

Such gains, the United States hopes, should compensate for Washington’s traditional blocking of even mild action against Israel at the United Nations. But some diplomats here worry that the end result may be that Israeli settlements continue, and succeed at isolating and, as Arafat put it, “squeezing” the Palestinians’ small self-ruled zones.