Continued disappointment.
The other 14 members of the Council voted for the resolution, which demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard." But as one of the five permanent members, the negative US vote is the equivalent of a veto.
In explaining her veto, US Ambassador Susan E. Rice said the vote should not be misunderstood as support for settlement activity.
"On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," she declared. "Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace..."
Sorry, I'm no politician, but if we reject these settlements "in the strongest terms", wouldn't that include joining a UN Resolution on the topic? And H. Clinton's hair splitting of "illegitimate" vs. "illegal" sounds like doublespeak (or maybe newspeak...?)
Reminder of statement Obama made in Cairo:
"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Mr. Obama said. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment