Drama Building at United Nations Over Maneuvering Against Israel
U.S. Offers To Rebuke the Jewish State

By BENNY AVNI
February 17, 2011
NY Sun
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/drama-building-at-united-nations-over-maneuvering/87240/

UNITED NATIONS – Arab diplomats here are hoping that the controversy that is erupting over a Security Council resolution on Israel’s settlement policies will deflect attention from the spreading democratic protests in the Middle East against the non-democratic regimes.
Arab diplomats at Turtle Bay decided to push the Obama administration for a decision to either wield its first Security Council veto on Friday, a move likely to anger an already agitated Middle East, or allow an anti-Israel resolution to go through and antagonize Jerusalem and its political allies.
The Palestinian Authority representative here, Riyad Mansour, told reporters that the Arab bloc at the U.N. decided to push for a Friday Security Council vote on a resolution that condemns Israel’s settlement policies, expressing the hope that “all members” of the Security Council would support it.
Mr. Mansour spoke to reporters after a meeting of Arab ambassadors, many of them representing regimes that are either no longer in power or struggling to fend off anger of constituencies in the aftermath of revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. For Arab officials closely identified with pre-Tahrir regimes, the renewed diplomatic row can serve as a way to deflect the public ire from oppressive autocrats at home toward traditional enemies: Israel and its defender, America.
Sure, stories about the diplomatic struggle over the anti-settlement U.N. resolution “get published in the newspaper and the TV channels” in Egypt, its ambassador here, Maged Abdelaziz, told me proudly. “Of course we are all against settlements,” Mr. Abdelaziz, who once served as personal spokesman for the deposed President Mubarak, added.
Mr. Mansour said that the timing of the vote could serve as a reminder that even as the Arab world is in turmoil, the Palestinian issue is not relegated to “the back burner.” He said that the anti settlement resolution would help to remove “the main obstacle” from the renewal of peace talks with Israel.
The text of the proposed council resolution, which was finalized last month, declares illegal all Israeli cities, towns and settlements built beyond the 1949 armistice line, known colloquially as the “Green Line” bordering the West Bank. It would also condemn Israeli construction there.
The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is shaken after leaked documents published by al Jazeera last month detailed proposals for peace with Israel. The proposals were widely described as far-reaching concessions on issues like borders, Jerusalem, and resettlement of descendents of 1948 Arab refugees.
Although none of those proposals matured into a signed deal, the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, was forced to resign over the weekend, reacting to wide anger over even the hint of Arab concessions. A U.N. showdown now could show Palestinians back home that Mr. Abbas is willing to even risk confrontation with America to avoid compromising with Israel on core issues like settlements. 
While the Obama administration has leaned on Israel to freeze West Bank construction, Secretary of State Clinton last month said that only direct negotiations between Ramallah and Jerusalem would promote Palestinian-Israeli peace. “We don’t see action in the United Nations or any other forum as being helpful in bringing about that desired outcome,” she said, using diplomatic language that in the past preceded American veto.
America’s ambassador here, Susan Rice, conducted several meetings with members of the Arab group this week, attempting to deter them from pushing for a council vote. According to diplomatic sources, she offered to unite the Security Council behind a statement on the settlements; issue a strong rebuke by the “quartet” of America, Russia, the European Union and the U.N.; and take members of the Security Council on a tour of the region. Neither of those proposals, however, have the same weight as a council resolution in international law.
To date, the U.N.-friendly Obama administration has refrained from using its veto power at the council. In the past, a majority of America’s “no” council votes were in cases where Israel was singled out for condemnation by a hostile Turtle Bay majority.
Israelis are increasingly anxious over the future of their relations with Egypt and Jordan. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral  Mullen, visited Israel over the weekend in a prescheduled trip that the administration used to assure Jerusalem of Washington’s continued support.
Trying to avoid a confrontation with Arabs, who are struggling to adjust their international alliances to new realities, will be extremely tricky if Ms. Rice raises her hand Friday against a proposed Arab resolution. It would become even trickier if she doesn’t. Any hopes she might nurse of convincing Arab ambassadors to exercise patience could be dashed by the fact that, for some of them, agreeing to any further delay could be an adverse personal career move.