U.S. willing to back UN resolutions on Palestinians, if ‘no unilateral moves’ included

Kerry said earlier Tuesday that the U.S. hadn’t made any final determinations regarding the proposals expected to be submitted to the UNSC this week.

HAARETZ

The United States clarified Tuesday that it would be willing to support a United Nations Security Council proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as long as it contains “no unilateral measures” that would predetermine the outcome of diplomatic negotiations.

State Department Spokesman Jen Psaki said that if the wording of the resolution included terms of reference for negotiations on the core issues, the United States would accept it, and not view it as a unilateral move.

“[The] UN Security Council resolution is not in our view a unilateral measure by either one of the parties, there are the obviously the details are what matter. And so, our objection here, and our objection historically, has been to measures that would prejudge the outcome of the negotiations,” said Psaki.

“If you had a Security Council resolution from the Palestinians, which we’ve had in the past, that sought to have them recognized as a member state, that’s a unilateral action, as you all know. But if you were to do some kind of terms of reference [for negotiations] in the Security Council resolution, that would not be what we would consider to be a unilateral step.”

Unilateral measures would include any wording that set a timeframe of two years for a Palestinian withdrawal from the West Bank, as stipulated in the Palestinian proposal set for submission.

During the nine months of talks with Israel and the Palestinians, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried to formulate such principles as part of a framework agreement between the parties, but to no avail. These principles could include stipulation that negotiations over the borders of the Palestinian state be based on the 1967 lines with exchanges of territory, or that Jerusalem must be the capital of both states.

Psaki’s statements, which may signal certain change in the American line, came a few hours after Kerry himself said that that the United States had not “made any determinations” on how to respond to the two resolutions that the Palestinian Authority and France are attempting to move ahead in the UN Security Council.

Speaking to reporters in London, Kerry said that Washington is having a “constructive” conversation with the Israelis, Palestinians and European countries on how to stem rising violence between Israelis and Palestinians and create an environment for resumed peace talks. But, he added, “we haven’t made any determinations on language or wording of specific resolutions.”

The current run-up to elections makes this goal complicated, Kerry added, and the U.S. believes that no-one should interfere.

Palestinians to submit UN bid despite U.S. ‘threats’

Also on Tuesday, Kerry met with Palestinian Intelligence chief Majid Faraj and Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat’s for talks described as very difficult and that left the impression among the Palestinians that Kerry had little more to offer other than threats.

As a result, they said, the Palestinians said they were planning to submit their draft resolution on ending the occupation to the Security Council on Wednesday as planned.

The meeting lasted several hours and focused on the proposed UN Security Council resolution that would recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines and end the occupation of the West Bank within two years.

A Palestinian official familiar with what transpired said that Kerry asked that they postpone submitting any resolutions for a vote for several weeks, during which Kerry would meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

According to this official, Erekat asked Kerry to hear what the Americans would be proposing. Kerry said he had nothing to present to him at this stage, but would suggest things to Abbas during the meeting he’d have with him in one of the Arab countries. According to this official, Erekat and the other members of the Palestinian delegation got the impression that Kerry had nothing to offer them and was just trying to buy more and more time.

The official said that after the Palestinians said they planned to submit their draft resolution, the meeting turned tense, with Kerry taking a threatening tone and saying that if the Palestinians went ahead, the Americans would have to veto the resolution.

Erekat said that the Palestinian response would be to approach other international bodies, including the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Kerry responded that such moves would result in sanctions on the PA that could have serious economic ramifications for the Palestinians, to which Erekat replied, “We have nothing to lose. If you and Israel want the PA, take it, because we cannot continue in this situation.”

According to officials in Ramallah, Kerry also held talks with several Arab foreign ministers, including Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, but did not present any new ideas or plans that could replace the Palestinian proposal.

Despite the Palestinian pronouncement, it’s very possible that they will not submit their resolution for a vote today, but will instead spend several more days trying to recruit a majority to vote in favor of the resolution so that the Americans would be forced to cast a “strategic” veto. “It’s very important for us to get nine votes in favor or even more, even if we end up with an American veto,” the Palestinian official told Haaretz. The Security Council has 15 members.

Livni to Kerry: Veto Palestinian bid

Meanwhile, MK Tzipi Livni spoke Tuesday night by phone with Kerry and asked that the U.S. try to prevent the Palestinians’ proposal in the Security Council and veto it if necessary.

According to a statement from Livni’s bureau, the MK told Kerry that “the Palestinian proposal is bad also in the opinion of those in Israel who want to reach a fair arrangement in the future and deeply disagree with Netanyahu over the course of diplomatic conduct.”

Livni added that the rejection of unilateral steps while a political campaign was underway is a position “that represents Israel’s interests without reference to political affiliation. “Unilateral actions harm the ability to make the right diplomatic decisions even if there are changes in government,” she said.