US lawmaker to Obama: House sent a clear message against one-sided UN action
New York representative Lowey says president should veto Security Council efforts to impose solution on Israel
WASHINGTON – At least 90 percent of the House of Representatives opposes “one-sided” action at the UN Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a letter endorsed by 394 members.
The missive is a clear message to the Obama administration, according to one of its authors, Rep. Nita Lowey of New York.
Several congressmen worked on the letter, sent to the White House amid fresh Palestinian and European efforts to affect the conflict through international bodies.
Lowey, a Democrat and ranking member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee, told The Jerusalem Post on Friday that the administration had vetoed similar resolutions in the past – and that its reasoning for such vetoes “still applies today.”
“I feel very confident – when just under 400 members of Congress [out of 434 – one seat is currently vacant – MW], Democrats and Republicans, express their position with great clarity – that the administration will read the letter,” Lowey said. “Maybe they’ll read this letter very carefully.”
The letter calls on the administration to refuse support for “counterproductive efforts aimed at imposing a solution on the parties,” and to oppose “and, if need be, veto, one-sided United Nations Security Council resolutions.” It also expresses frustration over the “lack of significant progress toward a lasting peace” between the two sides.
“It just can’t be done from the outside looking in,” Lowey stated, noting that the letter reflects on longstanding US policy. “We wanted to make this bipartisan.”
At least two resolutions are currently under the pen related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: one spearheaded by the Palestinian Authority, another by the French government.
The Palestinian draft would have the Security Council state its opposition to Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank – a position held by each permanent member of the council.
The Paris-led initiative would have the Security Council outline parameters of a two-state solution. Democrats and Republicans alike, including Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, oppose this approach and warn that trying to impose solutions from without would prove counterproductive.
But the White House said last year it was willing to review its policy toward the conflict in the United Nations, and it has yet to rule out such an approach. Israeli government leadership has not received assurances that the Obama administration will oppose either or both resolutions, the Post learned last month.
“We understand that there is an early draft that the Palestinians have shared informally in New York,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday, asked by the Post to clarify whether the US would consider voting for or declining to veto a resolution addressing Israel’s settlement activity.
“We are very concerned about trends on the ground and we do have a sense of urgency about the two-state solution. We will consider all of our options for advancing our shared objective of lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but I’m not going to comment on a draft Security Council resolution,” Kirby said.
The issue has apparently affected negotiations over a new 10-year US defense package for Israel.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), over breakfast with foreign policy reporters on Thursday morning, warned against any “funny” moves at the UN, arguing that such actions would harm the chances for peace. The US has long supported direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
In 2011, Susan Rice, then US ambassador to the UN, said a Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlements would not move the political process forward. “Will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement?” Rice questioned. “Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the position of both sides.”
Rice, who now serves as Obama’s national security adviser, said the president’s decision to veto that resolution should not be misconstrued as support for “the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”
She also said the US had issued a proposal that would have “offered a constructive alternative course that we believe would have allowed the council to act unanimously to support the pursuit of peace.” That proposal was rejected by other members of the Security Council.