Kerry Tells European Envoys U.N. Action on Palestine Can Wait till Israeli Election | Foreign Policy

Kerry Tells European Envoys U.N. Action on Palestine Can Wait till Israeli Election | Foreign Policy.

Kerry Tells European Envoys U.N. Action on Palestine Can Wait till Israeli Election

Secretary of State John Kerry has privately told European Union envoys that Washington will not permit the passage of any U.N. Security Council resolution on the Middle East peace process until after Israel’s March elections, according to three diplomats briefed on the meeting.

The move risks heightening U.S. tensions with the Palestinians, who have expressed growing skepticism over Washington’s ability to broker a political settlement with Israel that guarantees the creation of a future Palestinian state. It is also likely to subject European governments to increased domestic criticism over their inability to help advance the Palestinians quest for its own homeland.

Speaking at an annual luncheon with the 28 European Union ambassadors, Kerry cautioned that any action by the U.N. Security Council would strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners who oppose the peace process. Kerry left open the possibility that the United States might ultimately support some sort of U.N. Security Council resolution that didn’t prejudge the outcome of stalled political negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He didn’t offer any details of what that kind of resolution would have to look like.

“Kerry has been very, very clear that for the United States it was not an option to discuss whatever text before the end of the Israeli election,” according to a European diplomat.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the luncheon was confidential, said that Kerry explained that Israel’s liberal political leaders, Shimon Peres and Tipzi Livni, had expressed concern that a Security Council move to pressure Israel on the eve of election would only strengthen the hands of Israeli hardliners, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Naftali Bennett, an implacable foe of a Palestinian state and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party. Netanyahu is also fiercely opposed to the Palestinians effort to secure Security Council backing for its statehood drive.

Kerry said Livni had “told him that such a text imposed by the international community would reinforce Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardliners in Israel,” as well as the hardliners in Palestine, according to the European diplomat.

The message, said another European diplomat, was that U.N. action would “give more impetus to more right-wing parties, that there was a risk this could further embolden the more right-wing forces along the Israeli political spectrum.”

Kerry’s remarks highlight the Obama administration’s delicate balancing act when it comes to its tense relationship with the Israeli government. On the one hand, senior administration officials make little attempt to hide the personal dislike between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama or their sharp disagreements on issues ranging from the peace process to Iran. On the other hand, Kerry and other top policymakers have tried to avoid saying or doing anything that could be seen as meddling in the Israeli election in an effort to oust Netanyahu and replace him with a more centrist prime minister.

“Secretary Kerry made clear in private as he has in public that we don’t think any steps should be taken that would interfere with the Israeli election — that’s what he conveyed earlier this week,” a senior State Department official said in response to a request for comment on his remarks to the European envoys. “He continues to discuss with foreign partners the options for advancing the goal we all share of preventing a downward spiral of events on the ground and creating conditions for resumption of negotiations on a two state solution.”

Kerry’s Thursday remarks came on a day in which the Palestinians’ U.N. envoy, Riyad Mansour, submitted a resolution demanding the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinians lands by the end of 2017.

The U.S. has made clear to its counterparts that the Palestinian initiative was unacceptable. But Washington said it was open to discussing the adoption of some sort of resolution that reinforced peace efforts. Such a measure would almost certainly lack the strict deadline set out in the Palestinian measure.

With the U.S.-brokered peace talks stalled, European governments have come under mounting domestic pressure to do something at the U.N. to advance the Palestinians’ drive for statehood. France, which is seeking a broader diplomatic role in the Middle East, has proposed an alternative draft Security Council resolution which calls for the resumption of immediate political talks between the Israelis and Palestinians with the aim of concluding a comprehensive settlement within two years.

The United States and Israel oppose the imposition of hard deadlines. But the United States participated in a closed-door meeting Thursday in New York on the French draft with French, British and Jordanian envoys.

Diplomats familiar with those talks say that the United States has been willing to engage in general discussions about the possible role for the Security Council role but that it has been unwilling so far to engage in substantive negotiations over the French text. Those discussions may continue next week and beyond, but there “is no sense of urgency,” according to one diplomat.

Some diplomats expressed concern that the U.S. is merely engaging in stalling tactics. The United States already convinced the Palestinians to put off a decision to move ahead with its resolution in the weeks leading up the U.S. midterm elections last November. The United States has provided little clarity on what it would be willing to support in the Security Council following the Israeli election. Even the U.S. commitment to consider Security Council action after the election has been frustratingly “vague,” according to a European diplomat.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

8 Comments on “Kerry Tells European Envoys U.N. Action on Palestine Can Wait till Israeli Election | Foreign Policy”


  1. When, on an open microphone, Obama “told Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after November’s election to deal with contentious issues such as missile defence,” it was considered a gaffe because it was not intended for public consumption. Now it’s intentionally announced U.S. policy to defer action on the Palestinian “peace proposal” to encourage the left and to diminish the right in the March Israeli elections.

    How will that sort of meddling in the Israeli elections be viewed by Israeli voters? Even leaving that aside, how will it be viewed by other increasingly reluctant allies?

  2. Mark's avatar Mark Says:

    The Hussein regime has never been shy about their intentions toward Israel.

    I remember late in his first term reading here they openly stated that they kept scheduling Iran talks to “make things as difficult as possible on Israel” (to make it harder for them to use the military option).

    I couldn’t believe at the time they would state that openly, Now in his second term that strategy is still going and Netanyahu still hasn’t found the guts to break out of the containment box and end the farcical, never ending talks.

  3. Mark's avatar Mark Says:

    Personally I hope Danny Danon wins the Likud primary.

    Bibi has had run out of chances to stop Iran as far as I’m concerned.

    He doesn’t even have the courage to defeat Hamas as we saw yet again a few months ago.


    • There is no evidence that Danny Danon understands the magnitude of the Iranian threat. There is a lot of evidence the Bibi and Bogie do understand the magnitude of the Iranian threat, and they still have time to act.

      Whom to vote for in the coming Israeli elections on March 17,2015? It’s a no-brainer!

      The only issue that really matters is the looming existential threat from Iran. The price of cottage cheese and the price of apartments in Tel Aviv would not matter in a devastated country.

      Who among the Israeli leaders understands best not only the military threat but the ideological basis that makes the Iranian threat so dire? Who among the Israeli leaders understands that Iran could actually use the bomb regardless of the consequences for Iran?

      It is clear that Benjamin Netanyahu and Moshe Ya’alon are the only two leaders who meet this condition.

      To better grasp what is at stake see NUKEMAP
      http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/12/whom-to-vote-for-in-coming-israeli.html

  4. Joseph Wouk's avatar josephwouk Says:

    I have to agree with you, Mladen. Bibi probably understands the Iranian threat better than anyone else in the West. If he hasn’t struck yet it’s because he didn’t have to… Yet…


    • Indeed. But what is worrying is that the megalomaniac Livni ( ‘The world listens to me,’ not to Netanyahu), and the wimp Herzog ( taking elocution lessons to sound more determined) are just not up to the job regarding Iran, and yet they are getting the attention they do not deserve.

  5. Fred Ali's avatar Fred Ali Says:

    Israel has no interest in complying with the Two UN Resolutions against to return to the 1967 borders and to allow ousted Palestinians in 1948 to return. We ought not to forget that Israel was born out of the treachery of the British which betrayed its mandate in connivance with President Truman of the USA . What was wrong has become right. Israel has no intention of returning to the pre 1967 borders and no one can compel it to do so. As sn Israeli Government Minister said a few days ago ” It is only with Israel’s consent that any land seized in the 1967 war can any land be returned. Israel has defied the tw UN resolutions against it and has also breached the UN charter against acquisition of territory by war. Against any return to the 1967 border the Republican Party has pledged to support Israel in whatever it does. Given this situation there is no hope for the Palestinians or even World peace.
    FredA


Leave a reply to josephwouk Cancel reply