(CNSNews.com) – The House this week passed a Concurrent Resolution opposing any resolution by the United Nations Security Council to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian State or take any actions that are “one-sided and anti-Israel,” and several Republican lawmakers held a press conference on Wednesday urging President Obama to veto any such resolution and not to abandon long-standing U.S. policy toward Israel during the lame duck session.
“The repercussions of this Administration taking any action on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that changes U.S. policy have not been fully realized,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said in a statement released at the press conference. “Frankly, by even considering a potential change to U.S. policy, President Obama has tarnished trust in the United States.
“We are standing here today to express that this dabbling with a U.N. Security Council resolution that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state, dictates steps or parameters to the parties, or issues condemnations against Israel is detrimental, and is against the will of the American people and the interest of the United States,” he said.
“Any such resolution by the UN Security Council must be vetoed,” Lamborn said.
“Since the first Bush Administration, it has been the United States policy to veto any third party resolutions which impose action on Israel relating to their peace talks with the Palestinians,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said. “Despite this sensible, bipartisan American tradition, there are rumors that President Obama will not veto anti-Israel U.N. resolutions passed during the lame duck and may even take executive action against Israel – targeting both the nation and anyone who supports Jewish settlements.
“We hope and pray that the president does not use the final days of his presidency to harm Israel, but if he does, Congress is prepared to do everything within our constitutional powers to stop him and reverse the damage,” Franks said.
“There is no greater friend and reliable ally to the United States than Israel,” Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said. “We have a mutually beneficial relationship, as Israel remains a most important strategic partner in the Middle East.
“With the turmoil and unrest we see around the world, especially in the Middle East, it’s essential that we remain committed to building a stronger relationship with our greatest ally, Israel,” Zeldin said.
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, said not vetoing any pro-Palestine and anti-Israel resolution amounted to “mob” rule.
“What [the Palestinians] have so far been unable to accomplish on the battlefield they have sought to accomplish via the political battlefield at the United Nations,” Bayefsky said. “One Jewish state versus 21 Arab states, within 56 Islamic states, in turn the largest single bloc within the 119 states of the so-called Non-aligned movement.
“The only thing standing in the way of this mob is the veto of the United States at the U.N. Security Council,” Bayefsky said. “The veto power is not a tool which the United States uses lightly, but it exists because it is absolutely essential to protect the values of our country, our Constitution, and our firm understanding of right and wrong.”
Meanwhile, former President Jimmy Carter wrote an editorial in the New York Times on Oct. 28 encouraging Obama to do just the opposite of what Republicans are calling for, although in his commentary, he does call for “peace and security” for Israel.
“I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short,” Carter wrote. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it achieve full United Nations membership.
“The Security Council should pass a resolution laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict,” Carter wrote. “It should reaffirm the illegality of all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders, while leaving open the possibility that the parties could negotiate modifications.
“Security guarantees for both Israel and Palestine are imperative, and the resolution must acknowledge the right of both the states of Israel and Palestine to live in peace and security,” Carter wrote. “Further measures should include the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and a possible peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations.”
Carter also criticizes Israel for what he calls its “one-state reality.”
“This is the best — now, perhaps, the only — means of countering the one-state reality that Israel is imposing on itself and the Palestinian people,” Carter wrote. “Recognition of Palestine and a new Security Council resolution are not radical new measures, but a natural outgrowth of America’s support for a two-state solution.”
HCR 165 “Expresses the sense of Congress that:
- a sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties;
- any widespread international recognition of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood outside of the context of such a peace agreement would cause severe harm to the peace process and would likely trigger the implementation of penalties under provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 regarding limitations on assistance to support a Palestinian state and uses of funds for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza;
- efforts by outside bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, to impose an agreement are likely to set back the cause of peace; and
- the U.S. government should continue to oppose and veto Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues or that are one-sided and anti-Israel; and
- the U.S. government should continue to support and facilitate the resumption of negotiations without preconditions toward a sustainable peace agreement.”