Links January 15th and January 19th

Automatically posted links for January 15th through January 19th:

Links for January 12th

Automatically posted links for January 12th:

Links for January 11th

Automatically posted links for January 11th:

Links for January 6th

Automatically posted links for January 6th:

Links December 19th and January 5th

Automatically posted links for December 19th through January 5th:

Links for December 4th

Automatically posted links for December 4th:

Links for 2 December

Automatically posted links for November 30th through December 2nd:

US withdraws resolution under Israeli pressure

US withdraws Mideast resolution:

UNITED NATIONS – Because of Israeli objections, the United States suddenly withdrew a U.N. resolution endorsing this week’s agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement — even though the measure had overwhelming Security Council support.

The U.S. about-face in less than 24 hours on Friday surprised many U.N. diplomats and highlighted Israel’s difficult relations with the United Nations, which it contends is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. But what surprised U.N. diplomats most was that the U.S. didn’t consult Israel, one of its closest allies, before introducing the draft resolution on Thursday afternoon.

With virtually every other Mideast resolution, the U.S. has consulted Israel in advance, but on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad first presented it at a closed council meeting.

As he left, he welcomed the “very positive” response from council members but told reporters he needed to consult with the Israelis and Palestinians on the text to ensure that the resolution was what they wanted.

It clearly was not what Israel wanted as a first step to support the agreement that emerged at the U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to try to reach a peace settlement by the end of 2008.

Well-informed diplomats said Israel didn’t want a resolution because it would bring the Security Council, which it distrusts, into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians.

The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution not only without consulting the Israelis and Palestinians but without getting broad support from President Bush’s administration.

“It’s not the proper venue,” Israel’s deputy ambassador Daniel Carmon told reporters after Friday’s council meeting. “We feel that the appreciation of Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution.”

Why don’t the Israelis want a UN resolution on Annapolis? Because they want to stay as far as possible from the solutions to the conflict that are most legitimate in international law, namely the ones contained in UN Resolution 242. As always, Israel gets its special treatment and dictates the US position in the United Nations. So while there is broad international consensus on the conflict, Israel seeks to escape it, because it can.

Links for November 28th

Automatically posted links for November 27-28th:

The NYT and Annapolis

Reading the New York Times’ editorials on Annapolis, full of praise for “moderates” and worrying about who shook whose hand, I am reminded of why I barely read that newspaper anymore. The reporting is occasionally good, such as the very nice long feature on radicalism in northern Morocco a few days ago, but when it comes to Israel just forget about it. This piece for instance quotes, aside (current) US officials, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and John Bolton. Never mind the jovial hamster and his bosses.

I mean, is there anything more to Annapolis than providing a mechanism for boosting Mahmoud Abbas while keeping the Palestinian Authority subservient to Israel and the US, thus isolating Hamas and preparing the ground for booting it out of Gaza? And in the meantime recreating the illusion of a peace process Palestinians will never credibly endorse while divided and many in the Israeli political establishment (and certainly the current ruling coalition) have no intention of ever finalizing? Or am I missing something? The NYT could celebrate that if it wanted to, but enough with the bullshit.

(Most links through Angry Arab.)