Israel Requests, Bush Responds: The US Abstention on the UN Cease-Fire Resolution

Enduring America, 10 January: It’s a final legacy for President Bush, refusing to back a cease-fire and effectively green-lighting Israel to carry on with the killing (of both Hamas fighters and civilians) in Gaza. But that leaves a further mystery: who really made the decision to pull away from the resolution?

Answer: it was Bush, even though he had no knowledge of the resolution's language. It was Bush, overruling (and humiliating his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice) carrying out the wishes of the Israeli Government.



In an extraordinarily frank summary on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert set out the process:

[Bush] was taken off the podium [at an event in Philadelphia] and brought to a side room. I spoke with him; I told him: You can't vote for this proposal.

He said: Listen, I don't know, I didn't see, don't know what it says.

I told him: I know, and you can't vote for it!

He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.

Olmert added, "[Rice] was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour."

Juan Cole has a lengthy, provocative analysis of the episode and its significance for US foreign policy.

The Final Bush Legacy: Why the US Abstained on the Gaza Resolution

We were quite surprised when the US, represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, abstained in the UN Security Council vote on the Gaza cease-fire resolution late Thursday night. After all, as we noted yesterday, Rice had joined British Foreign Minister David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in the development of the resolution, in part to block the Libyan-drafted alternative.

Now we have a partial answer to the mystery:

The call that changed everything apparently came just as ministers and ambassadors were taking their seats in the council chamber. It was President George Bush for Ms Rice. Don't veto the resolution, he said, but don't vote for it either.

Apparently, Bush had just gotten off the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who appealed to the White House to override the State Department and ensure that the US did not support the cease-fire call.

Since it was the British who drafted the resolution and did a lot of the heavy lifting to line up support, especially from Arab delegates --- "it was hairy there for the moment", said one British official --- the Foreign Office is none too impressed with Washington. (Which is why some of their staff gave this story to The Independent and to the Guardian)

So it's a final legacy for President Bush, refusing to back a cease-fire and effectively green-lighting Israel to carry on with the killing (of both Hamas fighters and civilians) in Gaza. But that leaves a further mystery: who really made the decision to pull away from the resolution?

In the history of this Administration, as detailed by writers like Barton Gellman, Thomas Ricks, and James Risen, the Vice President's office and the Pentagon have often bypassed and even trampled upon the State Department to push through their own strategic ideas. Well, Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies may be long gone, but Dick Cheney remains, at least for another 10 days.

So did the Vice President step in again or was it really "The Decider", as Bush likes to style himself, who did make a fateful decision?

Condi Rice's Cheer-Up Message for Gazans

Anyone who is under the happy illusion that the US Secretary of State might do something of consequence to try and limit the civilian deaths in Gaza might want to turn away now:

"It is very difficult in circumstances like Gaza, which is a very densely populated area," Rice told reporters when asked if Israel is living up to its humanitarian obligations in the offensive which has left more than 780 Palestinians dead.

"I might note it's also an area in which Hamas participates in activities like human shields, using buildings that are not designated as military buildings to hide their fighters. So it's hard."

You know, we could inform Ms Rice --- perhaps via State's Twitter-diplomats --- of the Zeitoun massacre, the Jabaliya school/shelter shelling, and the firing on UN convoys and Red Cross/Red Crescent ambulances. We could drop her a note that the latest evidence is that "human shields" are a specialism of the Israeli military.

But somethow I don't think it's going to make a difference.

The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: The United Nations "Cease-fire" Vote

The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Rolling Updates (9 January)

A Headline Story with a Twist....

As expected, the United Nations Security Council passed a consensus resolution, drafted by Britain, which "calls for, an immediate, durable, and fully respected cease-fire which will lead to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza". The resolution also welcomed negotiations on the Mubarak-Sarkozy package and called for humanitarian corridors. The vote was 14-0 in favour, with one abstention.

The twist is that the abstention came from the United States. Despite news reports throughout the day that the resolution was a US-UK-France initiative, when the vote came, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat on her hands.

The reason? Well, Rice said that the resolution had laudable goals but the US "prefers to wait for results of ongoing, Egyptian-brokered talks in Cairo, Egypt, with Israeli and Palestinian leaders". In other words, Washington just told the United Nations that it is secondary, and indeed peripheral, to the Mubarak-Sarkozy process. There is no alternative to the talks in Cairo.

So what's the problem? Well, the immediate one is that Washington has just green-lighted Israel for a few more days: "All this discussion of a cease-fire is very, very nice but, for now, we're stand aside if you press on with your military operations." (Indeed, if you want to be cynical, you might speculate that the US went through the process of drafting this resolution only to block a Libyan-drafted resolution which was due to come before the Security Council yesterday.)

Beyond that, the Mubarak-Sarkozy process succeeds only if both Israel and Hamas agree to it. If Israel stalls on it or decides to walk away, it suffers no consequences --- at least in terms of American action. (That may also apply to the third actor, the Palestinian Authority.) However, if Hamas doesn't play ball, well, you fill in the blank.

This isn't a "spineless" abstention by the US. It does show resolve, calculated resolve. Unfortunately, that resolve is for more military action and more deaths until Hamas, in US and Israeli eyes, is cornered.

The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Rolling Updates (8 Jan --- Evening)

Photograph: Mohammed Saber/EPA

Earlier Updates on The Israeli Invasion of Gaza (8 January)
Latest Story: Breaking News: Obama Administration “Prepared To Talk to Hamas”?
Latest Story: How the US is Fighting for “Peace” in Gaza: Bunker-Busting Bombs
Latest Article: Gaza: One Man's Tragedy is Another Man's Marketing Opportunity

1:30 a.m. A bit of downtime. We'll be back in the morning, updating on the discussions at the UN Security Council, on the humanitarian situation, and on any military developments.

12:30 a.m. The Guardian of London is reporting the statement of the head of the Arab League that Arab nations have accepted the US-UK-France resolution to be presented to the United Nations Security Council.

11:20 p.m. Gazan photojournalist and peace activist Sameh Habeeb, who has been blogging on his experience of the conflict, reports via Twitter that his area is under heavy Israeli bombardment.



10:50 p.m. Iran makes it position clear: Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani, after meetings in Damascus, calls Mubarak-Sarkozy proposal "honey injected with poison"

9:20 p.m. Now here's a twist: part of Israeli information campaigns has been the charge that Hamas has been using human shields in Gaza. This just in from Amnesty International via the BBC:

Israeli troops had forced Palestinian civilians to stay in their homes after taking them over as sniper positions or bases, [Amnesty] said quoting sources in Gaza. "This increases risk to families and means they are effectively being used as human shields."

It should be noted that Amnesty criticised both sides, blaming Hamas for endangering civilians by firing from their homes. Still, the report should make for uncomfortable reading in Tel Aviv, clearly putting an onus for civilian deaths on the Israeli military:

The army is well aware gunmen usually leave the area after having fired and any reprisal attack against these homes will in most cases cause harm to civilians - not gunmen.

9:15 p.m. United Nations Relief and Works Agency says "lack of cooperation" with Israeli is "completely unacceptable" and they have "lost all confidence" in Israeli authorities.

8:35 p.m. CNN is headlining the press conference of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Abbas replayed his endorsement of the Mubarak-Sarkozy proposal as "important to reach a cease-fire", a position supported by Zapatero.

Fair enough. But why, at this important time, is Abbas spending a tangential 24 hours in Madrid? He is due to go to Cairo.

7:45 p.m. Reuters and Al Jazeera offer details, from a Western diplomatic source, of the US-UK-France resolution for the United Nations Security Council. It will "include a call for an immediate ceasefire, action to stop smuggling of arms [to Hamas] and open the border crossings". Trying to overtake the Libyan-drafted resolution, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner presented the draft resolution to Arab foreign ministers.

7:20 p.m. Unsurprising Development of the Day: US Senate passes non-binding resolution expressing strong support of Israel. The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, explained, "The Israelis...are responding exactly the same way we would."

6:40 p.m. Curious report by CBS News: 10 Damascus-based Palestinian factions, including Hamas, have rejected the Mubarak-Sarkozy proposal, stating that they ""didn't see in the Egyptian initiative any valid basis for any acceptable solution as it includes articles deemed risky for the Palestinian resistance and its future". The aim of the proposal was "to impose restrict on the resistance movement, blockading it while giving the enemy the free hand. The initiative could only help the enemy achieve the results they are unable to attain so far." To my knowledge, this supposed rejection has not been reported in any other American or British media. It is unclear what effect it has on the talks currently underway in Cairo.

6:17 p.m. Barack Obama now delivering a speech calling for urgent action on an economic stimulus plan. Can't help but notice that, when it comes to economy, he has no problem being Presidential but, when it comes to Gaza, he declares that "America cannot have two Presidents at once".

6:15 p.m. The US-Britain-France resolution has been drafted by the British. My suspicion is that the trio have done this to try and forestall formal consideration of the Libyan-drafted resolution, which would undoubtedly have been unacceptable to Israel.

Afternoon update (6 p.m.): Significant shift on diplomatic front? US-Britain-France reported to be working on binding UN resolution for Gaza cease-fire.

Hamas official says organisation is considering cease-fire options. Will agree to proposal if it includes provisions for "end to Israeli aggression" and lifting of economic blockade.

UN aid agency has suspended operations after one of its trucks was hit by Israeli fire. The Gazan death toll is now 763.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has condemned the firing of rockets into northern Israel and says his Government will strive to find those responsible. Israeli Government believes a group called National Front is behind the rocket launches.