Veto on Arafat's security

We believe the operative phrase here is 'the occupying power.' How dare an occupier of the Palestinian land put out a threat to kill off an elected president of the Palestinian Authority? The call for complete cessation of all acts of violence is obviously directed to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Palestinian allegiance to the roadmap for ME peace has been reiterated through the draft resolution.

The amendment brought to the Palestinian envoy Kidwa's draft by Syria and Sudan sounded extremely relevant, too: the loss of innocent lives on both sides gave serious worries in view of the dangling prospect of a US veto. The modified resolution formally sponsored by Syria and put to vote after hours of consultation failed to strike a compromise with the US viewpoint. Eleven of the fifteen-member UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution with three nations abstaining -- Britain, Germany and Bulgaria -- on the plea that the measure was not comprehensive. So, world public outrage over the Israeli threat was largely writ on the resolution.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The US explanation for the veto is that the text failed to take a clear stand against Palestinian militant groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which have been blamed for suicide bombings in Israel. We assume that while debating the text, the US envoy might have elaborated what they meant by 'a clear stand on the militant groups'. Suffice it to say though, in the midst of violence breeding violence with technologically superior fire power in the hands of the Israelis, that unidirectional finger-pointing can only be a futile, even counter-productive, exercise as the root causes of the confrontation received the littlest of attention.

The post-veto posturing by the US has been nuanced, equivocal and somewhat counter-veiling. US ambassador in the UN John Negroponte had a word of caution for Israel: "the veto did not mean it should harm Arafat or send him into exile." The US envoy's reaction almost found a resonance in chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat's words, "I hope that Israel will not interpret the killing of this resolution as a licence to kill." However, the US representative at the UN predicated his cautionary words to Israel on the following: 'while Mr. Arafat is part of the problem, we believe that this problem is best solved through diplomatic isolation.' The US reservations about Arafat have been surfacing in various forms. For example, the US in its first reaction to the Israeli cabinet decision for Arafat's expulsion shrewdly stated that his removal from Palestine would 'give him a larger role' in the region.

By vetoing the Syria-sponsored resolution to spread a protective umbrella over Yasser Arafat, the US may have given a green signal to a host of Israeli designs against the Palestinians. First of all, Arafat's physical safety stands much more endangered than before. Secondly, the West Bank security barrier being put up by Israel which cut deep into Palestinian territory may have received a psychological booster. Thirdly, the wider Middle East situation has become more complicated than before. Finally, the roadmap, already bedeviled by the spiral of violence following abandonment of the cease-fire has thrown the peace initiative completely off-gear.

The US knew it as the moving force behind Middle East peace processes since the Oslo days that she had to be neutral between the Israelis and the Palestinians to succeed in her mission. But with her latest veto, the credibility of the US as the honest broker for peace seems to be at stake now.