This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/middleeast/resolution-for-palestinian-state-fails-in-security-council.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Resolution for Palestinian State Fails in Security Council Resolution for Palestinian State Fails in Security Council
(about 3 hours later)
A United Nations Security Council draft resolution that set a deadline to establish a sovereign Palestinian state was defeated Tuesday night after it failed to receive the nine votes that are needed for adoption in the 15-member body.A United Nations Security Council draft resolution that set a deadline to establish a sovereign Palestinian state was defeated Tuesday night after it failed to receive the nine votes that are needed for adoption in the 15-member body.
The United States and Australia voted against the measure. France, China and Russia were among the eight countries that voted for it. Britain and four other nations abstained.The United States and Australia voted against the measure. France, China and Russia were among the eight countries that voted for it. Britain and four other nations abstained.
The draft resolution, which was introduced by Jordan on behalf of the Palestinians, sets a one-year deadline for negotiations with Israel, sets down targets for Palestinian sovereignty, including a capital in East Jerusalem, and “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli forces” from the West Bank by the end of 2017. The draft resolution, which was introduced by Jordan on behalf of the Palestinians, set a one-year deadline for negotiations with Israel; established targets for Palestinian sovereignty, including a capital in East Jerusalem; and called for the “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli forces” from the West Bank by the end of 2017.
The defeat could potentially lead Palestinian officials to seek recognition in other ways — including by joining the International Criminal Court.The defeat could potentially lead Palestinian officials to seek recognition in other ways — including by joining the International Criminal Court.
Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, said that the resolution was “deeply imbalanced” and set deadlines that did not adequately take account of Israel’s security needs. Samantha Power, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said that the resolution was “deeply imbalanced,” setting deadlines that did not adequately take account of Israel’s security needs. “Today’s staged confrontation in the U.N. Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution,” she said. “This resolution sets the stage for more division, not for compromise.”
“Today’s staged confrontation in the Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution,” she said. Yet Ms. Power also cautioned Israel against interpreting the vote as “a victory for an unsustainable status quo” and said continued “settlement activity” would also undermine the chances for peace.
Secretary of State John Kerry had sought to defer a vote on the resolution, which America and some of its European allies feared would inflame tensions before the Israeli elections that are scheduled for March and strengthen the position of Israeli hard-liners. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Tuesday night, “We presented a resolution that is fully in line with international law, and which recalls several previously approved resolutions by the United Nations.”
Jeff Rathke, a State Department spokesman, said that Mr. Kerry had called 13 ranking diplomats over the past two days to express his concerns about the measure.  “Although the majority of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution,” he said, “once again, certain countries continue to ensure impunity to the Israeli occupation and its severe international law violations by not voting in favor of the resolution.”
While Mr. Kerry failed to get the vote deferred, he managed to line up enough abstentions so that the United States did not need to wield a veto to block the measure. At first, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to defer a vote on the resolution, which the United States and some of its European allies feared would inflame tensions before the Israeli elections that are scheduled for March and strengthen the position of Israeli hard-liners.
Jordan, which represents Arab countries on the Council, had earlier pushed for compromise language that would win the full support of the Council, but Arab diplomats ultimately backed the Palestinian bid to put it for a vote by the end of the year. But American officials said it has been clear since Mr. Kerry’s mid-December trip to Europe that the Palestinians would insist on a vote. During that visit, Mr. Kerry met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Erekat and ranking European and Russian diplomats.
The Palestinian push reflects their mounting frustration with the American-brokered peace process and widening support from European lawmakers, who have voted in recent months to recognize a Palestinian state. The failed resolution, which was shared with Security Council members in mid-December and then toughened this week, also sets the stage for a sharp political confrontation before the Israeli elections in March. So Mr. Kerry worked to line up enough abstentions from American allies like South Korea and Rwanda so that the United States would not have to wield its veto. Jeff Rathke, a State Department spokesman, said Tuesday that Mr. Kerry had called more than a dozen senior foreign officials over the previous few days, including a call Tuesday afternoon to Goodluck Jonathan, the president of Nigeria, which abstained. 
“They had ample opportunity to engage and be part of this effort,” said the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour. “How long do we have to wait?” Calculating that they were making headway, American officials were eager for the vote to occur this month instead of being deferred until January when the composition of the Security Council will change.
The Palestinian leadership is to meet Wednesday in Ramallah and announce the next steps. “I.C.C. is clearly an option; I cannot say whether it will be approved,” Xavier Abu Eid, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, said Tuesday. By avoiding a veto, the United States also avoided a fresh irritant in its relations with Arab nations, some of which have joined the United States in the campaign in Iraq and Syria against militants from the Islamic State.
European nations, which have been generally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, were split. Britain and Lithuania abstained, but France and Luxembourg voted in favor of the measure.
François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, acknowledged that his government had reservations about some elements of the resolution but said France decided to support it because of “an urgent need to act.”
Jordan, which represents Arab countries on the Council, had earlier pushed for compromise language that could win full support, but Arab diplomats ultimately backed the Palestinian bid to put it for a vote by the end of the year.
The Palestinians’ push reflects their mounting frustration with the American-brokered peace process and widening support from European lawmakers, who have voted in recent months to recognize a Palestinian state. The resolution was shared with Council members in mid-December and then toughened this week.
The decision by Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to press for a vote also reflects intense domestic political pressure on him to regain credibility among an increasingly critical public.
In a December poll, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that four out of five Palestinians supported joining more international organizations, while three-fourths of them backed joining the International Criminal Court.
American diplomats have repeatedly warned the Palestinians that joining the International Criminal Court would lead to congressional sanctions.
Nonetheless, the Palestinian leadership has threatened for months to ratify the treaty that created the International Criminal Court, which would make Israel vulnerable to prosecution for crimes against humanity, particularly for its settlement activity.
The Palestinian leadership is to meet Wednesday in Ramallah and announce the next steps. “I.C.C. is clearly an option; I cannot say whether it will be approved,” Xavier Abu Eid, a Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman, said Tuesday.