Jordan has submitted a draft resolution to the UN on behalf of the Palestinian authority calling for one year of negotiations on the final status solution and a total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank within two years. As the BBC reports:
The text of the draft says a negotiated solution should be based on several parameters including the boundary between Israel and the West Bank that existed before the 1967 Six Day War, security agreements, and “Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states”.It urges both parties “to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-state solution”.
The U.S., for its part, has wavered on whether or not to veto. John Kerry has said “We’ve made no determinations about language, approaches, specific resolutions, any of that,” suggesting that the U.S. could ultimately support a resolution in some form. State Department Spokesman Jen Psaki, on the other hand outlined the traditional rationale for an American veto, saying:
“[The] UN Security Council resolution is not in our view a unilateral measure by either one of the parties, there are the obviously the details are what matter. And so, our objection here, and our objection historically, has been to measures that would prejudge the outcome of the negotiations,”“If you had a Security Council resolution from the Palestinians, which we’ve had in the past, that sought to have them recognized as a member state, that’s a unilateral action, as you all know. But if you were to do some kind of terms of reference [for negotiations] in the Security Council resolution, that would not be what we would consider to be a unilateral step.”
A two year timetable for withdrawal based on the 1967 borders certainly looks like a resolution that would “prejudge the outcome of the negotiations,” warranting an American veto. But it’s worrisome that the Secretary of State can’t simply say “No” to what is clearly a raw deal for Israel.