The Israeli government is complaining to the Security Council that the so-called Nakhba day protests violated international law. But this was not any ordinary border raid. These were activists, not militants. The vast majority of the protesters were practicing a sophisticated form of direct-action non-violent resistance.
I have just obtained the copy of a draft resolution from the Human Rights Council that strongly condemns the violence in Libya. What is more significant than the substance of the resolution is the broad degree of support it has received.
In Bahrain today, a geo-strategic ally of the United States has massacred its own people. Meanwhile, in New York, the United States cast a lone veto on a resolution condemning new Israeli settlement construction.
Column Lynch reports that "In a sharp reversal, the United States decides to rebuke Israel in the Security Council." I wouldn't exactly put it that way. In fact, what the United States is doing is actually in line with its longstanding policy of defending Israel.
In the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin dismisses the signatories of a letter to president Obama urging him to support a Security Council resolution condemning the construction of new Israeli settlements.
The Palestinians have forwarded a Security Council resolution condemning new Israeli settlement activity. The resolution clearly reflects American position on the settlement issue, but will the Americans veto it anyway?