UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/2011/24 on Israeli Settlements

By early 2011, Israeli settlement construction had become a persistent source of friction among Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the Obama administration.[5] Palestinian officials, backed by Arab states, sought binding Security Council action as a means of pressuring Israel to stop settlement construction.[2]

The Obama administration opposed settlement construction but had repeatedly warned that it would veto a binding resolution of this kind.[6] Washington maintained that settlements and other final-status questions should be resolved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations rather than through Security Council action.[7] U.S. representatives worked for weeks to deter introduction of the draft, regarding it as a one-sided measure that could deepen the diplomatic impasse rather than advance negotiations.[3]

Draft resolution S/2011/24 was dated February 18, 2011, and its circulated text listed 79 submitting states.[1] Ynet reported that Lebanon presented it on behalf of the Palestinians and Arab states and that more than 100 UN member states had signed on as co-sponsors.[2]

The preamble recalled Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008). It reaffirmed the asserted applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied since 1967.[1] The text characterized Israeli settlement activities as illegal and a major obstacle to a two-state solution. It also condemned settlement activity and other measures described as altering the territory's demographic composition, character, and status in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant UN resolutions.[1]

The draft referred to obligations under the Quartet Roadmap, including a freeze on all settlement activity — expressly including "natural growth" — and the dismantlement of outposts erected since March 2001. Its operative paragraphs demanded that Israel immediately and completely cease settlement activity; called on both parties to act according to international law, previous agreements, and the Roadmap; urged continued negotiations on final-status issues; and stated that the Council would remain seized of the matter.[1]

The text also expressed a vision of Israel and Palestine as two democratic states living side by side within secure and recognized borders.[1] It did not include language comparable to Resolution 2334's later provisions condemning terrorism and calling for the prevention of violence and incitement.[8]

The Security Council considered the draft on the evening of February 18, 2011. The vote was 14 in favor, 1 against, and 0 abstentions; the United States cast the sole opposing vote and, as a permanent Council member, prevented adoption.[3][9] France, Britain, and Germany were among the states voting in favor.[2] Germany's support surprised Israeli diplomats who had expected Berlin to align with Washington.[10]

Before the vote, the United States proposed a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement concerning settlement construction. Palestinian officials rejected the compromise and insisted on a binding resolution.[2]

In explaining the American vote, Ambassador Susan Rice said that the United States did not support settlement activity and that "we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."[4] She argued that the draft risked hardening both sides' positions, encouraging them to remain outside negotiations, and prompting further recourse to the Security Council whenever talks reached an impasse. Rice maintained that the Council should not attempt to resolve the core issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians.[4]

White House spokesman Jay Carney similarly described continued settlement construction as illegitimate and harmful to the peace process, the prospects of a two-state solution, and Israel's future.[2] British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said Britain supported the draft because it regarded settlement construction as illegal and damaging to peace prospects, and he called for all construction, including in East Jerusalem, to end immediately.[2]

The decision placed the Obama administration under competing pressures. Exercising the veto risked angering Arab governments and publics during a period of regional uprisings, while allowing the resolution to pass risked opposition from the American Jewish community and congressional Republicans.[6]

A later account based on Dennis Ross's book reported that then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice opposed a veto because she believed it would damage the administration's standing in the Arab world and the broader international community. Ross and Vice President Joe Biden reportedly argued that regional governments were preoccupied with the unfolding uprisings and that a veto would have limited diplomatic consequences. According to that account, President Obama decided to exercise the veto after internal deliberations and a telephone call to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.[11]

A contemporaneous Washington Institute analysis argued that the administration opposed internationalizing the conflict through a settlements resolution because passage could encourage efforts to obtain a UN-imposed final settlement or recognition of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.[7]

Palestinian officials said before the vote that they would not dilute the draft despite sustained U.S. pressure. PLO official Hanan Ashrawi described the veto as evidence that the United States was biased toward Israel. PLO Executive Committee Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinian leadership had unanimously decided to pursue Security Council action to pressure Israel to stop settlement construction.[2]

Former Israeli President Shimon Peres later described the veto as an example of the Obama administration responding to an Israeli request, while noting that the United States did not consider the settlements legal.[12]

Germany's vote prompted a tense diplomatic exchange. After Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu telephoned Chancellor Angela Merkel to express his displeasure, an unnamed senior German source claimed that Merkel replied, "How dare you" and "You are the one who disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace." Merkel's spokeswoman confirmed that the leaders discussed the peace process but did not confirm the reported remarks.[10]

The defeat of S/2011/24 prevented a formal Security Council condemnation of Israeli settlement construction in 2011.[6] Five years later, on December 23, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution 2334 after the Obama administration abstained rather than exercising another veto.[8] The later resolution included provisions condemning terrorism and calling for the prevention of violence and incitement, language absent from the 2011 draft.[8]

A later INSS analysis stated that, without the veto, subsequent steps could have included creation of a UN-supervised sanctions mechanism against Israel that would remain in place until Israel was deemed compliant with Council resolutions. This was a projected possible consequence, not an action that occurred.[13] The Washington Institute similarly warned that passage could encourage attempts to impose an Israeli-Palestinian settlement through international institutions rather than direct negotiations.[7]

The episode demonstrated both the strength and the limits of U.S. diplomatic protection for Israel at the Security Council. Washington was prepared to block a binding measure opposed by Israel, while simultaneously rejecting the legitimacy of continued settlement activity and insisting that the dispute be addressed through negotiations.[4][3]

The draft's central legal premise — that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law — remains contested. The draft grounded that characterization in the Fourth Geneva Convention and earlier Security Council resolutions, and described the settlements as a major obstacle to peace.[1]

The Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs advances a contrary interpretation. Its analysis argues that Judea and Samaria are disputed rather than sovereign territory belonging to another state, that the establishment of Jewish communities there is not prohibited, and that the territories' ultimate disposition must be settled through negotiations. It connects this position to the League of Nations Mandate, the Jewish people's historical ties to the land, and continuous Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.[14]

The United States did not endorse the draft's legal characterization when explaining its veto. Although the Obama administration called settlement construction illegitimate and contrary to peace efforts, it avoided describing the settlements as illegal and argued that the Security Council was not the proper body to decide issues reserved for negotiations.[4][2]