The credibility of the U.S. has never been tested like it is today — as all the world (in particular the Arab world) turns to the Security Council in anticipation of the issuance of a resolution condemning the settlements. The resolution calls on the Zionist government to stop its aggression, which is in violation of international law, international consensus and the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids any change in the Occupied Territories.
The Palestinian Authority and Arab groups have asked Washington to approve the resolution, prepare for the vote and not resort to using their veto. They have also asked for all the Security Council countries to reach an agreement condemning Israel, calling on it to cease its violation of international laws, the decisions of the Quartet and Resolutions 242 and 338, which require the occupation’s gangs to withdraw from all Arab lands occupied since the 1967 war, and most of all from Jerusalem.
In this regard, it should be remembered that Washington’s stance over the past six decades has supported and strengthened the Zionist enemy. This was, and continues to be, the primary reason for Israel’s refusal to comply with international law, starting with the "Partition" Resolution 181 in 1947 and the "Return" Resolution 194, all the way up to Resolution 1516, which calls on Israel to lift the Gaza blockade and allow in food, commercial goods, building supplies, medicines and fuel.
But Washington did not stop with just support; it also used its veto power more than 50 times to rescue its ally and stepdaughter Israel from international sanctions and from the repercussions following its violation of international law. This is evident from the pressure the U.S. applied to Judge Goldstone, who condemns the occupation’s unjust aggression against Gaza, and who calls for prosecution of Israeli officials on charges of genocide and the use of the prohibited weapon, white phosphorous. The U.S. also froze out the decision of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which called for an international inquiry into the unjust attack that the Zionist army undertook against the Turkish ship, the Marmara. This attack resulted in the deaths of nine people and the injuries of more than 21 who were sailing in the Mediterranean to dispatch humanitarian aid to more than 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in Gaza, and who oppose the humanitarian disaster that is a direct result of this unjust and inhuman blockade.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that the United States is capable — if it wanted to — of forcing its ally to comply with international resolutions. One is reminded of the position of President Eisenhower during the 1950s, when he forced the enemy’s Prime Minister Ben Gurion to withdraw from the Gaza Strip after the Tripartite Aggression of 1956. Also recall George H.W. Bush’s stance on the eve of the Madrid Conference in 1991, when he threatened to halt loan guarantees if Israel did not participate. Following this, Prime Minister Shamir obeyed U.S. orders.
To summarize: Washington, in its capacity as the sole sponsor of the peace process, is required to exercise its role with the highest degrees of impartiality, integrity and transparency. It must insist on the application of international resolutions to preserve world peace, and to achieve security and stability in the region and the world. This should force it to condemn the settlements and take the steps necessary to implement the international consensus — a withdrawal of the occupation forces from all occupied Arab lands and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with its capital as East Jerusalem. This would restore Washington’s credibility, which has been greatly damaged by its approach — an approach that appears to be premised on a double standard.