That resolution, those letters, my headache

There’s a long, philosophical blog post to be written about the utility of writing letters about Israel "not having a partner" at a time when the Arab world seems to be imploding, and when multiple leaks show what the Washington Post’s Janine Zacharia aptly described as an "earnestness" by Palestinian negotiators.

I’m not gonna write it. Not now, anyway.

But: I have such a reporter’s gripe with having to contradict congressional laws/statements/resolutions/letters with facts.

Because no one likes to be the guy who says "nu nu nu." It creates an unhappy tension in news copy — as it did in my brief today — when you quote from a statement and then follow it up with a dry, newsy version of "Actually, that’s a crock."

I did it the other day with the Senate letter urging President Obama to veto the U.N. Security Council resolution bashing Israel’s settlement expansion policy.

Now I have to do it with a similar letter from the House leadership.

This latest letter is marginally better — its relationship to the actual resolution is less tenuous than the Senate letter. Particularly this part:

Substantively, the resolution before the Security Council is without merit. Israel’s withdrawal of both its civilian population and its military from the Sinai in 1982 and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 are more than ample proof of Israel’s willingness to take difficult decisions and make painful sacrifices when it believes that doing so would ultimately lead to security and peace.

Moreover, given the repeated adoption of counter-productive, biased resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by various UN institutions, additional UN action only serves to further undermine the peace process and would likewise be counter-productive. As Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Rosemary A. DiCarlo said on January 19, 2011: “Permanent-status issues can be resolved only through negotiations between the parties—and not by recourse to the Security Council. We therefore consistently oppose attempts to take these issues to this Council and will continue to do so, because such action moves us no closer to the goal of a negotiated final settlement. Rather, we believe it would only complicate efforts to achieve that goal.”

Agree, disagree with the wisdom of taking the settlement expansion policy to the Security Council, at least the above argument is with a position that appears in the actual resolution.

If only the letter stopped there.

But listen to recommendations rounding out the letter:

Mr. President, we respectfully request that the Administration—
• continue and increase pressure on the Palestinian leadership to return, immediately and unconditionally, to direct negotiations with Israel;
• continue and increase pressure on the Palestinian leadership to cease pursuing anti-Israel measures in international forums;
• declare that Palestinian failure to take these steps would have significant negative consequences for United States policy towards the Palestinians; and
• pledge in response to this letter to veto any UN Security Council resolution that criticizes Israel regarding final status issues.

The first and last points grate especially:

–The UNSC resolution, as I noted in my post on the Senate letter, calls for a return to direct talks.

–Freezing settlement growth, definitionally, is not a final status issue. The Road Map defines it as a preliminary issue.

I’ve also got a philosophical problem with the first two points (uh-oh, I’m sliding — but this’ll be quick).

This sentence appears in the letter’s first paragraph:

The Palestinian Authority must be reminded that any path towards statehood must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed.

How does "increasing pressure on the Palestinian leadership" not amount to an "imposition" of a path to statehood?

I’m not recommending against pressuring the Palestinians, I’m not saying settlement expansion should or should not be an issue.

If those arguments are to be made, make them in a straightforward way.

But I’m wondering whether diving into the deep pools of bamboozlement is wise when, across the Middle East, the streets are shouting out: "We will not be bamboozled."