U.S. Presses for Compromise on Israel at U.N.

The United States early today struggled for the third straight day to win U.N. Security Council approval of a compromise resolution condemning Israel for using excessive force in the deaths of 19 Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem, but it threatened to veto a harsher measure.

Diplomats cautioned that they were working intensively on the wording of a possible agreement that could fall apart because of semantics.

At the heart of the difficulty was language in a resolution put forth late Wednesday by nonaligned nations asking U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar to send a mission to the region and to submit a report to the Security Council by the end of October. At issue was language regarding the safety of Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation in Jerusalem as well as protection of Islamic and Christian holy sites.

The inclusion of the sites and language regarding the safety of Palestinians reportedly was causing U.S. document drafters great difficulty.

The U.S. goal was to both express its displeasure toward Israel and keep the support of Arab nations aligned with the Bush Administration against Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.

U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering made it clear, however, that the United States would vote against a tougher resolution put forth by allies of the Palestine Liberation Organization “deploring acts of violence committed by Israeli authorities” and authorizing a three-member Security Council investigation commission to examine the situation in Jerusalem.

The United States favors sending a mission that would report to Perez de Cuellar on the violence.

“The U.S. is prepared to avoid a veto if we possibly can, but that’s not a resolution we can support,” Pickering said of the PLO-backed plan, sponsored by a coalition of seven nations including Cuba, Ethiopia and Yemen.

Thus the stage was set for the possibility of votes on two resolutions, and a U.S. veto in favor of Israel could drive a wedge between the Bush Administration and Arab states that have allied themselves against Iraq over its occupation of Kuwait. In Security Council debate, such gulf allies as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt have called for a strong response against Israel.

Late Wednesday evening, a compromise resolution was circulated, calling for Perez de Cuellar to send a mission to the region. The fact-finders would report back to the Security Council with recommendations.

But later the proposal was modified to include language on the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians and the Islamic and Christian holy sites.

The debate has given Iraq, which has been isolated since the Aug. 2 invasion, a chance to side with other nations participating in the U.N. embargo on Baghdad.

On Monday, Israeli police and security forces opened fire to quell rock-throwing demonstrators on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Nineteen Palestinians were killed and 140 were wounded, while more than 20 Israelis were injured. It was the bloodiest civil outbreak in East Jerusalem in 23 years.

Soon after the gunfire ended, Arab states pressed for Security Council condemnation of Israel. The United States came under strong pressure from Britain, France and its other gulf allies to respond forcefully to the bloodshed.

The Administration put forth a draft resolution Tuesday condemning the violence and “particularly the excessive Israeli response.” The resolution expresses deep concern that Israeli security forces were ill-prepared to contain the violence and had “responded excessively and with deadly force.”

On Wednesday, U.S. and British diplomats engaged in intensive behind-the-scenes negotiations with the nations pressing for a stronger resolution.

After discussions lasting into the early morning hours Wednesday, diplomats grabbed a few hours of sleep before resuming their attempt to reach a compromise. At one point, representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council--the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China--met in caucus behind closed doors at the French U.N. mission.

British Ambassador David Hannay, the current Security Council president, rewrote part of the American resolution in the hope it could meet the satisfaction of the Arab and nonaligned nations, which submitted their own measure.

The British compromise called for the secretary general to send a mission to report promptly to the Security Council and use all “appropriate resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.”

The strain of the behind-the-scenes negotiations among diplomats was evident. At one point, the Palestine representative to the United Nations, Zehdi Labib Terzi, who lobbied intensively for the stronger resolution, entered a public phone booth to call PLO representatives in Tunisia for instructions. Hours later, he was back walking the corridors of the U.N., cornering Security Council members.

Pickering, meanwhile, said the United States was working hard “to find a way to bring the council together.” But he acknowledged the situation was fluid.

At one point, a reporter asked the U.S. ambassador if he thought the gap could be bridged between the two resolutions in the Security Council.

“I’d rather argue with the nonaligned than argue with you about that,” he said, hurrying off to further consultations.

Goldman reported from the United Nations and Kempster from Washington. Staff writer Don Shannon in Washington contributed to this report.