Rosenberg starts out with posting some actual facts (a rarity for him) about the UN resolution in question and a statement by US Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg about it. Steinberg stated, "We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues." That sounds reasonable, right? Not for Mr. Rosenberg!
"Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don't agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the U.S. policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator)...Accordingly, a U.S. decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples' concerns."
I don't think Rosenberg even thought for a second about the hypocrisy here on the part of the Arab states. Do you know what Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, all do pretty consistently? Violate human rights! In Egypt, gays are hanged. In Afghanistan, women are mutilated. In Muslim countries all around the world, women are circumcised. In Iraq, suicide bombings were once a daily occurrence. The Arab states are up to their necks in human rights violations. And Rosenberg honestly thinks they are opposed to Israeli settlements because of "human rights"? If that's a joke, it's a bad one. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. all refuse to recognize Israel's existence and they also happen to support this UN resolution. A journalist who thought critically might look at a state like Saudi Arabia, who supports this UN resolution but whose own women are not allowed to drive or be unaccompanied in public, and realize that human rights is not exactly their top priority.
So with that in mind, what would US support of this UN resolution tell the Arab world? Not that we support human rights in general, which is what Mr. Rosenberg foolishly thinks, but that we have accepted the human rights double standard present in all Arab states in which Israeli violations are magnified and condemned while Arab violations are marginalized and ignored. I for one am glad the Obama administration is not fooled (this time).
After that whopper, the rest of Rosenberg's piece is pretty much standard fare. He complains about the settlements and points out that the US does not support them. But then, of course, Rosenberg starts lying. Blatantly.
"The United States has had no success whatsoever in getting the Netanyahu government to stop expanding settlements (emphasis added)-- to stop evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers -- and no success in getting Israel to crack down on settler violence, but we have had "some success" in keeping the issue out of the United Nations."So when we had that ten month settlement freeze in the West Bank, what was that? In my mind, that would be considered success at stopping the expansion of settlements. For a pro-Israel blogger, Mr. Rosenberg certainly doesn't seem to mind lying to make Israel look bad.
Rosenberg closes with complaining about how the lobby is making the US government veto the UN resolution and how the US position in the Middle East is losing credibility as a result. That's his opinion, but at this point in the essay his credibility is already so shot I see no reason to go into it much further.