No vote is expected soon because the United States criticized the resolution, arguing that the Council should not be the forum for addressing knotty Arab-Israeli issues.
Of course, Israeli settlements on the West Bank are not a "knotty Arab-Israeli issue," but a clear violation of international law. Indeed, even the United States regards the settlements that way, as MacFarquhar implies himself in the next sentence of his story:
A veto would be awkward because the language used in the resolution, which attracted some 120 co-sponsors, echoes previous statements that Washington has endorsed condemning settlements, diplomats said.
I've now actually quoted two of the story's three sentences, which I still think falls within copyright fair use. But wouldn't it be nice if the Times would do some stories about the contradictions between U.S. acknowledgement that Israel's actions are illegal--thus making them very appropriate subjects for Security Council resolutions--and its continuing protection and financial support for those same illegal actions? Just because our government engages in double-speak doesn't mean our news media have to follow suit.