UNITED NATIONS — Officials in Washington, Jerusalem, and New York scrambled to retrace their steps yesterday, as American diplomacy suffered a setback when it was forced to withdraw its own proposal for a Security Council resolution in support of the Annapolis process.

The proposed resolution was received with enthusiasm by the 15 members of the council Thursday, but it had been circulated to them before Israeli diplomats had a chance to study the text or weigh the implications of a council resolution on the nascent bilateral diplomacy with Palestinian Arabs.

An American ambassador, Alejandro Wolf, told members of the council this morning that after consulting with the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs, America decided to withdraw its proposal. “The upshot was that there was some unease with the idea of that product,” Mr. Wolfe told reporters after consultations yesterday, referring to the proposed resolution. “Rather than dilute” the Annapolis process “we reached the conclusion that it would be best simply to withdraw it,” he said.

Council members were puzzled as to how a proposal that was meant to support a process between Israeli and Palestinian Arabs was not first shown to them. “The Americans have a thing or two to learn about diplomacy,” a European diplomat told the Sun, speaking on condition of anonymity. “You don’t circulate a resolution like that before the sides sign off on it.”

A day after telling reporters that he had all but secured the council’s backing for a resolution, the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, was in Washington Thursday for what Mr. Wolfe described as “prescheduled” consultations.

State Department and Israeli foreign ministry officials, and their U.N. counterparts, meanwhile, tried to trace back their steps, two officials familiar with both camps said. They attempted to figure out how Mr. Khalilzad moved to a council action mere hours after Washington decided to have the world body confer its legitimacy on the Annapolis process, and before hearing Israel’s possible objections.

Traditionally, Israel had been uneasy about involvement of the council, or any U.N. body for that matter, in its negotiations with Arab counterparts. In the context of the nascent diplomacy that started in Annapolis, the council’s “kibitzing” may become harmful, an Israeli diplomat said, adding, “In January, Libya will join the Security Council. Do you want Libya to become an overseer of our talks with Palestinians, which entered a very delicate stage at Annapolis?” Libya is on record opposing the two-state solution that underlines the Annapolis diplomacy.