US veto on UN resolution on Israeli occupied territories.

[Charles_Main]

wow, I am startled.....Obama actually displayed some back bone, kudo's, I have to give it up to him. I didn't think he would block it.

I am not sure it takes a lot of backbone, To do exactly as we have done many many times in the past, and veto yet another Bash Israel Resolution in the UN. We have a very long track record of either veto or Abstaining for such a Vote.

Had he decided to vote for it, now that would have been a change. I have to admit I thought he was going to. I am surprised.

 

[8236]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 wasn't against Judaism, it was against Zionism, how in the hell could it be anti-Semitic unless they think Zionism=Judaism? The Jews that use that strawman argument are dead damn wrong. The KKK for example, uses "Christianity" and the Bible heavily in their racist BS, but no one in their right mind would ever say KKK racist proganda and the Bible are one in the same.

Depends on your definition of Zionism, and whether or not Jews constitute a race (whatever that means) I guess(?)

Over here (Europe) we have the same kind of confusion with Americans' use of the word 'Liberal'

 

[JBeukema]

So I Googled it

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on December 16, 1991. In the history of the UN, this is the only resolution that has ever been revoked.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! Well there you go, thanks for the info. One learns something every day. Amazed it was ever passed in the 1st place.

(I see that it was General Assembly, so the US couldn't veto it in any case)

We can only veto Security Council shit, right?

 

[Trajan]

More like he bowed down to his Zionist masters.

no, he just would not let a place like the UN basically adjudicate the pali-Israeli settlement issue.

That’s not negotiation.

I would refer you to UN resolution 242. (a long, long time ago)

No need, I am well aware.

I would refer you back to the second sentence in my quote.

 

[JBeukema]

JBeukema, what's with all the bad language and attitude? Compared to your (excellent)contribs on one of the religion and ethics threads I read you sound like a different person. Lighten up!.... You smokin something?

He got a stick up his ass over it, so I kept sayin' it.

Same reason for my posts in Willows '****' thread.

Some people get too worked up over a word

I simply asked you not to use profanity in the your posts to me, you didn't do it, so screw it, you don't see me chimping out over it.

What's with the racial overtones?

 

[mdn2000]

The United Nations is irrelevant. If anyone had balls they would stop funding this corrupt wannabe world government.

Israel, seems like the only nation that is a real nation in the entire Middle East, Jews have history in the Middle East, the entire Middle East. Hell the Moslems are the same people, Jews and Moslems both come from Abraham.

The history of Jews in Israel is an unbroken history for over a thousand years.

Israel was reborn in the 1800's, cut out of the old Turkish empire, Israel was won by England and lost by England. Hell, when the Arabs were strong did they stop to establish a new Arab empire in Jerusalem, no, they fought to Damascus, to Syria, the Arab dream.

Should every tribe or religous sect in the Middle East have their own Nation or State, no matter my opinion its pretty much how the Middle East is divided.

It is pretty naive to thing the Jews are a problem when we have Shia murder against Sunni, or the Sunni murder of Shia's, or the Wahabbi Sunni murder of everyone and anybody, of course we should discuss blood feuds of individual tribes as well.

Peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel, we need one policy, stick to borders that at least have history, give the Sinai back to Israel, and tell the rest of the Middle East, stop the bullshit.

Israel is a country with history, Israel gave live to Arabs, Arabs migrated to Israel to escape the radical moslem rulers. Take a real vote and you will find that the Arabs in Israel have no desire to be ruled under Sharia Law, Moslems are happier in a Democracy, not a state of Islam.

 

[JBeukema]

JBeukema, what's with all the bad language and attitude? Compared to your (excellent)contribs on one of the religion and ethics threads I read you sound like a different person. Lighten up!.... You smokin something?

He got a stick up his ass over it, so I kept sayin' it.

Same reason for my posts in Willows '****' thread.

Some people get too worked up over a word

- Congratufuckin'lations

- fuckin' oracle

- '****' thread.

The reality is that "JBeukema's" use of bad language serves no purpose unless it gets people "worked up over a word!"

Despite "JBeukema's" denial, the only reason to resort to bad language is for its "shock" value!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

wow, I am startled.....Obama actually displayed some back bone, kudo's, I have to give it up to him. I didn't think he would block it.

I am not sure it takes a lot of backbone, To do exactly as we have done many many times in the past, and veto yet another Bash Israel Resolution in the UN. We have a very long track record of either veto or Abstaining for such a Vote.

Had he decided to vote for it, now that would have been a change. I have to admit I thought he was going to. I am surprised.

Bash Israel resolution? You have serious issues mate.

 

[8236]

So I Googled it

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! Well there you go, thanks for the info. One learns something every day. Amazed it was ever passed in the 1st place.

(I see that it was General Assembly, so the US couldn't veto it in any case)

We can only veto Security Council shit, right?

Guess so, since the US voted against 3379 but it was nonetheless passed. Can you imagine it would have if the US had a veto?

(Seems there are Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolutions)

 

[mdn2000]

The United Nations is made up of mostly dictators so why would anyone want Dictators making decisions that the rest of us must live with.

Its time to pull out of the United Nations and only trade with non-UN nations.

 

[Trajan]

wow, I am startled.....Obama actually displayed some back bone, kudo's, I have to give it up to him. I didn't think he would block it.

I am not sure it takes a lot of backbone, To do exactly as we have done many many times in the past, and veto yet another Bash Israel Resolution in the UN. We have a very long track record of either veto or Abstaining for such a Vote.

Had he decided to vote for it, now that would have been a change. I have to admit I thought he was going to. I am surprised.

Hummm, I do. he just got suckered into several positions on Mubarak, even the Times said he appeared wishy washy. The "Street" will play this as soft on 'arab freedom' as in "he wanted Mubarak to hang on" because he sppted him for years as did the US overall, now he veto's a heavily sponsored, what would have been unanimous vote against Israel.

 

[8236]

The United Nations is made up of mostly dictators so why would anyone want Dictators making decisions that the rest of us must live with.

Its time to pull out of the United Nations and only trade with non-UN nations.

Have fun trading with your self. Better quickly start drilling in Alaska for oil.

 

[georgephillip]

The United States on Friday voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted.

The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down.

The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors, exclusively Arab and other non-aligned nations.

The Obama administration’s veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world.​

Read more on your pro Isreali beacon of truth: U.S. Veto Thwarts UN Resolution on Settlements

Oh well, Quelle surprise. More hypocrisy under the guise of not upsetting the discredited peace process (in the wake of the revelations from Wikileaks).

Tail to Dog: Wag!

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior advisers Isaac Molho and Ron Dermer told U.S. officials that Israel does not oppose even a sharply worded statement from the Security Council but made it clear to the American interlocutors that Jerusalem expects the United States to veto the Arab resolution if it is submitted to a vote."

Israel-Palestine is yet another problem without a solution as long as US voters continue limiting their "choice" to Republican OR Democrat.

UN set to vote..

 

[Charles_Main]

So I Googled it

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! Well there you go, thanks for the info. One learns something every day. Amazed it was ever passed in the 1st place.

(I see that it was General Assembly, so the US couldn't veto it in any case)

We can only veto Security Council shit, right?

Yes we could have used a veto. What we could not do was stop the vote from happening at all. Someone had suggested it was a blunder on our part to have allowed this vote to come up now. I simply pointed out we can not stop a vote from happening in the General Assembly. All we can do is Veto it. You better believe the timing of this vote was deliberate and meant to force the US hand, forcing us to either support, abstain or Veto this Resolution while all this shit is going down in the Mid East. What some people seem to fail to grasp about the UN, is while the Security council is dominated by the West, China and Russia. The General Assembly is overwhelmingly dominated by countries who are at least not very friendly with Israel and the US.

Go look at how many times resolutions Condemning Israel come up, and then ask yourself why similar Resolutions happen so much less often For other countries around the world. Unless you are a complete Jew Hating Radical you have to at least grant that no matter what you think of Israel, there are many many other nations who behave just as poorly, and yet are not the Subject of countless UN Condemnation Resolutions. This is why many of us Claim the UN is an Anti US anti Israel Body. Because the General Assembly is. Just look at what nations get appointed chairs of the Humanitarian committee, or the W omens Rights committee and you will see what a joke it has become.

Countries like Libya, with horrible Human rights records being appoint the C Hair of the UN Human Rights Committee? Saudi I think it was as Chair of the Woman's rights Committee? For real? I wonder why anyone takes anything the UN says or Does Seriously anymore.

 

[JBeukema]

How 'bout we stop supporting racism and ethnic cleansing?

 

[JBeukema]

Wow! Well there you go, thanks for the info. One learns something every day. Amazed it was ever passed in the 1st place.

(I see that it was General Assembly, so the US couldn't veto it in any case)

We can only veto Security Council shit, right?

Yes we could have used a veto. What we could not do was stop the vote from happening at all. Someone had suggested it was a blunder on are part to have allowed this vote to come up now. I simply pointed out we can not stop a vote from happening in the General Assembly. All we can do is Veto it after they vote.

So we can veto anything?

I've never delved into the politics of the clusterfuck that seems to be the UN

 

[8236]

wow, I am startled.....Obama actually displayed some back bone, kudo's, I have to give it up to him. I didn't think he would block it.

I am not sure it takes a lot of backbone, To do exactly as we have done many many times in the past, and veto yet another Bash Israel Resolution in the UN. We have a very long track record of either veto or Abstaining for such a Vote.

Had he decided to vote for it, now that would have been a change. I have to admit I thought he was going to. I am surprised.

Hummm, I do. he just got suckered into several positions on Mubarak, even the Times said he appeared wishy washy. The "Street" will play this as soft on 'arab freedom' as in "he wanted Mubarak to hang on" because he sppted him for years as did the US overall, now he veto's a heavily sponsored, what would have been unanimous vote against Israel.

At the end of the day 'he' is a mouthpiece. 'They' (as in the administration) decide things, it's called democracy I think. And, ofcourse 'they' are wishy-washy cos they are shitting bricks about how things are gonna turn out, which is exactly my original point about the stupidity of the timing of this veto.

I don't know about you in the states, but have you not noticed the gas prices lately? If the whole middle east creeps towards an Iran in 1979 situation, what do you think will happen to oil prices, purely on the basis of stock market speculation alone. This veto is only going to stoke that smouldering ember - and will (speculation) already be affecting oil prices.

I really do feel sometimes that people can't see the greater picture here. So what if a resolution condemning Israel had been passed, since when did Israel ever give a s**t about UN resolutions.

 

[jgarden]

no, he just would not let a place like the UN basically adjudicate the pali-Israeli settlement issue.

That’s not negotiation.

*****************************************************************************

Document 47: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the Mission to the European Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations. "U.N. Human Rights Commission: Item 12: Iranian Resolution on Use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq," March 14, 1984.

The State Department instructs the U.S. delegate to the United Nations to get the support of other Western missions for a motion of "no decision" regarding Iran's draft resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Failing that, the U.S. is to abstain on the resolution.

The U.S. is to emphasize points made in a recent State Department press conference, including the assertion that "The USG evenhandedly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons whenever it occurs."

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

Appearently back in March 1984, the Reagan Administration "..... just would not let a place like the UN basically adjudicate" concerning Iranian Resolution on Use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq.

We all know that the US would go on to reverse this position on Iraq's "chemical weapons," and would even appeal for UN intervention, once it became evident that Saddam that might use them on America's friends - instead of her enemies.

Although the official US foreign policy has always been, "The USG evenhandedly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons whenever it occurs," there was never any evidence that the Iranians had ever resorted to the use of "chemical weapons!"

and?

I thought "Trajan" capable of joining the dots - but apparently I assumed too much!

- Just like Iraq's illegal use of "chemical weapons" back in 1984, the US government is well aware that Israel's ongoing construction of settlements on the West Bank is detrimental to any attempt to a lasting peace settlement in the Miiddle East - which is definitely not in America's best interests.

- Just like Iraq's illegal use of chemical weapons in 1984, the US government prefers to turn a "blind eye" rather than confront a "so-called" friend. A true friend would realize that American support for 7.7 million Israelites (20% of whom are Arabs), has come at the cost of severely jeporadized US relations with 1.6 billion Muslims. A true friend might even consider limiting further West Bank settlement in an attempt to improve America's credibility with the Muslim nations.

- Just like Iraq's illegal use of chemical weapons in 1984, the US government continues to undermine its moral authority in the UN and the world. How can you "abstain" from condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in 1984 and then proclaim to be leading a "Coalition of the Willing" to invade Iraq and rid it of those same chemical weapons less than 2 decades later?

- Likewise, how can the US veto an UN resolution supported by 120 other nations that attempts to address one of the major barriers to a peace settlement - which actually serves America's best interests. Is West Bank settlement really worth America alienating approximately 25% of the world's population (Muslims) for the forseeable future?

 

[8236]

no, he just would not let a place like the UN basically adjudicate the pali-Israeli settlement issue.

That’s not negotiation.

I would refer you to UN resolution 242. (a long, long time ago)

No need, I am well aware.

I would refer you back to the second sentence in my quote.

Yuo know what I meant. Today's security council veto by the US (and remember it's only a draft resolution) is contradictory to the US position on 242.

 

[jgarden]

David Ben-Gurion's response to the Balfour Declaration
January 29, 1918

"..... It is on these vacant lands that the Jewish people demands the right to establish its homeland .....

However we must remember that such rights are also possessed by the inhabitants already living in the country - and these rights must not be infringed upon.

Both the vision of social justice and the equality of all peoples that the Jewish people has cherished for 3000 years, and the vital interests of the Jewish people in the Diaspora and even more so in Palestine, require absolutely and unconditionally that the rights and interests of the non-Jewish inhabitabts of the country be guarded and honoured punctiliously."

(Gilbert M., "Israel: A History," p.38)

- such rights are also possessed by the inhabitants already living in the country

- these rights must not be infringed upon

- vision of social justice and the equality of all peoples

- the rights and interests of the non-Jewish inhabitabts of the country be guarded and honoured punctiliously.

It would appear that David Ben-Gurion had a far different vision of "social justice and the equality of all peoples" than currently exists in Israel!