U.S. blocks U.N. resolution condemning Israeli actions...

[bridgit]

[Behind the Aegis]

1. You need to add a link or this will get locked!

And which actions?

[bridgit]

5. they just showed Bolton taking on tv, no link as yet...

:shrug:

[pooja]

2. WTF

How are the sides going to play out... Who are the new aliances going to be??

[uppityperson]

3. Link or No way

[bridgit]

6. link to follow of that there is no doubt just keep watching...

[uppityperson]

9. holy hell

I am getting irked at these people, really really really really irked.

[mike_c]

4. gee, what a surprise-- I'm shocked, I tell you....

Link?

[bridgit]

7. waiting for link it seems pretty new stuff...

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Yeah, big surprise. We've never not blocked a UN resolution condemning

anything Israel's done.

[eagler]

8. Under the circumstances I think this is the right decision.

No nation can be singled out for extinction and constantly kept being attacked and be expected to just take it. I side with Israel on this one.

[bridgit]

12. that was pretty much the tenor of the announcement, without a general...

chastisement of each side, there can be no 'going forward' resolution-wise

[AnOhioan]

19. Apparently there was a "general chastisement"

of both sides.

"UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States vetoed a UN draft resolution that would have called for an end to Israeli attacks and "disproportionate use of force" in the Gaza Strip as well as for the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

Snip

Earlier versions of the Qatari draft had already been rejected by Western members for being "unbalanced" because they did not mention the abduction of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants and repeated rocket firing into Israel.

Snip

The Palestinian Authority is meanwhile asked "to take immediate and sustained action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets on Israeli territory."

More at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060713/pl_afp/mideastunrestgazaun_060713195454


I don't know how much more evenhanded a resolution could be.


Edited for spelling

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Was it OK for Israel to shell a Gaza beach last month?

[barb162]

32. Do you have conclusive evidence Israel did that?

Or was it a Palestinian militant bomb blowing up?

[tocqueville]

14. the blockade of a sovereign nation and its civilian infrastructure

without a declaration of war following a UN decision is ILLEGAL by all standards. Targeting civilian infrastructure like Beirut's airport is illegal.

Besides Israel isn't attacked by its neighbours, but by an internal resistance from occupied territories. And what I know of Lebanon recognizes Israel's right to exist.

[sabbat hunter]

16. that civilian airport

is used for military purposes. hizbollah brings in arms via that airport. that makes it a viable target.

israel also was attacked by hizbollah who crossed the israeli border, captured israeli soldiers.

also hamas did the same from gaza.

that is not internal resistance, those are attacks on a sovereign nation.

[tocqueville]

22. still illegal

besides the preposterous claim that "Lebanon is Hezbollah", resistances have always had safe havens at borders and Gaza can hardly be considered as a foreign nation. This is exactly the same "reasoning" that started the US war against Cambodia and the parallells with Iraq are blatant.

Israel has the right to threaten Lebanon for not disarming the Hezbollah, but not the right to preemptively attack it without a UN resolution. Condoning the Israeli intervention is giving right to GW's motives to invade Iraq without UN support.

[sabbat hunter]

26. hizbollah

is a part of the lebanese government, they have seats in the parliment and control ministry slots.

[bridgit]

29. that airport would have been helpful to evacuate americans out of...

country, but israel cares less for informing us what their targets are than they care to know about ours

[eagler]

17. Hezbollah is Lebanon and yes they are pledged to the destruction of

Israel.

[Master Mahon]

18. You side with Israel on this one.

as the 'attacker' or the 'attackee'???

[barb162]

33. yes , I think so too

[bennywhale]

34. yeah, good cal, side with those who have slaughtered dozens

of people in the past few days.

Check out thiss link for the reality of what Israel regularly does.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com /

About half way down is where you'll find the babies wjho were being taken to safety

[whistle]

10. This is a crime against humanity by the U.S.

[laura888]

28. Agreed.

My government does not represent my view.

[Purveyor]

15. Here is a link and AP brief....

U.S. Vetoes U.N. Condemnation of Israel
-
Thursday, July 13, 2006


(07-13) 12:46 PDT UNITED NATIONS, (AP) --


The United States cast the first U.N. Security Council veto in nearly two years Thursday, blocking an Arab-backed resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive in the Gaza Strip.


The draft, sponsored by Qatar, accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force" that endangered Palestinian civilians, and it demanded Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/07/13/international/i124635D43.DTL

[Master Mahon]

20. And the US Squeals like pigs

when China or Russia say they will veto a UN resolution over North Korea and Iran who have killed NO ONE!

[AnOhioan]

21. All the more reason to do away with veto power completely

Have the UN be truly representative of the world's nations. All votes like this to be handled in the General Assembly. Things like this are far too important to be politicized in the Security Council.


Edit for spelling

[hack89]

24. You are kidding, right?

Why wouldn't they be politicized in the General Assembly? The loss of the veto would be the end of the UN - do you think America, China or Russia would ever allow their power or influence be restricted in such a manner?

I don't know what the answer to the UN is but getting rid of the veto would simply reduce it to a sham as the world's larger powers would simply ignore it - they ignore it now when it suits them but the veto at least gives them a method of legitimizing their contempt. Without the veto they would blatantly ignore the UN and it would quickly wither into impotence.

[AnOhioan]

25. You do have a point......

My idea would require that people would act like responsible adults. In the case of national governments that is too often an impossibility.

[malaise]

30. And you're surprised n/t

[bridgit]

23. thanks for the link, Purveyor, i knew it would turn up soon...

:-)

[Purveyor]

27. NP...always willing to help out where I can... n/t

[rodeodance]

31. we will never condemn Israel. We stand alone with them.