U.S. Vetoes U.N. Security Council Resolution

[cal04]

The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council draft resolution Saturday that sought to condemn the recent Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip and demand Israeli troops pull out the territory.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Arab-backed draft resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."

"This resolution does not display an evenhanded characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace to which we aspire and for which we are working assiduously," he told the Security Council.

It was the second U.S. veto of a Security Council draft resolution concerning Israeli military operations in Gaza this year. The U.S. blocked action on a document this summer after Israel launched its offensive in response to the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas-linked Palestinian militants.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_315123419.html

[Waya]

1. Imagine...........

......my utter surprise!:sarcasm:

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Good.

[Waya]

4. It's sickening...........

..is what it is.....:puke:

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Balance?

[Englander]

11. *Ahem*

Sponsored by Qatar, the draft would have condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza as well as Palestinian rocket fire into Israel, while calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and a cessation of violence by both parties.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20576&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=

[Boston Critic]

15. And Hamas?

It would condemn Hamas for announcing it will never recognize or make peace with Israel, and rejects all agreements already made by the Palestinians?

[Boston Critic]

14. Absolutely sickening...

that the UN continues its campaign against Israel but says nothing at all about the unending missile attacks FROM Gaza.

[Waya]

19. From above.......

Sponsored by Qatar, the draft would have condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza as well as Palestinian rocket fire into Israel, while calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and a cessation of violence by both parties.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20576&Cr=P...

[breakaleg]

21. do you really believe that? So the UN and all of the world is

out to get Israel? Poor Israel.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Do you really believe the UN is balanced in its dealings with Israel?

[Englander]

37. So, the UN's campaigning against Israel?

Gotcha. Since that's the claim that you're arguing for...

Absolutely sickening...that the UN continues its campaign against Israel but says nothing at all about the unending missile attacks FROM Gaza.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x154150#154244

[Behind the Aegis]

39. I didn't say that and that is not my quote.

Your post makes no sense or is posted in the wrong place.

[Englander]

40. *sigh*

The post you've responded to, #21, was arguing against the crazy-arse claim that the UN's
campaigning against Israel. You didn't comment on that crazy-arse claim, but attacked the person
who questioned the claim about the UN's 'campaign against Israel'. Do you think the UN's campaigning
against Israel? Logic would suggest that anyone who ignored that claim, but attacked anyone who
questioned that claim, finds the comment to contain some element of truth.

I have to explain this? Sheesh.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. *sigh*, indeed.

"The post you've responded to, #21, was arguing against the crazy-arse claim that the UN's
campaigning against Israel."

That is true.

"You didn't comment on that crazy-arse claim, but attacked the person who questioned the claim about the UN's 'campaign against Israel'.

Well, you got one thing correct...""You didn't comment on that crazy-arse claim...". However, I didn't "attack" anyone. I responded to that post with "Do you really believe the UN is balanced in its dealings with Israel?" How is that response an 'attack?'

"Do you think the UN's campaigning against Israel?"

What part of my response, "I didn't say that and that is not my quote." was confusing to you?

"Logic would suggest that anyone who ignored that claim, but attacked anyone who questioned that claim, finds the comment to contain some element of truth."

Logic would dictate that anyone who responded to, "do you really believe that? So the UN and all of the world is out to get Israel? Poor Israel." with "Do you really believe the UN is balanced in its dealings with Israel?" was questioning, not "attacking," the respondent. One comment from another poster is not dependant on the response I gave.

"I have to explain this? Sheesh."

You explained nothing. Is that too difficult to understand? Geez Louise!

[Englander]

10. The vetoing of UNSC Resolutions is 'good'?

The draft resolution would have called on the diplomatic Quartet – made up of the UN, United States, European Union and Russian Federation – to take immediate steps to stabilize the situation, including through the possible establishment of an “international mechanism for the protection of the civilian populations.”

How is the vetoing of a Resolution that calls for stabilzation of the situation, 'good'?

Bolton's soon for the chop, isn't he? I doubt that'll make much difference to the US vetoing any Resolutions that mildly condemn the ongoing Israeli warcrimes, but at least the United States Ambassador to the United Nations won't be an ignorant Repug thug.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Yes, it was good.

Perhaps with a new person we will actually see a real condemnation of the Palestinians NOT attached to yet one more attack on Israel from the failing diplomatic body.

[Englander]

26. You're arguing that continuing warcrimes, & instability are 'good'.

Which doesn't come as much of a surprise, but kudos for being honest. Since the draft resolution
was intended to try to stabilize the situation, & hopefully try & end the ongoing warcrimes.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Yes, that is clearly what I was arguing.

:eyes:

The resolution was nothing more than another diplomatic attack on Israel with a few "wrist-slaps" added to make it appear balanced. If the UN is serious in wanting a solution, then perhaps they should also address the failing Palestinian government and call on them to quit killing each other and the innocents that "get in the way."

[Englander]

29. Yes, it is.

The resolution was an attempt to try to improve the situation, to stabilize the situation, to try
to end the ongoing warcrimes, that was the intention of the draft resolution. You said that the
vetoing of such a draft resolution is 'good', ie, that attempts to stabilize the situation are 'bad',
that ending the ongoing warcrimes is 'bad', that the continuing warcrimes should continue.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. No, it is not.

No matter what you think the resolution represented, I felt it was not a balanced response, which is why I was glad it was vetoed. Because I do not support an unbalanced resolution, does not mean I do not support the peace process and to imply such is incorrect.

[Englander]

36. No, you're arguing for the continuation of instability.

The torture of logic/language in that post, & the 'cos I say so' rationale tends to support that
interpretation. The resolution wasn't unbalanced, something you've helped to prove by not providing
any actual evidence of that supposed lack of balance, beyond 'cos I say so'.

Peace process? What peace process? There isn't any peace process. Plus, being fully supportive of
the lack of any peace process, & being fully supportive of the activities (legal or illegal) of the GoI,
& being fully supportive of the vetoing of any UNSC draft resolutions that might help the peace
process, doesn't really translate as being supportive of any mythical peace process, does it?

[Englander]

30. Suggestions?

(The part in bold)
Perhaps with a new person we will actually see a real condemnation of the Palestinians NOT attached to yet one more attack on Israel from the failing diplomatic body.

Two questions;

Who should that new person be?

Are you saying that Yosemite wasn't condemning enough? The phrase used, suggests that you think that
Bolton was too much of a softie.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I don't know.

I don't know who the new person should be. I am uncertain as to who may even be in the "running." As for Bolton being a 'softie,' I don't think he introduced one resolution that condemned Palestinian terrorism or actions, so if that is true, then, yes, he was too soft.

[breakaleg]

3. That's laughable...

So the resolution wasn't "evenhanded" enough. How evenhanded do you need to be when civilians are murdered in their homes while they sleep and there is no military offensive going on in their homes?

The US needs to rethink their position.

[madrchsod]

6. the idf said it was a rogue artillery battery

and they are so sorry it happened....so what`s the big deal? if one slaughters human beings in their sleep and say they sorry they that makes it ok...does`t it?

the united states will never rethink their position when it comes to the israeli/ arab problem

[msmcghee]

7. We will - and the free world will - on the day that Israel . .

. . stops defending her citizens and becomes the aggressor - or when the Arab militants calling for the destruction of Israel stop trying to kill Jews and become the defenders - or on the day that hell freezes over, whichever occurs first.

[Boston Critic]

17. What's the big deal?

Well, if it had been the reverse, the Palestinians would have been dancing in the streets since the murder of civilians is their POLICY.

Get the difference now?

No, probably not.

[breakaleg]

24. But it isn't the reverse. Let's just stick to what actually happened.

[Boston Critic]

25. But it is

The Palestinian terrorist attacks continue EVERY day. They don't get a pass because most of them fail.

[Englander]

27. Good luck with that.

This is I/P, after all. Fantastical fantasies, Orwellian doublespeak, & the rewriting of history
are quite popular, here.

[Englander]

12. Yeah, it's predictable what would happen.

That the US would veto any Resolution that tried to improve the situation, or tried to put an end to
the ongoing warcrimes. But, do they have to be so blatant about it?

[Boston Critic]

16. Hmmm

So when Palestinians fire missles at civilians, that's not a problem.

But when an Israeli missile malfunctions and kills civilians it's "murder."

Interesting double standard.

[Jcrowley]

8. Pretty disgusting

But no surprise

[ShockediSay]

9. Yay John, Yay Bolton, Yay Joe, Yay Lieberman

Yay AIPAC, Yay NeoCons

Yay, Yay, here we go again!

[Scurrilous]

13. Italy: Israel shelled Beit Hanoun deliberately

Italian foreign minister tells party publication IDF's operations in Gaza are aimed at strengthening government, which was weakened after Lebanon war

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3326976,00.html

<snip>

"Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema condemned Israel's policy and suggested that the deadly strike in Beit Hanoun last week, which left 20 people dead, was deliberate.

"There are some who say that the tragedy in Beit Hanoun was a mistake. But there was no mistake. What happened in Beit Hanoun is a result of political choices."

In an interview with his party's publication L'Unita, D'Alema said: "The Israeli attack was meant to prevent a new political process between the Palestinians and the establishment of a national unity government that would lead Hamas to recognize Israel and to renew negotiations."

D'Alema, who says he is a friend of Israel, said the Israeli government's policy is influenced by the Israeli public opinion: "The government which was weakened because of the war in Lebanon is accused of not being determined enough, and is attacking the Palestinians to prove it is strong. That's a desasterous policy."

[eyl]

35. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Idiot

(D'Alema, not Scurrilous)

[Englander]

38. Not to worry, Chimp & blair are still Israel's bestest buddies. n/t

[demobrit]

18. John Bolton`s Swansong

This Guy is now on borrowed time, hopefully a new Democratic congress will consign this Neocon to the waste paper bin asap.

[Eugene]

20. Arabs lift blockade on Palestinians (AP)

Arabs lift blockade on Palestinians

By Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press Writer | November 12, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt --Arab countries decided to lift the financial blockade
on Palestinians on Sunday in response to a U.S. veto on a U.N. Security
Council draft resolution condemning Israel's military offensive in the
Gaza Strip.

"There will no longer be an international siege," Bahrain's Foreign
Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said.

On Saturday, the U.S. vetoed the Security Council draft resolution that
condemned the Israeli military offensive and demands that Israeli troops
pull out of the territory.

Sunday's discussions on the offensive were attended by 11 Arab foreign
ministers and other senior officials and diplomats at the Cairo
headquarters of the Arab League.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/11/12/arabs_lift_blockade_on_palestinians