/* */

PDA

View Full Version : U.S. vetoes U.N. condemnation of Israel's Gaza strikes



Dahir
11-12-2006, 09:58 PM
CNN

The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Saturday that would have condemned Israel for its military operations in Gaza.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the resolution, which also called for Israel to cease military operations immediately in the Palestinian territory, was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."

Qatar proposed the motion, which focused on Wednesday's shelling in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun that killed 18 people, mostly women and children.
The blocked resolution also condemned Palestinians who fire missiles from Gaza into Israel.

Bolton said the resolution's text was "unbalanced."

"We are disturbed at the language of the resolution that is in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated," Bolton said. "Such language does not further the cause of peace and its unacceptability to the United States in previous resolutions is well known."

Bolton said the text was wrong in equating what he called Israel's legal defense operations in Gaza with Palestinian acts of terrorism against civilians in Israel.

"We are disturbed that there is not a single reference to terrorism in the proposed resolution, nor any condemnation of the Hamas leadership's statement that Palestinians should resume terror attacks on a broad scale, or calls by the military wing of Hamas to Muslims worldwide to strike American targets and interests," he said.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Tayyib musawwir
11-15-2006, 03:55 PM
Assalammu Alaikum Dahir Brotha Whats Up Are You Somali African American How Long Yourselfs Has Been On This Board I Also Live Minneaoplis Very Cold City Did Ramadan Go Aight It Went Find For Me Take Care Peace
Reply

aamirsaab
11-15-2006, 04:19 PM
:sl:
What's the point of having a UN if the US can overrule it at seemingly every oppurtunity?
Reply

Joe98
11-15-2006, 10:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
What's the point of having a UN if the US can overrule it at seemingly every oppurtunity?

Any country on the security council can veto a resolution, not just the US
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Keltoi
11-15-2006, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
What's the point of having a UN if the US can overrule it at seemingly every oppurtunity?
There are many reasons why the U.S. vetoes many of these "condemnation" of Isreal "resolutions". The primary reason is the countries that introduce it. Another reason is the hypocrisy, from the U.S. and Israeli standpoint, that the U.N. is willing to condemn Israel for aggressive military action but will not condemn Hamas and the Palestinians who are constantly firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. One of those rockets killed an elderly woman today. These condemnations aren't coming from a honest perspective, from the U.S. and Israeli standpoint. Condemnation of Israel from the U.S. comes from telephone calls, not U.N. statements. That is just the nature of the relationship.
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 12:24 AM
What I don't understand is why the US gives an arm and a leg to veto bills for a foreign nation most Americans aren't aware even exists!

Maybe a Democratic sweep will keep American interests and veto power at home.

:confused:
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 02:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
What I don't understand is why the US gives an arm and a leg to veto bills for a foreign nation most Americans aren't aware even exists!

Maybe a Democratic sweep will keep American interests and veto power at home.

:confused:
What nation are you referring to? Israel? I would say the majority of Americans know quite well who and what Israel is. I also wouldn't expect any difference in terms of U.S./Israel relations due to a Democratic "sweep". As a rule, Democratic administrations have been just as supportive of Israel as Republican ones.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-16-2006, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Any country on the security council can veto a resolution, not just the US
Not all country ... only USA, France, UK, Russia and China.
Reply

Islamicboy
11-16-2006, 02:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are many reasons why the U.S. vetoes many of these "condemnation" of Isreal "resolutions". The primary reason is the countries that introduce it. Another reason is the hypocrisy, from the U.S. and Israeli standpoint, that the U.N. is willing to condemn Israel for aggressive military action but will not condemn Hamas and the Palestinians who are constantly firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. One of those rockets killed an elderly woman today. These condemnations aren't coming from a honest perspective, from the U.S. and Israeli standpoint. Condemnation of Israel from the U.S. comes from telephone calls, not U.N. statements. That is just the nature of the relationship.
Before those rockets had killed the elderly women. Israel had attacked and killed 17 innocent civilians in palestinian its normal for a government to retaliate back. Israel missiles are guided Hamas rocket attacks are ramdom. hamas doesnt have the best of weapons. I realized cnn does the samething the 17 that were killed by israel was not mentioned. But one israeli solider getting wounded made big news. Interesting! eh!
Reply

north_malaysian
11-16-2006, 02:39 AM
Conclusion:

"You kill us, we kill you, and then you kill us, and we kill you, you kill us, we kill you, you kill us, we kill you, we kill you, you kill us .... like FOREVER..."
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Islamicboy
Before those rockets had killed the elderly women. Israel had attacked and killed 17 innocent civilians in palestinian its normal for a government to retaliate back. Israel missiles are guided Hamas rocket attacks are ramdom. hamas doesnt have the best of weapons. I realized cnn does the samething the 17 that were killed by israel was not mentioned. But one israeli solider getting wounded made big news. Interesting! eh!
Actually that is incorrect. The 17 civilian deaths got alot of coverage in the U.S. media. However, that isn't the point. I suppose whatever media you read or watch failed to mention that Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel almost constantly since the Gaza Strip settlements were abandoned? This isn't about the evil Jews attacking civilians and the noble Hamas retaliating. That was the problem with the resolution proposed by certain members of the U.N. General Assembly. Hamas can run around firing rockets into Israel all day long and there is nothing in the way of condemnation.
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What nation are you referring to? Israel? I would say the majority of Americans know quite well who and what Israel is. I also wouldn't expect any difference in terms of U.S./Israel relations due to a Democratic "sweep". As a rule, Democratic administrations have been just as supportive of Israel as Republican ones.
I must admit, you have a point there. Even Nancy Pelosi told AIPAC that Israel came first -- in HER own words.

Now, there's nothing wrong with caring about an ally, but to what end is it obsessive and damaging to both sides?

A mother can love, but a mother's nurturing can also damage her own children...
Reply

IzakHalevas
11-16-2006, 03:02 AM
Now, there's nothing wrong with caring about an ally, but to what end is it obsessive and damaging to both sides?
Is it unreasonable for the USA to ask for a condemnation that is fitting by condemning both sides of the fight instead of one, way more than the other? Is that not perfectly reasonable?
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 03:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
I must admit, you have a point there. Even Nancy Pelosi told AIPAC that Israel came first -- in HER own words.

Now, there's nothing wrong with caring about an ally, but to what end is it obsessive and damaging to both sides?

A mother can love, but a mother's nurturing can also damage her own children...
I'm sure the conspiracy theorists would point to the all-powerful Jewish lobby in the U.S. The truth is that support for Israel is an almost knee-jerk reaction to American politicians. It is a democratic nation partly created with the help of Harry Truman, the birthplace of Christ, a long time ally in the Cold War, etc. Not to mention the protective nature of the U.S. relationship with Jews since WWII.
Reply

Dahir
11-16-2006, 04:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Is it unreasonable for the USA to ask for a condemnation that is fitting by condemning both sides of the fight instead of one, way more than the other? Is that not perfectly reasonable?
Well, that's the problem. The UN Resolution called for both sides to put down arms, but condemned Israel for extreme action -- after all, 18 people is a bit of a stretch for a midnight operation!

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists would point to the all-powerful Jewish lobby in the U.S. The truth is that support for Israel is an almost knee-jerk reaction to American politicians. It is a democratic nation partly created with the help of Harry Truman, the birthplace of Christ, a long time ally in the Cold War, etc. Not to mention the protective nature of the U.S. relationship with Jews since WWII.
I'm not being a conspiracy theorist -- those were Pelosi's words, not mine.

And I do understand and know very well of the protective WW2 relationship the USA had with Jews...but how long does the mother take care of her son before he walks on his own?
Reply

north_malaysian
11-16-2006, 04:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
I]but how long does the mother take care of her son before he walks on his own?[/I]
How many mothers would neglect their sons... Mothers are protective... as long as Mother USA exist she'll take care of her son, Israel
Reply

aamirsaab
11-16-2006, 10:16 AM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
How many mothers would neglect their sons... Mothers are protective... as long as Mother USA exist she'll take care of her son, Israel
And keep smacking (or in this case, bombing) palestine, the 'ugly' duckling.

format_quote Originally Posted by keltoi
Another reason is the hypocrisy, from the U.S. and Israeli standpoint, that the U.N. is willing to condemn Israel for aggressive military action but will not condemn Hamas and the Palestinians who are constantly firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
Hypocrisy from the US and Isralie standpoint is this: "I do what the hell I like, be it bomb the crap out of you and your people or invade your land randomnly. You so much as express anger or annoyance, we call you a terrorist and blast you to kingdom come."

One of those rockets killed an elderly woman today
All civilian deaths are bad, no matter their race, creed or colour.

format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Is it unreasonable for the USA to ask for a condemnation that is fitting by condemning both sides of the fight instead of one, way more than the other? Is that not perfectly reasonable?
The thing is, USA isn't condemning both sides (the very fact that they vetoed the UN's resolution indicates this very clearly!), it's condemning palestine. Again, as Dahir stated, nothing wrong in supporting an ally, but how can that ally complain of hypocrisy when it is doing the same actions (if not worse) as it's enemy? That's hypocrisy right there.
Reply

ashara
11-16-2006, 10:52 AM
i wonder if this is why they are insisting on HAMAS accepting the sovereign nation of 'israeal'? after all, maps show 'Israel' now. US backs it as a nation. as do many other countries. if HAMAS accepts their 'neighbour' then it makes it more justifiable to vilify palastenians as any military action from any palestian government will be 'officially' an act of war and they can never 'reclaim' their lost land.
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:


And keep smacking (or in this case, bombing) palestine, the 'ugly' duckling.


Hypocrisy from the US and Isralie standpoint is this: "I do what the hell I like, be it bomb the crap out of you and your people or invade your land randomnly. You so much as express anger or annoyance, we call you a terrorist and blast you to kingdom come."


All civilian deaths are bad, no matter their race, creed or colour.


The thing is, USA isn't condemning both sides (the very fact that they vetoed the UN's resolution indicates this very clearly!), it's condemning palestine. Again, as Dahir stated, nothing wrong in supporting an ally, but how can that ally complain of hypocrisy when it is doing the same actions (if not worse) as it's enemy? That's hypocrisy right there.
From the U.S. and Israeli standpoint, Hamas can fire rockets into Israel all day long, but when Israel retaliates they are condemned by the U.N. That is the hypocrisy that they feel is being represented in the proposed condemnation. Yes, all civilian deaths are bad, I don't remember saying they weren't. My point is that Isreal has just as much right to protect its citizens as anyone else. If some group was firing rockets from Mexico into south Texas, the U.S. government would respond accordingly. While mistakes are made on the battlefield, at least the Isreali munitions are fired with a particular target in mind in the vast majority of cases.
Reply

Keltoi
11-16-2006, 03:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ashara
i wonder if this is why they are insisting on HAMAS accepting the sovereign nation of 'israeal'? after all, maps show 'Israel' now. US backs it as a nation. as do many other countries. if HAMAS accepts their 'neighbour' then it makes it more justifiable to vilify palastenians as any military action from any palestian government will be 'officially' an act of war and they can never 'reclaim' their lost land.
Israel isn't going anywhere. The reason that most countries have refused to continue economic aid packages to the Palestinian government is because Hamas refuses to accept Israel. How can you negotiate or live side by side with a government whose ideology involves your destruction? The reality is exactly the opposite of your assertion. As long as Hamas refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, then Israel has the political will to continue to strike at their enemies who continue to strike at them. If Hamas wanted peace it wouldn't be hard to obtain.
Reply

IzakHalevas
11-16-2006, 07:49 PM
Well, that's the problem. The UN Resolution called for both sides to put down arms, but condemned Israel for extreme action -- after all, 18 people is a bit of a stretch for a midnight operation!
Extreme action? Over 100 kassam rockets have been fired at Sderot, Israel from houses and other civilian populated areas in the Gaza Strip. When does Israel responding to direct attacks against land in the "1948 Israel" become not extreme to you?

The thing is, USA isn't condemning both sides (the very fact that they vetoed the UN's resolution indicates this very clearly!), it's condemning palestine. Again, as Dahir stated, nothing wrong in supporting an ally, but how can that ally complain of hypocrisy when it is doing the same actions (if not worse) as it's enemy? That's hypocrisy right there.
Your wrong. The USA wishes for blame to be equal because Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are firing kassam rockets in Israeli territory (not occupied areas).

i wonder if this is why they are insisting on HAMAS accepting the sovereign nation of 'israeal'? after all, maps show 'Israel' now. US backs it as a nation. as do many other countries. if HAMAS accepts their 'neighbour' then it makes it more justifiable to vilify palastenians as any military action from any palestian government will be 'officially' an act of war and they can never 'reclaim' their lost land.
Should the Jews have not been allowed to reclaim the land taken from them by Babylonians, Christians, Muslims, ect? The land has switched hands so mnay times, who are you to claim that it officialy belongs to a group called the "Palestinians" when traces of Judaic culture can be found much earlier than when existing Arabs were in the land.
Reply

aamirsaab
11-16-2006, 08:13 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by keltoi
My point is that Isreal has just as much right to protect its citizens as anyone else
That is true, but it isn't justification to kill civilians. And what is worse is when Hamas is trying to protect the palestinians, it is seen as wrong. Surely you can see that is injustice.

format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Extreme action? Over 100 kassam rockets have been fired at Sderot, Israel from houses and other civilian populated areas in the Gaza Strip. When does Israel responding to direct attacks against land in the "1948 Israel" become not extreme to you?
Any civilian casuality should be deemed extreme action. If not, morally wrong and a warcrime.

Your wrong. The USA wishes for blame to be equal because Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are firing kassam rockets in Israeli territory (not occupied areas).
Instead of blaming each side, why doesn't the USA try to solve the problem seeing as it likes to be known as altruistic.

Should the Jews have not been allowed to reclaim the land taken from them by Babylonians, Christians, Muslims, ect? The land has switched hands so mnay times, who are you to claim that it officialy belongs to a group called the "Palestinians" when traces of Judaic culture can be found much earlier than when existing Arabs were in the land.
That isn't justification to kill civilians though.
Reply

ashara
11-17-2006, 04:22 AM
Should the Jews have not been allowed to reclaim the land taken from them by Babylonians, Christians, Muslims, ect? The land has switched hands so mnay times, who are you to claim that it officialy belongs to a group called the "Palestinians" when traces of Judaic culture can be found much earlier than when existing Arabs were in the land.[/QUOTE]

i understand this will be a 'never ending' argument when both sides (palestinians and israel) think they are right.pls understand that my views are that of a person who is in a far away land being 'bombarded' by news that is one sided one way or another. does the fact that the land has switched hands make it right to 'claim' it as ur ancestral land? i am sorry but i find the idea rather odd. imagine the native americans reclaiming all their 'lost' land because the have the right (and they only lost it within a span of a few generations). i guess what i am trying to say that i understand that u probably think it is the right of israel to have a nation (probably exclusively for jews) but please do try to understand that some people might not agree with you.
i do not know to what end this war will bring us. i can only pray that the children (jews, muslims and christians) in the war-torn land can still see 'humanity' and the mercy of God in the midst of hatred ,anger and revenge.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 06:11 PM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 11:08 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 03:51 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 01:25 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2006, 07:50 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!