U.S. vetoes U.N. condemnation of Israel's Gaza strikes

[Dahir]

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.

[Tayyib musawwir]

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

[aamirsaab]

What's the point of having a UN if the US can overrule it at seemingly every oppurtunity?

[Joe98]

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

[Keltoi]

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.

[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:

[Keltoi]

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.

[north_malaysian]

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

Not all country ... only USA, France, UK, Russia and China.

[Islamicboy]

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!

[north_malaysian]

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..."

[Keltoi]

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.

[Dahir]

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...

[IzakHalevas]

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?

[Keltoi]

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.

[Dahir]

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?

[north_malaysian]

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

[aamirsaab]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Keltoi]

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.

[Keltoi]

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.