NEWS: US vetoes UN resolution on Yasin killing

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

The United States used it's Veto Power to block UN measures condemning Israel for the Killing of Hamas Leader Shaikh Yasin. The vote on the 15-nation council was 11 in favor and the United States against, with three abstentions.
 

Al-Jazeera

The US veto spiking the resolution brought a sharp reaction from Algeria, which said the UN Security Council is "not sending the right message to the world."


he United States government claims they were not fore warned of the impending attack that killed Yasin . Condoleezza Rice, U.S. national security adviser, when asked about U.S. reaction to the attack during an interview on NBC's "Today" show, said: "Let's remember that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that Sheik Yassin has himself, personally, we believe, been involved in terrorist planning." Rice said she knew of no dicussions between President Bush, and Iraeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who was visiting The White House at the time of the killing, said Israel was doing everything it could to coordinate with the United States.
Not until after a meeting between himself and Vice President Dick Cheney, he told reporters, "it didn't include this action." Shalom called the attack "pure self-defense in order to protect our people" and make leaders of extremist groups realize "they will pay for their crimes."

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the killing and appealed for calm. "Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution," Annan said.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw echoed the sentiments of many Arab officials, saying the killing "is unacceptable, it is unjustified and it is very unlikely to achieve its objectives."

U.S. President George W. Bush's administration said it was "deeply troubled" by the situation and appealed for regional calm, but has declined to condemn the assassination. Bush himself said Israel has the right to defend itself,.

Retributions for the killing, assasination, of such a high profile person are tremendous. I find no coincidence that Silvan Shalom was 'visiting' the US on this day. The United States, already hated deeply by extremists, would have had to known. US intrests in the Middle East are already a target, this action would just intensify it. I agree a Country has the right to defend itself against any type of terrorist attacks, but it seems the rest of the world is slowly un-backing the United States War on Terror.

Terror Analysis Related News
Hamas Founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin Assassinated
Profile of Terrorist Group Hamas

ATSNN Related News
Hamas Denies Threatening the U.S.
Hamas names Two New Leaders

ATS Related Discussions
30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes
Isreal: A terror state?

Related News Links
Yahoo/AP










[Edited on 25-3-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by John bull 1]

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Go U.S.!

I'm so proud of us.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
USA! USA! USA!

Way to stick it to the UN.

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Well it should have been obvious that we would have vetoed any resolution regarding this, just look at our track record it not hard to see whose side we are on.

30 Years of U.S U.N. Vetoes



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Perhaps this is why worldwatcher?
The United Nation's War Against Israel

In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once.


Care to explain that one...?

As mentioned in another like thread, there are reasons why the US veto's such, as you have indicated and they are public knowledge.

Maybe this:
Israel faces rampant discrimination at the United Nations

Discrimination against Israel in the U.N. system is rampant.

In a constellation of 190 member-states, Israel is the sole nation prevented from winning a seat at the New York-based U.N. Security Council. The Geneva-based U.N. Commission of Human Rights devotes disproportionate attention to real or putative Israeli violations of human rights under a special item of its agenda during its annual meeting; the remaining 189 states are collectively examined under another agenda item.

Furthermore, Israel is the only country ever to have been branded a ''non-peace loving state'' by the U.N. General Assembly, which is driven by the Arab-Muslim bloc.

As a matter of fact, in more than 50 years, the United Nations voted in favor of Israel just two times: in November 1947 (partition of Palestine) and in May 1949 (admission of the Jewish state to the United Nations). It would be hard to find a single pro-Israel resolution since, with the notable exception of the 1991 resolution that revoked one from 1975 that compared Zionism to racism.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is aware of this reality. A few years ago, after citing the appalling U.N. record on Israel, he said that ``it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews.''


According to this article on this matter, here is "why," and this has been the case most of the time:

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. vetoed a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would have condemned Israel for killing Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, because the measure didn't denounce the Palestinian group's terrorist acts.

U.S. Vetoes UN Resolution Condemning Yassin's Killing

See a trend yet?




seekerof

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
don't bite my head off for saying this anyone...

but in a democracy...majority rules.. so how come in the U.N when the majority rules...we veto? I understand your points and i admit that Palestine has lots of blame, but so does Israel. I just feel if we're going to be democratic and push democracy around the world we should at least try to practice it now and again.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
In the case presented, the UN did vote by majority and the UN condemnation was passed and issued. Democracy at work., is it not?

Look, I am not protecting Israel, per se', but what the US has said virtually each and every time when the UN has issued a condemnation or resolution against Israel is just simply this:
The US vetoed because there was no mention nor no issue of a condemnation against Palestine for their actions that caused this individual to be targeted.
How can the UN, supposedly an unbiased, neutral organization, continue to condemn the actions of Israel, through the use of "UN" condemnations or resolutions and not once even condemn the actions of Palestinians? How is that when the Palestinians do something, there is no "UN" condemnation or resolution against Palestinians?

The point is just as you have mentioned...if the UN operates on democratic principles, why is there not an equal portion of condemnation being issued on both sides? As you have postulated against the US, I do likewise to the UN for they....

...should at least try to practice it now and again.


As such, it amounts to this:

In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once.





seekerof

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Since when have both sides had to be condemned as a matter of course?

"In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once."

What are you saying here that Arabs weren't codemned in resolutions about Israel's crimes? Or that there has never been a resolution against an Arab nation ?

My view is simple.This veto on behalf on the USA will send the clear message to everyone around the world that the USA is not interested in International Law,Peace in the region,and is in the pocket of Israel.

The USA fails to deal with Israel.They codemn the wall but don't put their foot down to stop it.

The USA is two faced in this matter and not in a moral position to be a fair arbiter.

No skin off my back.Just more terrorism against the USA on the cards.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Nice John bull 1....
As such, for each every "crime" that you claim that Israel has committed, I can and will match it with one committed by the Palestinians.

Btw, have you seen any UN resolutions or condemnations issued against the Palestinians? Yep, your correct, they (the UN) are not in the position to be a "fair arbiter."

Btw, you are aware that according to Muslim's and Islam, suicide bombings are forbidden; terrorism is forbidden? Palestinian's are Muslim and followers of Islam? Feel free to delve into that one. I would start with the Shari'ah/Fiqh first.


As to 'your simple view' of the message that the US is sending, is it not likewise the very same message that the UN is sending to the Palestinians or anyone else who wishes to act against Israel using any form of terrorism so deemed? That any act of terrorism against Israel will pretty much be authorized and definitely overlooked?


Your right, no skin of your back and definitely no skin of the United Nation's back either.



seekerof

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
You failed to express yourself clearly in you original statement then.

You said Arab nations not Palestine.

Palestine,as you are aware, is not a recognised nation.

The UN has regularly condemned all terrorism including Palestinian terrorism.

You may think that members don't pick up the misleading statements you so often put forward on this site for the right wing agenda but you are mistaken.

America's failure to condemn this act creates the precedent of legalising political assination.But you will expect everyone to condemn if Bush is assinated.And they will because unlike the USA the rest of the world condemns all such acts.That is what principles are for.

As for Muslims not allowing Suicide bombings.What is this? Religion day!

Many crimes that are committed on many sides are not sanctioned by any relion.Neither Judaism,Christianity,or Islam.Your new pet project is irrelevant to this topic.

The trouble is the Bush propaganda against the international community and the UN in particular has stuck.

The USA is an apologist for Israeli expansion.When the USA fails to condemn Israel in simple matters of international law like this is it any surprise it becomes a target of terrorists itself?

After 9/11 many said that that act was a result of the obvious bias in US foreign policy.It arms and finances an illegal occupation thus it becomes a target.

Bull.




[Edited on 26-3-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I don't really see our veto as a Bush admin statement on anything. We consistently vetoed all similar resolutions under Clinton as well.

I looked and could not find a resolution condeming the palestinian terrorist, does anyone have that resolution number? Why is there not one following every suicide murder? Why does the UN only rise up when Israel retaliates against these criminals?

I hope we continue to veto these stupid, racist resolutions. I am not a fan of Israel but the UN is the biggest criminal organization in the world. They bend to the will of criminals such as Hamas.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Well John bull1, let me see if I can address what you have mentioned:

You said Arab nations not Palestine.
Palestine,as you are aware, is not a recognised nation.

I'm aware of this, but let's continue....


The UN has regularly condemned all terrorism including Palestinian terrorism.

I'm aware of few to some general terrorism condemnations, in general there John, but in regards to your comment regarding the inclusion of Palestinian terrorism, I would say that your assertion is not factually correct? Care to provide such "a" United Nation's condemnation of Palestinian terrorism?

This then goes back to your before mention that Palestine is not a recognized 'state'. Though Palestine is not a 'state', they have not only observer status, but it has been upgraded so that they, Palestine, can now co-sponsor resolutions. In other words, it virtually makes Palestine an associate member?

You see, the issue here is not that Palestine is not a 'state'. The issue is that the United Nations has not once issued a "United Nation's" condemnation against Palestine, nor has it ever recognized the use of terrorism by that 'associate member', Palestine. Your playing word games based on the technical use of words. Nice. Are you expressly advocating that since Palestine is not a recognized 'state' that they are exempt from UN condemnation for using terrorism and commiting acts of terrorism? Whether Palestine is an "Arab state", it will soon be, won't it? Filled with the majority of "Arab" peoples, who are ruled by Muslim Law and the tenants of Islam, correct?


You may think that members don't pick up the misleading statements you so often put forward on this site for the right wing agenda but you are mistaken.

Quite disappointed in your "unbiased" view here John, but you are entitled to see 'things' as you so deem, correct? With your respected words of wisdom and 'lack' of any type 'agenda' in your wording, I'll offer this open challenge to you:
There is going to be an upcoming research project on the issue of the Palestinian and Israeli Conflict. Being such, I challenge you to to openly commit to joining this research project. Allow your own 'agenda' to be brought forth, since you likewise, feel that I am not aware of yours? No matter really. I am not here to attack you, I am here to attack the issue, and that issue was that the UN is openly biased against Israel and does not condemn terrorism nor the terrorist acts continually perpetuated by Palestine and Palestinians. Let us see how "misleading" your words are in such a research project?



As for Muslims not allowing Suicide bombings.What is this? Religion day!

Yes John bull 1, I expected as much from you. Its apparent that you have no understanding how much their religions, Islam, does play or influence their Arab nations, the Arab people in and around that area, and includes Palestine? To ignore and spout What is this? Religion day?!, is showing how little you give merit to the above mentioned facts. Yes John, as unadmitted and unrecognized by you, religion is the guiding force within each and every life of those Arab-Muslim people. Each and every condemnation issued by those groups and organizations in that area stipulate one thing: by Allah/God.
You then blindly comment:

Many crimes that are committed on many sides are not sanctioned by any relion.Neither Judaism,Christianity,or Islam.Your new pet project is irrelevant to this topic.

Again John bull 1, I would beg to seriously differ with you on this. Indeed, many "crimes" and acts of terrorism committed on many sides is religious or religion related. Your inclusion of the word "sanctioned" is noted. As I expressly mentioned before, I will agree with the use of the word, but to use it in the correlation with "not irrelevant," is misleading on your part and poorly used sir! Such a comment or attack that I would have never expected from you John.
Further proclamations:


America's failure to condemn this act creates the precedent of legalising political assination.But you will expect everyone to condemn if Bush is assinated.And they will because unlike the USA the rest of the world condemns all such acts.That is what principles are for.

This is twice that you have brought forth 'an' attack on the US: once by mentioning more terrorism against the US in the cards and then above by mentioning the hypothetical assassination of Bush. Did you fail to see the prophetic merit of those words you uttered John? Did you also likewise fail to note that since the UK is involved in this 'war on terror' that your lovely nation will undoubtedly, inevitably, not escape such actions and are equally under those same prophetic words you so vehemently speak against the US? But back to the issue, you present only one eternal "message" that is being presented by this UN veto. Your 'agenda' is also apparent and indicitive of one not seeing the other eternal "message" being sent: That the UN's sole condemnation of Israel is sending an open message of support and the "legalizing of" to those who seek to continue such acts of terrorism against Israel. How, sir, can you openly deny such? The United States has made clear, for quite sometime "why" they continue to veto such UN condemnations and resolutions. Here:

In July 2002, the United States shifted its policy and announced that it would veto any Security Council resolution on the Middle East that did not condemn Palestinian terror and name, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade as the groups responsible for the attacks. The U.S. also said that resolutions must note that any Israeli withdrawal is linked to the security situation, and that both parties must be called upon to pursue a negotiated settlement (Washington Post, July 26, 2002). The Arabs can still get around the United States by taking issues to the General Assembly, where nonbinding resolutions pass by majority vote, and support for almost any anti-Israel resolution is assured.

The United Nations
Are you saying that the above is a wrong reason and not justified?



The trouble is the Bush propaganda against the international community and the UN in particular has stuck.

Your view is noted, as is your stance, as is your 'agenda'.


The USA is an apologist for Israeli expansion.

Again, you present your one-sided 'agenda'. Touche'. Allow me? The United Nations is an apologist for Palestinian acts of terrorism. Has been and will continue to be!


....illegal occupation...

The challenge has been made to you John bull 1 to join the research project on this. You can deny joining and continue to think your knowledge of this situation is superior and infallible, and that any subsequent information brought forth, contrary to your interpretations and beliefs, is "irrelevant", but then that would show or indicate that you have no real interest in seeking the truth in regards to this conflict? Allow your acceptance to join this research project speak louder than your own words, views, and opinions of the "otherwise".


seekerof

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
One point I'd like to make after the "one sided" nature of the resolution that was vetoed by the USA is this.

It is common knowledge that the USA uses the inclusion of "named palestinian groups" for condemnation as a tactic or position for which they can veto resolutions critising Israel.

The USA doesn't need to CO -sponsor a resolution.They can table one codemning Palestinian groups anytime they like..................And it would probably be passed.And saying Palestinians can co-sponsor is just plain misleading.They can't act in the UN alone.Israel can.

You make it sound like some great privilege.I can Co-Sponsor a UN resolution.I just need France to agree with me and my name won't appear on the docket.

Instead they attach the issue of Palestinian terrorism as an add on just so they can veto the resolution.

I find it hard to believe but there really can be no other explanation.Israel does own the USA.

They buy their Whitehouse,Congressmen,and Senators through the powerful jewish lobby.

They keep the American people ignorant by not allowing an unbiased view of the Middle East conflict to filter through the media.

And in return they've been given Nuclear,Chemical,and Biological weapons despite the insincere pleas for non-proliferation by the USA.

A regular Billions of dollars subsidy.

And a free hand in the region.

The old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune has never been truer.

They buy the foreign policy of the USA and misinform the American people.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Go USA
.

I've said it before and I'll say it again the UN is a debating club full of anti-Semites. Its useless, it'll fail like the League of Nations did.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Good for us! I feel almost sorry for those who have decided that the UN rules them. How can we possibly take seriously the opinions of someone who comes from a country where this happens:

Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.

Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.

Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.

news.scotsman.com...

My idea of self-defense is not cowering and waiting to be killed.
If you go after me or any of mine with a knife I will, without hesitation, shoot you. You may whine and cry that you only had a knife and I had disproportional power but, in the end, me and mine are still breathing.
I see little difference here. Identify the threat and eliminate it as soon as possible.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
don't bite my head off for saying this anyone...

but in a democracy...majority rules.. so how come in the U.N when the majority rules...we veto? I understand your points and i admit that Palestine has lots of blame, but so does Israel. I just feel if we're going to be democratic and push democracy around the world we should at least try to practice it now and again.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by worldwatcher]


Simple, the U.N. is not a democracy, and it is not a sovereign nation of any sort. Good thing, too, as the entire world's tyrannical despots and rogue terror states, not to mention the seriously-taken states such as China that are horrendous on human rights issues as well as haters of personal freedom and liberties would certainly have the majority. And, as the world is as anti-Semitic now as it has been since the Jewish nation was scattered to the winds, it'd be a bad thing for them.



posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
So,TC, any criticism of Israel is anti-semetic ?

The anti-semite argument is the most effective defence yet devised by the Israelis but it is not true.

It plays well in the US media but there are plenty of jews living in Europe and they are respected members of society.Many of them wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Israel is being appeased by the USA in a similar way to how Germany was in the 1930's and guess what back then the most effective defence of German actions was that Germans were continually victimised after the First World War.Back then we justified our appeasement by saying we were being fair because of the historical context.The same is true now.

Talking to Americans on this issue is like talking to automons parrotting phrases that have been programed into them.It really is quite frightening.

As for Fry's comment above.

That's right you ignore me afterall I come from a different country.Typical of the standard of debate within America.Ignore them they are different! Ignore them they aren't brainwashed! Ignore them I've been told they are anti semetic!

Don't ignore me too much Fry.Your post is off topic and I was tempted to trash it.


[Edited on 27-3-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
John, did I say that any criticism is anti-Semitic? No, I did not. Are you my wife? You sound just like her, when we get into an argument and she takes something I say and stretches it beyond reason. Unless you are going to cook for me this evening, stop doing that.
Now, you are comparing Israel to Germany? So, you are saying that this tiny little nation, one that has to struggle for its very existence every day and has had to struggle since the first hours of Her rebirth, you are saying that this nation is a future threat to the world?
Wow. Maybe history will prove you to be a brilliant prognosticator, but I doubt it.

Just to make this perfectly clear so that anyone who begins reading at your last post doesn't get confused, I never said any Israeli criticism is anti-Semitic. That would make most Israelis anti-Semitic as they seem to argue politics as much as we do. It is clear, however, that the majority of the U.N. is such, and I determine tha tby looking at the voting record. How many resolutions have been passed against Israel? How many against the Arabs? Who is ultimately responsible for the "Palestinian" plight, using the "Palestinians" as tools to use against the Israelis?
No, John, that is not just any criticism. That, my friend, is what we call gang piling.



posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Talking to Americans on this issue is like talking to automons parrotting phrases that have been programed into them.It really is quite frightening.


Again, your beliefs and views are noted John bull 1, but when reading your 'non-automons' "truths", they read like the material used at many anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian reference sites.
You still dance around the issue of what TC mentioned, as I mentioned:


In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once.

*Source previously linked in initial post to this topic.*

As such, have you found any UN condemnation or UN resolution against Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel to back your assertion:

The UN has regularly condemned all terrorism including Palestinian terrorism.


You can fight for whatever and whomever you so choose John, but at least provide sources to show that your fight is legit, has bearing, is factual, etc.?

A challenge was offered to you to join in a proposed ATS research project on this; your response was?



seekerof




new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join