The Consistent Support of United States to Israel (UN Resolution Vetoes), page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 12-11-2009 @ 09:24 AM by v01i0

So, this issue must've been discussed in many threads before, but I thought it would be eye-widening to remind about the extent of support that government of United States is expressing for Israel.

I did some searches and by a quick view found only one thread about the specific issue, posted in 2004 and it only focuses to older resolutions. You can review that thread here. I guess it is about time to update this information.

In my opinion it is absolutely stunning that citizens of United States are accepting such illogical defense of Israel war crimes from their government. Also, it is quite obvious that UN is an useless organization when it comes to maintaining or achieving peace in the middle-east...

US Vetoes for Israel between 1972 - 2006:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.

To be continued...

[edit on 12-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 09:27 AM by v01i0

1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2001 Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.
2002 On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse.
2003 Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
2003 Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence.
2004 Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin.
2004 Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation.
2006 Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation.
2006 2. Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation.

-v

[edit on 12-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 10:07 AM by mattpryor

reply to post by v01i0

What should alarm you more is the sheer number of resolutions proposed which attack Israel, compared to other countries where the situation / conflict is far worse.

This is how the UN works with regards to Israel:

A resolution gets proposed by a country in the general assembly. Usually this is a form of political attack. There is an automatic bloc of 57 (I think) OIC countries and 40 other ones who are mostly opposed to Western influence around the world. This represents the majority of the UN GA, which means pretty much any resolution against Israel will automatically get referred to the Security Council.

If you do a little more research you will also see the Britain and France use their power of veto in the vast majority of such resolutions.

The UN is a stage for diplomatic warfare. Russia and China generally vote according to what they want out of the US at the time.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 11:23 AM by v01i0

reply to post by mattpryor

Well yeah, while I consider you have point on how the resolutions are passed and handled in UN in general, this topic was about US support to Israel.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your input. Thanks.

-v

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 12:16 PM by BlesUTP

its also amazing that israels membership was conditional upon joining the UN. israel had to let displaced palestinians return to their land, and those who refused had to be compensated for their land which was taken.

this has never been done, and will probably never be done.

funny how mattpryor and mrmonsoon always show up in any thread which is critical of israel as well. if theyre not paid to do it, they are just willing accomplises being duped to shill on behalf of the "perpetual victims" who always claim to be surrounded by enemies and terrorists, yet treat their neighbors in such ways that would have they themselves screaming bloody murder if it was done to israel.

israels teflon coating is coming off and it has nothing to do with anti-semitism, and everything to do with the judgement of their actions. it is indefensible and those who defend it are as guilty of the war crimes as israel and the united states are.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by BlesUTP]

[edit on 12-11-2009 by BlesUTP]

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 12:56 PM by mattpryor

reply to post by v01i0

In terms of foreign policy and defence, and particularly in respect to Middle Eastern affairs, Israel, the US, the UK and France represent a bloc. Our intelligence agencies tend to work very closely together and this is generally reflected in foreign policy decisions.

To countries that are opposed to the West, Israel is the bit that's most exposed and easiest to attack (politically).

The Goldstone Report, however, has exposed some divisions and a bit of wobbling on the British part.

reply posted on 12-11-2009 @ 01:37 PM by v01i0

reply to post by BlesUTP

Originally posted by BlesUTP
israels teflon coating is coming off and it has nothing to do with anti-semitism, and everything to do with the judgement of their actions.

I agree. Anti-semitism and the critisism of the actions of state of Israel are to be distinguished. While anti-semitism is an irrational belief that all of the jews are monstrous cold-blood lunatics, criticism of Israel and it's actions are quite reasonable, regarding it's past and recent actions.

I don't think that every news agency is biased into extent that they would unjustly condemn Israel's every action negatively; in this light, I think it is reasonable and safe to say that it has lot do with the instability of whole region.

-v

Pages: ^^TOP^^