will the US Veto

www.bbc.co.uk...

Arabs submit settlement resolution to Security Council

The resolution condemns Israeli settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian Territories, and says it is an obstacle to achieving peace.

The BBC's Barbara Plett, at the UN's headquarters in New York, says that much of the language has been used before by the UN, and even by the current administration of US President Barack Obama, which made a settlement freeze a focus of its attempt to resurrect Israel-Palestinian negotiations.
Continue reading the main story
Israeli settlements on occupied land

That failed, so the Arabs turned to the Security Council despite US objections, our correspondent says.

The US traditionally protects Israel against criticism at the UN and does not want to be forced to veto a resolution based on what was its own policy, she adds.

question is will the US Veto this
since one of the main obsticles to peace is Israels continued building on Occupied land
now will be the intresting turn of the US since they always condem israel for continuing to build

I bet £100000000000 they the US Veto

also on note just Read Russia coming out again in its stance of Palestine

Of course they will veto, well, unless i woke up in bizzaroworld. they continually veto each any every motion that would actually help stabilize the region.

The soviets in the 80s said they support a Palestinian state, and have recently reiterated that point.

I find it quite amusing that the US and Israel are so angry that the Palestinians would declare statehood without going through the proper bureaucratic channels. Condemning every country that recognizes the Palestinian right to a state.

I find this funny because that is EXACTLY how the modern state of Israel came into being! Well, almost, only the US pledged support and so it was done.

Hell the US will veto motions to stop illegal settlements on US land when the time comes, because we must all bow down to the chosen tribe as we are their cattle.

if there were peace, there would be no violence

with no violence there would be no need for weapons

with no need for weapons, there would be no arms contracts to US companies

with no arms contracts, there would be no money for the arms manufacturers

with no money for arms manufacturers, there would be no kickbacks to elected officials

with no elected officials receiving kickbacks, there would be nobody with an interest find peace in the region


It's ALL circular my friends.

reply to post by TXRabbit


Totally agree with you tex. Who wants peace when there is money to be made, from war.

reply to post by illusive man


Is this a rhetorical question?


Perhaps the question you should ask is whether or not the settlements really *are* the only/major obstacle for peace, as there has already been a 10 month freeze in which the Palestinians did nothing, and then Israel agreed to 3 more months, only this time it was the United States that decided nothing will come out of another halt..

Takes two to tango, I know, and those settlements need to go, pronto, I agree, but are they *really* the only thing standing between us and Peace?

I'm not sure...

Hey, but they need to go nonetheless.

reply to post by illusive man


Good question. While the US traditionally covers Israel's ass in all things, the United States has also been vocal in condemning Israel's colonies. Both Republican and democratic administrations have spoken against them. Of course, the US has never taken any action to match its words on the subject, so, could be just hot gas.

When it comes to Israel, most ATSers start rolling their naïve looking eyes, and start with the old self righteous rhetoric.

PA had 10 months since Israel began its settlement freeze. They did absolutely NOTHING that resembled approaching the negotiation table.
When the freeze ended, they cry for another freeze, knowing full well, it will get the reactions we witness in this thread.

As Eliad said : It takes two to tango.