It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. veto thwarts UN resolution condemning settlements

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   


www.haaretz.com...
By Shlomo Shamir, Natasha Mozgovaya, Barak Ravid and Haaretz Service
Published 23:19 18.02.11
Latest update 23:19 18.02.11

The United States on Friday voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted.

The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution.
. . .
The U.S. opposes new Israeli settlements but says taking the issue to the UN will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.

I fail to see how this is not a UN issue, since Israel relies on UN recognition for it's very existence as a state. I also fail to see how gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are not a UN Security Council matter.

Political campaign money from Zionist organizations seems to vastly trump matters of Justice and Humanitarian Law. US foreign policy is corrupt to the core.




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
So we wimped out an vetoed it after all.


If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote?

Great question, eh? Oh to have been a fly on the wall in the dialog that took place about this.


The US-vetoed resolution, which had been sponsored by 130 countries, "reaffirms that the Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."

It also reiterated its “demand that Israel, the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

The US veto brought swift critical reaction.


Rebuke is one thing, but a resolution is quite another, eh? www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Just another example of the disgracefull hypocricy which is American policy. If Isreal was an oil rich arabian country they would use this as an excuse to invade, wage war, regime change, and make profit. But becasue America and Isreal are in bed together, they make up bull# to excuse their racist criminal activity. Actually, what am I saying??? Making up bull# to excuse their racists criminal activity pretty well sums up American foreign policy world wide, does it not?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity


“On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” Ambassador Rice said.
www.csmonitor.com...

Letting the resolution pass would have been the strongest terms actually.

I think the implication of this resolution may have forced Israel onto the list of nations not allowed continuing US Military aid. I'm not quite sure of all the legal triggers.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Wouldn't that have been grand?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
I'm going to see if I can find the actual text of the draft resolution of today, and the watered down compromise proposal offered by the US on Wednesday, which the Palestinians turned down for comparison.

Link to watered down US Proposal
Link to US Proposal
My analysis of US proposal is that two-party talks should be number 1 priority, thus continuing the "process" which has resulted in 530,000 illegal settlers on occupied Palestine.

The adopted on March 22, 1979 resolution:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446
. . .
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;


UN Press Release
Speaking before the vote, Lebanon’s representative surveyed the recent acceleration of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, following the end of the recent partial moratorium, and pointed out that the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the General Assembly had all previously declared such settlement activity illegal, calling for a complete halt.

He said settlement activity was also barred by the Quartet “Road Map”, and maintained that Israel continued to challenge all those opinions, with the number of settlers now having exceeded 530,000. The purpose of the draft resolution had been to halt those illegal practices once and for all, allowing the Council to play its rightful role on the side of righteousness, he said, adding that Council action would continue to be demanded until there was a just peace, including a viable State of Palestine.






edit on 18-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Thank you for this most informative post. I have always opposed Israels actions in the middle east, and been cynical of their relationship with the US. What I had not realised was the depth of history behind this story.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
Unbiased history is what PR people with something to sell don't want you to know.

Israel and Palestine: A Brief History - Part I
History, and different perceptions of history, are perhaps the most important factors in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Accounts of history, interpreting history in different ways, are used to justify claims and to negate claims, to vilify the enemy and to glorify "our own" side. Dozens of accounts have been written. Most of the accounts on the Web are intended to convince rather than to inform.

This very brief account is intended as a balanced overview and introduction to Palestinian and Israeli history, and the history of the conflict. It is unlikely that anyone has written or will write an "objective" and definitive summary that would be accepted by everyone, but it is hoped that this document will provide a fair introduction.

When it comes to deciding right from wrong, I rely on legal decisions, such as the Nuremberg standards, such as, genocide will forever be condemned. Some things really must be held to standards of justice, and not left to political whim.


edit on 19-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
When it comes to deciding right from wrong, I rely on legal decisions, such as the Nuremberg standards, such as, genocide will forever be condemned. Some things really must be held to standards of justice, and not left to political whim.


Whose standards of justice though?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
The standards developed over thousands of years of human cultural development. I always thought that Holocaust Museums were a gift to the world so that people can always go somewhere to see what can and has happened when one group sees itself as somehow more human than some other group. To see what happens when those "special" people have all the political and military power behind them to do to "the other" whatever they wish with total impunity.

Those museums will stand as a testimony and witness against the Zionist regimes that do what is depicted therein and all the nations and people of the world who support it economically, politically, and morally. They will all stand condemned. When? I don't know. By whom? I don't know. But I do know that the evils of ethnic cleansing don't have to happen. There is no good, decent, and all-loving god demanding it. Any deity demanding it is also condemned as the enemy of humanity.


edit on 19-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Shamatt
Unbiased history is what PR people with something to sell don't want you to know.

Israel and Palestine: A Brief History - Part I


Thank you - I will take the time to read it fully over the next few days.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


They will all stand condemned. When? I don't know. By whom? I don't know.

I think something similar to the Tower of Babel.
They are creating a civilization to be their god, and the real God will
put an end to it before they are totally successful.
The ambition of their enterprise knows no bounds, so God will have to step in to impose them.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
A good analysis of this was on Saturday's show, Current Issues with Dr. Hesham Tillawi.
That was on Republic Broadcasting Network, yesterday, Feb 19.
He has a pretty good insight into this issue, being from around that area.
He has good contacts there and has a grasp on the current situation.
He thinks the Israelis want to have unfriendly regimes around them and to use that to justify their lack of cooperation with things like the peace treaties they already signed, and are ignoring as long as they can get away with it.
This Muslim cleric was up on Al Jazeera preaching in the street and rallying the people to say they will go to Jerusalem to fight the Jews. Israel loves that, that way they can attack their neighbors and claim self defense.
To get a better version, go to their web site and download the podcast. They will offer people a free 24 hr. trial subscription, plus their subscription is only a dollar, thirty a month.
edit on 20-2-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Contrary to popular belief that one nation alone does not have veto power that can stop an item from advancing. You could in fact get say, Russia and China who both have veto power as well that can use theirs to override that of The USA and the motion would then be allowed to move forth to be on it's way to be adopted.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

United Nations Security Council veto power
The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a 'procedural' draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.

The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called 'P5' — casts a "negative" vote on a 'substantive' draft resolution.

Then the question becomes, was it a procedural draft, or a substantive draft? I think by the nature of the issue, it was probably substantive.

US policy on vetoes since July 26, 2002

Negroponte Doctrine
Here is a widely-reported summary of Negroponte's statement (an official transcript of these closed-session remarks does not appear to have been released):

For any resolution to go forward, the United States — which has a veto in the 15-nation council — would want it to have the following four elements:
A strong and explicit condemnation of all terrorism and incitement to terrorism;
A condemnation by name of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups that have claimed responsibility for suicide attacks on Israel;
An appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the crisis;
A demand for improvement of the security situation as a condition for any call for a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to positions they held before the September 2000 start of the Second intifada Palestinian uprising.

You can't say anything bad about Israel without listing by name: al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Pretty strange standard since none of these groups is a sovereign nation or a member of the UN. I was trying to think of an analogy, but nothing really fits.

As for the requirement for appeal to a political settlement in matters dealing with crimes against humanity, that is patently ridiculous. Say the US National Guard, claiming they are keeping civil order, is machinegunning striking union workers. A court issues a cease and desist order, stating that machinegunning of strikers is a crime. The National Guard commander says, "I will ignore this order because it's more important that the Union reps work out their differences with Corporate management."


edit on 20-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


2 Veto powers can use their veto to veto a veto effectively ordering the item to continue. This is in play so that no single nation can be bigger then the UN's legislative arm as a whole.
edit on 22-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


2 Veto powers can use their veto to veto a veto effectively ordering the item to continue. This is in play so that no single nation can be bigger then the UN's legislative arm as a whole.

As much as I may wish that there were a mechanism in which to override a UNSC veto, I can't find any legal way that it can be done.

United Nations Charter, Chapter V
Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

The only reference I can find to exceptions to "concurring votes of permanent members" is in the case when the Soviet Union used the "empty chair" tactic.

History
The Soviet Union had adopted an "empty chair" policy at the Security Council from January 1950, owing to its discontent over the UN's refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China's representatives as the legitimate representatives of China,[2] and with the hope of preventing any future decisions by the Council on substantive matters. Despite the wording of the Charter (which makes no provisions for passing resolutions with the abstention or absence of a veto-bearing member), this was treated as a non-blocking abstention. This had in fact already become Council practice by that time, the Council having already adopted numerous draft resolutions despite the lack of an affirmative vote by each of its permanent members.

Using that as a precedent, if the UNSC held a meeting and the US didn't show up, then the council could pass a resolution that the US would have vetoed if present.

As for the purpose of the veto, it seems to be so that the other members wouldn't be able to vote out of the council one of the permanent members without that members consent.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I was just in Israel and saw some of these "settlements." We in the US don't really have a good perspective on what this means. About the easiest way to describe the terrain in New Mexico/Arizona. It's a very hot dry, arrid place. There are places with rolling hills and a few forests, but mostly it's a scrubgrass kind of place. Lots of sand and rocks. There is a freeway that travels from the border at Jordan to Jerusalem and on to Tel Aviv. Unless you saw a road sign written in Hebrew (and Arabic and English) you wouldn't know you weren't in I-90 in Eastern Washington.

Jerusalem is a modern city with some very ancient parts. It's "compressed," not spread out. People tend to live in apartments or townhouses. Right across the freeway, the very next hill over, is Bethlehem, controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Just down the freeway toward Jordan, maybe two miles from the city limits of Jerusalem, is a "settlement." It's just a neighborhood, like the one across the street in your town, within easy walking distance. It's not spread out in some remote location; it's right next door. Down the road apiece, maybe 15 or so miles from Jerusalem, is Jericho, where the walls came tumbling down.

We tend to think of these settlements as being placed in out of the way places inside "Palestinian Lands." OK, if you insist on talking that way, but the point is they are right next door.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler


OK, if you insist on talking that way, but the point is they are right next door.

I got a strong sense of deja vu while reading your post. I've read it before. www.abovetopsecret.com...
from 13-12-2010. Okay, not exactly the same.

I'm vaguely aware of the closeness of things by looking at maps, and comparing distances to what I'm familiar with. It seems to me that "closeness" accentuates the issue rather than ameliorating it.

The issue is regarding legality.


edit on 22-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

The "Uniting for Peace" Option


UNGA Resolution 377
"Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members,[2] the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the emergency special session.

The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson Plan"—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).[3]

In it, the General Assembly:

"Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto," ...

"Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security," ...

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

These "Emergency Special Sessions" have been used 10 times. Of special note is the fact the United States is the country that sponsored this resolution.

". . . It would be vastly reassuring to all who love peace if here we could adopt unanimously a programme which only aggressors need fear." speech of John Foster Dulles for United States, pushing for adoption.

The last time I, from the US, attempted to communicate by email with UN ambassadors from other nations, the whole internet crashed from "a worm released in South Korea". This is an international forum, so people not of the US should be able to contact their own national UN ambassadors without undo internet disruptions. Recommend that the General Assembly use the "Uniting for Peace" option.


edit on 22-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join