Jump to content









U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution denouncing violence against Palestinians


rooster59

Recommended Posts

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution denouncing violence against Palestinians

By Rodrigo Campos

 

800x800 (2).jpg

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley vetoes a vote as Bolivian Ambassador Sacha Llorenty votes for a Arab-backed resolution for protection of Palestinian civilians during a Security Council meeting at U.N. headquarters in Manhattan, New York, U.S., June 1, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States vetoed on Friday a Kuwait-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution that condemned Israel's use of force against Palestinian civilians, criticizing it as a "grossly one-sided view" that failed to blame Hamas for the recent violence.

 

"The terrorist group Hamas bears primary responsibility for the awful living conditions in Gaza," Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said ahead of the vote.

 

She criticized the resolution for not mentioning Hamas once.

 

"Anyone who cares about the peace process should vote against it," Haley said.

 

France, Russia, China, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Bolivia, Peru, Sweden, and Equatorial Guinea joined Kuwait in voting in favor, while only the United States voted against. Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Ethiopia abstained.

 

A Security Council resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by any of the permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia or China to be adopted.

 

A second draft resolution proposed by the United States blaming Hamas for the violence while mentioning Israel's right to defend itself, was later voted on.

 

Only the United States voted in favor of the second draft resolution, while there were three negative votes and 11 abstentions.

 

Both Hamas, the dominant group in Gaza, and the pro-Iran Islamic Jihad have said their recent actions including shelling of Israeli territory are in response to Israel’s killing of at least 116 Palestinians since March 30 in Gaza border protests.

 

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-02
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, predictable, but perhaps more significant as a PR ding for Ms. Haley. She's a major star of the republican party, considered future presidential timber, and pretty much the only figure in the "trump" administration not yet permanently tainted by being part of it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

intentionally storming the border in a violent way

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

Too naive for words. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

intentionally storming the border in a violent way

intentionally bending the truth ...

 

40 minutes ago, Jingthing said:
46 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

Too naive for words. 

can you explain ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

She criticized the resolution for not mentioning Hamas once.

And if the resolution had "mentioned Hamas once," would Haley voted for it?

Clearly her proposed resolution ...

8 hours ago, rooster59 said:

blaming Hamas for the violence while mentioning Israel's right to defend itself

... placing no fault on Israel is a one-sided approach to what is a two-sided problem.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nobodysfriend said:

The USA and Israel ...real close friends ...

 

From the BBC : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44167900

 

The UN human rights chief says Israel used "wholly disproportionate" force against Palestinian border protests which have left over 100 people dead.

 

Yes, because the the UN human rights bodies are balanced and objective. Disproportionate would be an apt description of their focus on Israel, while investing much less efforts in other global issues, regardless of their severity. Another point worth contemplating on is the list of countries seating on these bodies - not exactly the paragons of human rights there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nobodysfriend said:

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

 

Considering you do not exhibit a very informed take on facts, there's little reason to assume that your insights regarding the motivations of protesters are solid.

 

I'd advise looking up Hamas leadership's speeches before and during the protests. Or paying attentions to the slogans used during the protests themselves.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

And if the resolution had "mentioned Hamas once," would Haley voted for it?

Clearly her proposed resolution ...

... placing no fault on Israel is a one-sided approach to what is a two-sided problem.

 

 

Yep, goes that extra mile beyond the Negroponte doctrine. Guess this relates both to the theme set by Trump's administration, and Haley's own political ambitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

Another point worth contemplating on is the list of countries seating on these bodies - not exactly the paragons of human rights there.

Currently 47 nations including many "paragons" of human rights such as US allies, US trade partners and even the US itself. In the real world of global politics it's difficult to "Separate the wheat from the chaff." But thus far the consensus of the UNHRC has been against the US that seems more than often the chaff than the wheat.

When US Ambassador Haley is acting as a human rights advocate, she occupies a space the rest of the U.S. leadership has all but abandoned.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/27/nikki-haley-the-occasional-activist-trump-un-human-rights/

Such as her immediate boss POTUS Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Currently 47 nations including many "paragons" of human rights such as US allies, US trade partners and even the US itself. In the real world of global politics it's difficult to "Separate the wheat from the chaff." But thus far the consensus of the UNHRC has been against the US that seems more than often the chaff than the wheat.

When US Ambassador Haley is acting as a human rights advocate, she occupies a space the rest of the U.S. leadership has all but abandoned.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/27/nikki-haley-the-occasional-activist-trump-un-human-rights/

Such as her immediate boss POTUS Trump.

 

Latest UN "human rights related" resolution on this was supported by countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Motions regarding Israel represent almost a half of what is dealt with. Considering there are "a few" more acute and  more lethal crises, one would be hard not to call it a spade.

 

But then again:

 

Saudi Arabia elected to UN women's rights commission

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html

 

Syria Is Now In Charge of the UN's Disarmament Efforts. Really.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/syria-is-now-in-charge-of-the-uns-disarmament-efforts-really/561386/

 

Muslim states block 11 LGBT groups from attending UN Aids meeting

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/muslim-states-united-nations-lgbt-groups-aids-meeting

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

 

 

Neither side want peace. Say that about Palestinians and nada but say it about Israel and it's veto city.

 

I believe both sides do want "peace". Just that each got a different idea of what this stands for. Add to this that views on either sides are not uniform, and you get an even more complex situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Hamas had been mentioned in the resolution, the tail that wags the dog would have got the USA to veto it on some other pretext. Israel would not have co-operated with any investigation anyway. They have never done so in the past.

 

The Palestinians should bypass doomed-to-be-vetoed-by-the-USA resolutions and simply take Israel's war crimes directly to the International Criminal Court for investigation, where the USA can't exercise any veto.

It's about time some of Israel's top politicians and military ended up in the dock at The Hague.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Even if Hamas had been mentioned in the resolution, the tail that wags the dog would have got the USA to veto it on some other pretext. Israel would not have co-operated with any investigation anyway. They have never done so in the past.

 

The Palestinians should bypass doomed-to-be-vetoed-by-the-USA resolutions and simply take Israel's war crimes directly to the International Criminal Court for investigation, where the USA can't exercise any veto.

It's about time some of Israel's top politicians and military ended up in the dock at The Hague.

 

But Hamas wasn't mentioned in the resolution, so your "even if" remains a speculation. As for Israel not cooperating with UN investigations - wrong. Granted, not those commissioned by so-called UN "human rights" bodies. 

 

The Palestinians would do well to ignore the advice of such "experts" such as yourself. The ICC's comment on recent events amounted to both sides may want to watch their step. Add to that the ICC proceedings taking years, and no assurances results would be what you hope for. Oh yeah, that would also give Israel a pretext to pretty much do away with any existing concessions whatsoever - which, from a propaganda point of view is a good thing, sort of like Palestinian casualties.

 

And do tell - would the Palestinians submitting the hypothetical case to the ICC be PA or Hamas? And if found accountable, which will pay the price?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dexterm said:

I have no problem with anyone being investigated for war crimes, whatever their politics.

 

Lame deflection. Avoid points raised at all costs is the routine tactic.

 

What you have no problems with is hardly the point. Does the Hamas share your views? Does your take relate in any meaningful way to Palestinian politics, and the supposed reconciliation process?

 

Similarly - considering this isn't some instant made by order justice, but a lengthy process with uncertain prospects, what are the Palestinians supposed to do while this drags on? What is the contingency plan in case this doesn't play out like you imagine? What about punitive action by Israel?

 

And let's say that years down the line, the ICC will find some Israeli politicians and generals guilty. Fine. How would that help the Palestinians in any meaningful way?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US counter resolution is a ridiculous exercise in futility when war crimes have been committed.

 

"A second draft resolution proposed by the United States blaming Hamas for the violence while mentioning Israel's right to defend itself, was later voted on.
Only the United States voted in favor of the second draft resolution, while there were three negative votes and 11 abstentions." [OP]

 

If the USA and Israel complain that the UN resolution is one sided, why on earth does the USA then go and produce its own biased counter resolution. Seems hypocritical. And if they are just trying to prove a tit for tat point it is puerile.

 

If they really wanted to discover the truth, why does the USA not propose a more open investigation. Surely they have the professionals who can word such a resolution in acceptable diplomatic language that might actually get passed.

Edited by dexterm
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

The US counter resolution is a ridiculous exercise in futility when war crimes have been committed.

 

"A second draft resolution proposed by the United States blaming Hamas for the violence while mentioning Israel's right to defend itself, was later voted on.
Only the United States voted in favor of the second draft resolution, while there were three negative votes and 11 abstentions." [OP]

 

If the USA and Israel complain that the UN resolution is one sided, why on earth does the USA produce its own biased counter resolution. Seems hypocritical. And if they are just trying to prove a tit for tat point it is puerile.

 

If they really wanted to discover the truth, why does the USA not propose a more open investigation. Surely they have the professionals who can word such a resolution in acceptable diplomatic language that might actually get passed.

 

That you decide war crimes were committed  doesn't make it a fact.

 

That the UN resolution is biased is a fact.

 

I don't see you bringing up the same criticism against the other resolution offer. To follow your "reasoning", the same would apply as well - "if they really wanted to discover the truth" they'd make a more balanced resolution to begin with.

 

:coffee1:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I have no problem with anyone being investigated for war crimes, whatever their politics.

The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

As the ICC recognized the state of Palestine in 2015 and Palestine is unable to prosecute alleged Israeli criminals, the Palestinian Authority has standing to bring a complaint to the Court against Israel.

In fact the PA has asked the ICC to launch an investigation into what it says is “insurmountable” evidence of Israel war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on Palestinian territory.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-protests-icc-israel-palestine-petition-war-crimes-against-humanity-deaths-a8363706.html

(May 22, 2018)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If there were no crimes then Israel should have no problem having the case taken to ICC ,in fact they should welcome the vindication and if it was all Hamas's fault then perhaps Israel should be taking the case  to the ICC to clear their name, instead of having the US carry water for them in the UN . 

What's the matter Israel could not find any good lawyers? LOL

 

What are you on about?

 

The poster claimed there were war crimes committed. I stated it is not a fact.

 

The "reasoning" of your post doesn't follow, it's just a lame attempt at baiting.

 

Notice that this topic isn't even about the ICC - that was a bogus angle raised by the poster replied to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...