UN rejects Palestinian resolution to end Israel's occupation

[webfact]

UN rejects Palestinian resolution to end Israel's occupation
EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years late Tuesday, a blow to efforts to get the U.N.'s most powerful body to take action to recognize an independent state of Palestine.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, had made clear its opposition to the draft resolution and would have used its veto if necessary. But it didn't have to because the resolution failed to get the minimum nine "yes" votes required for adoption by the 15-member council.

The resolution received eight "yes" votes, two "no" votes — one from the United States and the other from Australia — and five abstentions. Until shortly before the vote, council diplomats had expected the resolution to get nine "yes" votes. But Nigeria, which had been expected to vote "yes," abstained.

The defeated resolution would have affirmed the urgent need to achieve "a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and set a Dec. 31, 2017 deadline for Israel's occupation to end.

It also called for an independent state of Palestine to be established within the 1967 Mideast borders — before Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — and demanded "a just solution" to all other outstanding issues, including Palestinian refugees, prisoners in Israeli jails and water.

Jordan's U.N. Ambassador Dina Kawar, the Arab representative on the Security Council, said after the vote: "The fact that this draft resolution was not adopted will not at all prevent us from proceeding to push the international community, specifically the United Nations, towards an effective involvement to achieving a resolution to this conflict."

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said: "We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table."


-- (c) Associated Press 2014-12-31

[Equalizer]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

[Keesters]

The state of Israel should never have been formed in the first place. I know I'll probably be flamed for saying that but I'm not interested and no one will change my mind.

P.S. I'm not Muslim or anti-jew. Just a regular guy.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Keesters

[konying]

Moses was an Egyptian, now most Egyptians are Muslim, compromise done, look at your histories folks.

And Jesus was a Jew , ain't that a little shocker?

[shaurene]

The state of Israel should never have been formed in the first place. I know I'll probably be flamed for saying that but I'm not interested and no one will change my mind.

P.S. I'm not Muslim or anti-jew. Just a regular guy.

I agree, the U.S. and Briton gave them their state at the end of WW11 so they must have taken land from other country's. I was very surprised at Australia vote for NO.

[mania]

The defeated resolution would have affirmed the urgent need to achieve "a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution"

to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and set a Dec. 31, 2017 deadline for Israel's occupation to end.

You know it is a shame that something like this is defeated because I would hope everyone

wants that 1st underlined section above. It sounds like something to hope for.

Yet I think it was the 2nd underlined above that killed it.

As that will never happen as long as the US uses its influence

At the end of the day that is what we see here.... influence .....but it is called "abstentions" for fear of

various types of vocal backlash

Australia must have some important US shiny beads it really wants in the near future to be the only other "No"

rather than the safer "abstention"

Edited December 31, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

Good news. The UN does something sensible for a change. Kudos to Australia for doing the right thing.

[konying]

The state of Israel should never have been formed in the first place. I know I'll probably be flamed for saying that but I'm not interested and no one will change my mind.

P.S. I'm not Muslim or anti-jew. Just a regular guy.

I agree, the U.S. and Briton gave them their state at the end of WW11 so they must have taken land from other country's. I was very surprised at Australia vote for NO.

Little education clearly would not hurt, otherwise you might have known land was under British rule Edited December 31, 2014 by konying

[Seastallion]

" U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said: "We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because ... peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table."".

A complete wishywashy disingenuous cop-out. Samantha Power and the entire US administration know full well that Israel will not come to the table, and thus the status quo will remain because of her no vote.

[Seastallion]

The defeated resolution would have affirmed the urgent need to achieve "a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution"

to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and set a Dec. 31, 2017 deadline for Israel's occupation to end.

You know it is a shame that something like this is defeated because I would hope everyone

wants that 1st underlined section above. It sounds like something to hope for.

Yet I think it was the 2nd underlined above that killed it.

As that will never happen as long as the US uses its influence

At the end of the day that is what we see here.... influence .....but it is called "abstentions" for fear of

various types of vocal backlash

Australia must have some important US shiny beads it really wants in the near future to be the only other "No"

rather than the safer "abstention"

Yes. The Aussie delegate would have been invited for coffee by Samantha Powers, and offered something. Nigeria too. Actually all the abstentions would have had either Israel or the US making deals for them.

It's a travesty.

[Ulysses G.]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

[mania]

Yes. The Aussie delegate would have been invited for coffee by Samantha Powers, and offered something. Nigeria too. Actually all the abstentions would have had either Israel or the US making deals for them.

It's a travesty.

True & the real pity is this was not in anyway a threatening deadline....For goodness sake it had a target deadline one to two years in the future...They actually need one much sooner...But even this silly 2 years in the future...Can we have peace? Heck no....Not as long as you keep asking for occupation to end

To say such silly things as Australia is fed up with Islamic extremism while talking about Palestine is silly.

Because the truth is Militant Islam is spreading throughout the worldfinanced by Middle East oil wealth You feel strong about ending it? Go boycott those 1st...That is the sponsor not Palestine. But they wont will they?

Edited December 31, 2014 by Scott

[sirineou]

UG is here, where is JT? he must be busy celebrating

[Scott]

Numerous troll posts have been removed. If yours is gone you may want to reflect carefully on what you have said.

The topic will remain open, but I suspect a number of you will not be posting on it for a while. That includes snide little one-liners which have no substance, but only act to inflame other posters.

Stay on topic and keep it civil.

[dexterm]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

The 22 year old Oslo Accords are dead in the water. Israel has seen to that many times over by stealing more land from Palestinians and building illegal colonies there.

Personally I hope the 2 state solution dies too, and Israel annexes the West Bank. Then Israel will have to make the Palestinians equal citizens or well and truly face an anti apartheid global backlash.

Australia has become a red neck pro Zionist country under their new PM Abbott. His Attorney General George Brandis this year unilaterally wanted Australia to stop calling East Jerusalem and the West Bank "occupied" despite the fact that the International Court of Justice, the UN, and EU disagree with him.

Abbott also volunteered Australian troops to fight ISIS without even being asked, thus needlessly raising the terrorist threat for its citizens.

But he may not last long with the Australian economy in trouble because of resources downturn.

[Ulysses G.]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

The 22 year old Oslo Accords are dead in the water.

Nope. The terms are still in place and the Palestinians have already agreed to them. There is nothing concrete in the Oslo Accords about issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders and no promise of Palestinian statehood. They all need to be negotiated.

That is exactly is why U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is rejecting the resolution. These things can only be settled at the negotiating table as promised, not forced on anyone by the UN.

[Baerboxer]

Good news. The UN does something sensible for a change. Kudos to Australia for doing the right thing.

Australia are fast becoming the USA's latest poodle - for whatever reasons, especially under wannabee important Abbott.

Israel is wrong in continuing to allow settlement in occupied land. But is absolutely right to defend her borders, her people and her right to exist.

Historically, the Jews have more right to that land than modern Americans have to theirs, which they forcible stole from native Americans.

If the Palestinians could swallow their pride and hatred and work with Israel rather than trying to destroy it they would prosper. But no country can be expected to tolerate what Israel has to without fighting back.

The US are right - compromise has to be negotiated and not at the point of Hamas or any other terrorists' gun.

[Publicus]

Chief among those voting yes were China and Russia....and of course France.

Chief abstainers in addition to Nigeria were UK and South Korea.....joined by Lithuania and Rwanda..

The two 'no' votes, the US and Australia are national security treaty allies who cooperate whenever we can, which since the year 2000 for better and for worse is pretty often. South Korea is also a US formal treaty ally which has the PRChina as its biggest trading partner.

For all the changes that have occurred at the UN since around 1950, things at the UNSC have pretty much stayed the same. Let's welcome some of the small bit of stability that does manage to exist in the world.

After the P-5 members the others on the Council have two year terms so this cycle of short term members looks pretty good for the United States.

[rethaier]

What's the point of voting in the UN if Russia and the US have veto powers? Why not just ask them (Russia and US) what they want to do and get rid of everybody else on the security council, we would certainly save a lot of money. In fact why not just give the Russian and The US delegates a small office each and make the UN building a shopping mall. What a forking farce the UN is.

[SOTIRIOS]

.....wonder how those that 'abstained' would like to live in 'fenced enclosures'.....

[uptheos]

Even Nigeria couldn't bring themselves to vote for Palestine.

[dexterm]

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is abiding with the Oslo Accords which the Palestinians have signed and Israel has "come to the table" over and over again. The Palestinians have refused numerous peace deals.

The 22 year old Oslo Accords are dead in the water.

Nope. The terms are still in place and the Palestinians have already agreed to them. There is nothing concrete in the Oslo Accords about issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders and no promise of Palestinian statehood. They all need to be negotiated.

That is exactly is why U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power is rejecting the resolution. These things can only be settled at the negotiating table as promised, not forced on anyone by the UN.

22 years is a very long time to be negotiating and getting absolutely nowhere...even backward for the Palestinians. They have less land for a negotiated viable state than ever before. Some commentators say it has passed the point of no return anyway, with a one state solution inevitable, with Israel formally annexing the whole of Palestine, thus inheriting 4 million Palestinians.

Time is running out.There needs to be a new impetus to get negotiations moving, and this UN resolution was one of them.. a pity the current makeup of the Security Council didn't allow that this time. Early days. Something has to give. Israelis and Palestinians can't go on living like this after almost 100 years of conflict.

The world and young American voters especially are becoming more aware of the injustice sponsored by their parents. All conflicts eventually come to an end. I just hope it doesn't get worse before it gets better.

Edited December 31, 2014 by dexterm

[jacky54]

why should Israel give up any more land, they gave up Sinai and Gazza but no stop to being attacked. What land has any Muslim country ever given up that was occupied after winning a defensive war?

Edited December 31, 2014 by jacky54

[dexterm]

why should Israel give up any more land, they gave up Sinai and Gazza but no stop to being attacked. What land has any Muslim country ever given up that was occupied after winning a defensive war?

Israel made a peace agreement with Egypt, and gave back Sinai, occupied in war, as part of the deal...no trouble with Egypt since then.

This rejected resolution was intended to do the same thing with the Palestinians.

In the 21st Century under the 4th Geneva Convention no country can occupy land in war, annex it as its own, and transfer its own citizens there.

Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention

[jacky54]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers? Do you really imagine that if things were reversed and Israel had lost land to Muslim Invaders 40+ years ago that they would give any up?

[jerome2]

About that, being french ,I always wondered what is the difference in an american brain ,between Lobbying and corupting....somone knows?....somone from US preferably

It would be an honest statement to say the US rejects the deal. They were the declining vote on the security council. They continue to be the patsy for Israel. The Jewish lobby and Israel spend about $2,000,000,000 per year lobbying Congress, for Israeli aid, and cooperation. The money lobby continues to have great success.

Edited December 31, 2014 by jerome2

[ABCer]

The state of Israel should never have been formed in the first place. I know I'll probably be flamed for saying that but I'm not interested and no one will change my mind.

P.S. I'm not Muslim or anti-jew. Just a regular guy.

Just look at who 'Likes' you and you will know who you are.

[dexterm]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers?

Name some of the "lots of countries" since the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 who as signatories have legally annexed land formerly belonging to others.

Edited December 31, 2014 by dexterm

[NeverSure]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers?

Name some of the "lots of countries" since the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 who as signatories have legally annexed land formerly belonging to others.

Show me where Israel signed and then ratified the third article of the 4th Geneva Convention.

[dexterm]

Lots of countries occupy land formerly belonging to others, why should Israel be singled out by the whining losers?

Name some of the "lots of countries" since the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 who as signatories have legally annexed land formerly belonging to others.

Show me where Israel signed and then ratified the third article of the 4th Geneva Convention.

List of signatories here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

You are perhaps confused with Protocol III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_III