Washington Seeking To Reduce Number of Anti-Israel Votes at U.N.

[Herschel]

The United States is embarking on the most comprehensive campaign in years to reduce the number of anti-Israel resolutions routinely passed by the United Nations General Assembly.

Top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have lobbied capitals, ministers and diplomats in recent months to reduce the number of votes in favor of such resolutions in the 191-member General Assembly.

American officials and observers say the unprecedented effort is largely the result of a sustained effort by the American Jewish Committee.

"This is definitely a very significant step forward," said Richard Schifter, a former American diplomat who heads the international commission of AJCommittee and is the driving force behind the lobbying effort. "The U.S. realizes this need to be done because the obsession with Israel harms the U.N. and creates added problems in the attainment of peace in the region."

cut

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.14/news6a.un.html

=====================================

Wonderful news. America and Israel working together to end this UN obcession is welcome.

[La_Serpiente]

1. *Sigh*

They try to hide the truth and are actually stifling dissent. *Sigh*

[Gimel]

7. Whose truth?

There are as always, two sides to the issue of peaceful co-existence. The 53 Moslem nations agains one Jewish nation and one with a Jewish minority (the US) is hardly a fair distribution. The overuse of the UN for propaganda is an obvious ploy and misuse of the UN forum.

[bluesoul]

8. How about the misuse of the VETO

by the US? That doesn't bother you does it, when it goes for Israel? No wonder....

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Ah, more of The Muslims Control The U.N. garbage...

Take a look at how many states vote in the GA. It's a hell of a lot more than 55. There is nothing that can be remotely described as peaceful co-existance in some of Israel's actions that have been voted on, the recent example of the wall being a good one. I guess supporters of apartheid in South Africa used to try to tell people there were two sides to the issue when the U.N. put out a slew of resolutions against apartheid South Africa. I bet you those 53 Muslim nations were against one South African nation and poor little misunderstood Israel, which was the only state that sided with South Africa consistantly...

If yr opposed to the use of propaganda in the UN, where's yr condemnation of the US for doing it so often? Not to mention the way non-permanent SC members are bribed and pressured by the US to vote yes when it came to Iraq. When it comes to resolutions against Israel, you've got a lot of explaining to do if you want folk to believe that the resolution about the wall was just propaganda...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

10. Some people

are just not capable of dealing with the responsibility of their nation's policy and the disregard for various UN conventions and international law. The fact that only 3 countries in the world (2 of which are Islands) support you with the vote in the UN should be a wake up call for anyone serious enough about it. But alas...

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Some info on the two Pacific islands...

Those two that always vote with the US and Israel are the Marshall Islands and Micronesia, both of which have been US Trust Territories and much more recently were given independence (three cheers for the anti-colonial US who was so opposed to colonial powers at the end of WWII!!) and now have what are called Compacts of Free Agreement with the US, and rely very very heavily on US aid. It doesn't take rocket science to work out why they do the bidding of the US in the UN....

Hmmm, seeing as how the Marshall Islands is only 10 metres above sea-level at it's highest point, I wonder if they had enough balls to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? I guess if they didn't, we can have a guessing competition about how many years it'll take for the Marshall Islands to cease existing, or be voting in the General Assembly donned in their scuba gear ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

11. US veto

The veto power is used rather sparingly. Often abstention is as far as the US goes in response to the anti-Israel motions, as do many other nations. I never said there were only 55 nations in the GA. However, many don't give a hoot one way or the other. Most seem pretty oblivious as to the situation, which is not surprising. As for the nit-picking PA suggested resolutions, they are introduced by Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia, as Palestine a vote or the power to introduce legislation.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Sparingly?

I'm curious, but do you know how many times the US has used it's veto power compared to the other permanent members? The track record of the US in the Security Council is that it vetoes way more resolutions that it sees as critical of Israel (or in yr lingo: anti-Israel) than it abstains from or votes for...

I never said that you said there were only 55 nations in the UN General Assembly. The point I was making was that yr of some strange belief that 53 of those states wield such great power that all the others follow them blindly without thought. And I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim that they are oblivious to the situation, when knowledge of the situation is widely known amongst them. Or are you defining 'knowledge of the situation' as only applying to anyone who agrees with yr views of what the situation is?

Explain to me how the resolution concerning the wall was 'nit-picking'? I really want to hear this one...

Huh? No state has the power to introduce legislation into the General Assembly as far as I'm aware...

Violet...

[Gimel]

15. The number of resolutions

is the answer to your first question. US has a leadership role, and that's why you target it. Is the wall the only issue? There are any number of resolutions which proposed to condemn Israel for trying to prevent suicide bombers from crossing the greenline long before the wall was proposed.

A resolution is a type of legislation. Not binding, of course. That is understood.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. That's interesting...

Are you claiming that the resolution about the wall is 'nit-picking'? All the number of resolutions tells us is that it's a conflict that's gone on for decades. If it didn't exist, there'd be no resolutions. Use the logic I hope you'd use on the large number of resolutions about apartheid South Africa. Apartheid has ended, so the resolutions have stopped...

The US does NOT have a leadership role in the General Assembly at all. It doesn't even have a leadership role in the Security Council for that matter. That claim from you goes against everything the UN was created for and sounds more like the mind-set of neo-cons....

Okay, show me all these resolutions that condemn Israel for trying to prevent suicide bombers crossing the Green Line. Wouldn't the resolution about the wall fall into this category? I'd like to see what these resolutions say, not what you claim they say...

No, I've never heard of a General Assembly resolution being referred to as legislation. If something isn't legally binding, then it's NOT legislation. As General Assembly resolutions aren't binding, there's no way they can be described as legislation. Understood? I myself prefer to call them White Noise because there's so many of them being created and no-one really takes much notice of what they say anyway...

Violet...

[Gimel]

17. Any time

Okay, show me all these resolutions that condemn Israel for trying to prevent suicide bombers crossing the Green Line. Wouldn't the resolution about the wall fall into this category? I'd like to see what these resolutions say, not what you claim they say...

I'm sure you can find the UN site and search the resolutions, Violet.

Glad to see that you think the wall prevents suicide attacks. That's a victory.

[bluesoul]

18. Not a wall built on Palestinian land

That one will only make it more impossible for Palestinian to live normally, more desperate people will lead to more suicide bombers (those always find a way) Don't fool yourself that this is improving security. It's not. It's only making an already miserable living conditions more miserable. We all know where that can lead to...

[Gimel]

19. "Palestinian Land"

The wall encircles Jewish communities. Palestinians are probably safer if they are on the West side of the wall. imo.

[bluesoul]

20. Occupied land

on which illegal settlements were built... That's as much Israel as Cuba is USA...

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yeah...

Jewish communities built illegally on Palestinian land....

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

21. There's a lot of resolutions on that site...

And you made the claim of what these ones are about, so in the interests of making sure I'm looking at the ones yr talking about, I'm sure you won't mind taking the few minutes required to go grab the links and post them here so I can see exactly what yr talking about...

Uh, transfer of the Palestinian population would also prevent suicide bombings. Is that a victory as well when I say that? Clearly the construction of the wall along the path it's going rather than along the Green Line is the issue, not some claim by you that it's a condemnation of Israel for attempts to stop suicide bombers crossing the Green Line....

Could you answer the question I asked you? Do you consider the resolution concerning the wall to be nit-picking?

Violet...

[Gimel]

23. Didn't make any such claim

about "these ones". That is what you were saying. Sorry lady.


the resolution concerning the wall to be nit-picking?

You'll have to show me "the" resolution. I think that there were more in both GA and at least one in Security Council.
Anyway, I didn't mention the "one about the wall" when I said "nit-picking". I was in fact thinking of previous resolutions and taking all resolutions into consideration, not your specific choice of a resolution.

Anyway, the SC resolution about the Road Map passed, and there was no veto used by the US.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yes, you did...

Right here: 'There are any number of resolutions which proposed to condemn Israel for trying to prevent suicide bombers from crossing the greenline long before the wall was proposed.'

So instead of insisting you never made this claim, can you please do what would seem very easy if there's any substance to this claim of yrs, and produce links to them? It's so easy to do. Look at how I can give you this link to the GA resolution on the wall http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6da605bd43667fe185256dce00617927!OpenDocument and repeat my question which I've now asked several times. Do you consider this resolution to be nit-picking?

As you appear to be very reticent in providing examples of past resolutions and appeared to agree that the resolution on the wall would fall into the category of condemning Israel for trying to prevent suicide bombers from crossing the Green Line, it's a bit hard to know what on earth yr referring to when you make these claims of yrs...

Huh? The only reason there was a GA resolution was because the US had earlier vetoed an SC resolution on it....

Violet...

[Scott Lee]

2. Yes, let's stop criticizing Israel for brutalization and oppression

Just what in the world were we thinking, anyway.

[Maine-i-acs]

3. But the BFEE said the UN was irrelevant.

I guess unless they can shape it to further their goals?

The PNAC wants to reduce the ability of other organizations to wield any power comparable to the USA ...

[Gimel]

12. No, that was Arafat

No one called the UN irrelevant to my knowledge.

[Maine-i-acs]

25. Bush did - Sort of ... in a veiled way

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/

Bush addresses the UN - 9-12-02 - When trying to get the UN to act forefully against Iraq, Bush said the following:

/snip/

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.

Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence?

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States help found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective and respectful and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.

Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

/snip

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

5. So Many Martyrs; So Little Time....

[ex_jew]

6. Maybe if we keep invading Israel's enemies there won't

be anyone left to table an inflammatory resolution !

[BlackFrancis]

26. back in the colonial days they didn't have this problem

Of course when people who were dominated by invading Europeans started running their own affairs they took a damn dim view of the Zionist project and don't see much difference between the Israeli's and Rhodesia.