do you have anything that states WHY the US votes against it every time? it might help people better understand. i had some of that stuff but lost it all when my computer died last year and it is too much of a pain in the ass to try to find it all again.
Maybe because congress is owned by AIPAC.
As for the above votes, I can't find any statements from U.S officials on their use of the veto over the past 40 years which has blocked any chance of a peaceful settlement, but this year the U.S blocked a U.N resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and this was their justification:
"Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process...The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... settlement
you are right about aipac. very powerful group here in the states.
obama seems to be against settlement expansion and has said so, but he cowers when he meets with netanyahu. bibi seems to push him around. i can understand the US veto with douchebags like john bolton at the UN, but he has to be acting on orders from the executive branch, not on his own.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
good read on the failure of the peace process and how the US's insistence on the same policy has failed...
US and Israel haven't learned their history lessons. Palestinians and Abbas have.
Billions in US aid dollars to individual economies and militaries in the Middle East have not strengthened peace. The success of post-war Europe shows the key to unity is to get citizens of different nations to work together. That hasn't really happened with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
Edmund Burke famously said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” The Arab-Israeli conflict, steeped in history, is a case in point. A major piece of US Middle East policy presents a clear example of history being forgotten, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s recent statehood bid at the United Nations serves as an example of history being remembered.
If 90 years ago someone had said that England, France, and Germany would become the strongest of allies with integrated economies, he would have been laughed out of the room. Forty years later that impossible vision had become a reality. It was made possible because a lesson of history was not lost; the mistake made after World War I of severely punishing Germany through the Treaty of Versailles was not repeated after World War II. Rather Germany was allowed to rebuild both economically and politically.
In addition, through the brilliance of the European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan, the countries of Europe moved toward integration. With the exception of the Balkan wars following the breakup of Yugoslavia, that integration has led to a period of peace in Europe that has not been seen for centuries. One of the key ingredients to that success has been that nations were pushed to work with each other in various endeavors and formats, and in the process relationships were forged.
That lesson has been lost on successive US administrations as billions and billions of taxpayers dollars have been invested in the separate economies of Egypt, Israel, and Jordan – much of it directed toward military aid. While these dollars were intended to bolster the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994, they failed to do so.
Neither aid for separate economies or militaries strengthens peace. The weakening of these two peace treaties in the wake of the Arab Spring has happened in large part because those billions of dollars in US aid did nothing to bring Israelis and their Jordanian and Egyptian neighbors together.
To rectify this poor investment of foreign aid, the United States needs to reevaluate where it directs these billions. To support lasting peace in the region and the kind of relations the US had hoped to foster between aid recipients, it would be wise to take some of these funds and reallocate them toward economic projects between Israel, and Jordan and Egypt. In addition, funding for the United States Agency for International Development's Middle East Regional Cooperation Program and USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation should be increased.
Finally, the US should take the lead in establishing an International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace as advocated by the Alliance for Middle East Peace. This fund, especially with US support, would create better on-the-ground conditions necessary for bringing about a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. To do this, the fund would bolster the actions of the Israeli and Palestinian people-to-people nongovernmental organizations that work to create touch points of meeting and cooperation for people in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. I work for one of those organizations: the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, which prepares future Arab and Jewish leaders to solve the region’s environmental challenges.
One recent example highlights the important role these NGOs have to play in the region: Gershon Baskin, of The Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, played a key role in negotiating the Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, which saw the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Because of his organization’s grassroots work within both Israeli and Palestinian communities, Mr. Baskin was uniquely qualified to act as the conduit between Hamas and the Israeli government.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abbas has come under a lot of criticism by the US and a number of European countries for taking the issue of Palestinian statehood to the United Nations earlier this fall. With the subsequent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's vote to admit Palestine to its organization, the US has said it will not pay the $60 million this month it had previously committed to UNESCO. If the US decides to go through with withholding the funds, it will only isolate America further from much of the world community and do absolutely nothing for the peace process.
If the aim really is to support lasting peace and pave the way for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, the US could at least use the $60 million originally designated for UNESCO to fund USAID peacebuilding and development programs and the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is withholding $192 million in humanitarian and infrastructure aid to the Palestinians. The funds were previously committed for nongovernmental groups working on state-building and economic development projects, most of which are overseen by USAID. Palestinians working peacefully to build infrastructure are facing layoffs and offices are threatened with closure. This punitive action, too, does nothing to advance the peace process.
While the US and some others may be angry with the Palestinians for pursuing statehood recognition at the UN, it would be wise to pause and understand why Abbas is doing this.
For all intents and purposes, the peace process has gone nowhere for years in spite of the efforts of nations in the "Quartet." Over the decades, movement forward on the peace process has most often taken place only after something shook things up.
The 1990-91 Persian Gulf War led directly to the Madrid Conference in 1991, which led to the Oslo Accords in 1993, which led to the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. Similarly, the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was a direct result of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Many have speculated that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s goal in the 1973 confrontation was not to defeat Israel, but only to shake things up by gaining a foothold on the western bank of the Suez Canal.
Abbas, perhaps remembering these history lessons, apparently came to the conclusion that the status quo needed to be shaken up. To his credit he did not chose a violent option for this action. Abbas’s goal of going to the UN was to peacefully shake things up. History also teaches that such a decision should be not be so easily dismissed.
Rabbi Michael M. Cohen is the author of “Einstein’s Rabbi: A Tale of Science and the Soul” and works for the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The End of the 'Peace Process' Era
By Ted Belman
The Palestinian/Israeli conflict has entered a new era. Since the UNSC passed Res 242, it had been focused on the "peace process," which included the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap, Annapolis, and, finally, Obama's heavy-handed attempts to impose a solution.
One of the reasons why Obama couldn't get the PA to negotiate after three years of trying is because the PA was laying the groundwork to go another path, a path that would circumvent the peace process and rely on the intervention of the U.N. The PA realized that it had gotten all it could through negotiations, which is virtually nothing, and that to continue on that path meant that at the end of the line, it would have to sign an end-of-conflict-agreement with Israel. This, it was unwilling to do.
So instead, the PA has decided to get what it wanted from the international community and the U.N. It has spent the last three years lobbying the member states of the U.N. to support its bid for recognition as a state whose borders aligned with the '49 Armistice Lines. Its goal was to reach this stage without having to concede anything to Israel, much less sign an end-of-conflict-agreement. From this stage it would go on to fight for the lines in the Partition Plan recommended by the UNGA in Res 181.
Even though Obama tried his damnedest to get Israel to agree to negotiate based on the '67 lines and swaps, Netanyahu held firm. Obama ended up asserting that he would veto the PA bid in the Security Council and called for a negotiated settlement. Because he is now in the countdown to elections, he turned the "peace process" over to the EU, who made a proposal in September for the parties to have preliminary talks for a month and then to present comprehensive proposals for borders and security and then to finish a peace agreement before the end of 2012.
The EU failed to get the talks to begin but did get Netanyahu to agree to present comprehensive proposals in three months. Apparently the PA had presented such a proposal at Annapolis.
JPost reported when Blair was questioning whether there was an basis for negotiation when he was in Israel on October 27/11:
Blair explained in his interview that the Quartet was trying to get detailed proposals from Israel and the Palestinians on borders and security, to gauge how wide the gaps were, and whether there was a basis for negotiation.
On Oct 31, 2011, the PA had a pyrrhic victory in getting UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member state. The fallout from that "victory" was that the U.S. and Canada, inter alia, are now withholding funds from UNESCO. Furthermore, Israel has signaled her displeasure in word and in deed. Netanyahu announced the construction, without delay, of another 2,300 units east of the '67 lines, and that Israel would withhold the payment of taxes collected by her on behalf of the PA.
The significance of this announcement was that Netanyahu was boldly saying -- not only to the PA, but to the world -- that Israel is keeping Maaleh Adumin, Gilo, and Efrat, three major suburbs of Jerusalem lying east of the '67 green line, and is undeterred by demands that Israel not prejudice the outcome of negotiations or do provocative steps.
Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by Foreign Policy:
FP: This is the biggest foreign-policy issue of this week: The U.N. crisis caused by the Palestinian membership in UNESCO. And it's a crisis that's only getting larger and larger. There could be up to 16 U.N. organizations, including the IAEA and the World Health Organization, where the U.S. will have to withdraw based on the law if the Palestinians are admitted. What are we to think of this, and what should be done to get us out of this crisis?
CR: Well, you know, actually, if the U.N. wants to go down this road, let them see how well they do without U.S. support. I don't have any sympathy for UNESCO or anybody else that decides they are going to jump over what has long been the way we're going to get to a Palestinian state, which is negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The PA for its part is now mooting the idea of disbanding the PA. It is suggested that such a move would punish Israel, but Israelis think it would be for the best. For one thing, it would be the end of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap, including the Saudi Plan. It may or not be the end of the financial assistance from the U.S., EU, and Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent. Israel would outlaw the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, and all other terrorist groups calling for the destruction of Israel. And so on.
Condoleeza Rice also told AP that the gap has only widened "and they're running out of time." She did not sound optimistic for a peace settlement, or even for new talks, anytime soon.
"When they're not talking, they're sliding backward," Rice said.
So what has Israel been doing in the meantime?
At a recent lecture in the last week of October, Boogie Yaalon, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, said,
Time is not working against us, as many say. It is working in our favour because we make use of time. We build, we develop. we grow, we invent, we have babies. Time works for those who make use of it.
Vice FM Danny Yaalon, at another lecture, said the same thing. I later asked his key assistant if Israel is just building, or if it has a plan that it is following. He affirmed the latter.
Essentially, Israel is building up Hamas in Gaza and is sending in more goods such as building materials and will probably end the blockade. At the same time, Israel is undermining Abbas and the PA and is making life better for the Palestinians. She is encouraging commercial and industrial development in Ramallah, vastly improving Arab schools in Jerusalem, and lifting checkpoints. She continues to provide health care in Israel to both Gazans and Palestinians. They have never had it so good.
So while Abbas is working on the U.N., Israel is working on the ground to create a new reality.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
Personal attacks are not ok see the Posting Guidelines
And to add to what Sea is saying....we have absolutely no difficulty in handing out month-long bans* to people who refuse to follow the Posting Guidelines by baiting and commenting on other people here over and over and over again. This place is for world topics, not to discuss each other.
STOP IT NOW OR GO...it's your choice and your accounts can be read-only. You'll still have forum access.
Comments
obama seems to be against settlement expansion and has said so, but he cowers when he meets with netanyahu. bibi seems to push him around. i can understand the US veto with douchebags like john bolton at the UN, but he has to be acting on orders from the executive branch, not on his own.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He can't.
He has nothing to add to this discussion apart from pathetic personal attacks.
exactly ... stop feeding the trolls ...
Byrnzie. Everyone knows you work at 10C. Nobody else gets away with the shit you say.
That being true, look up my info, compare to Usamamasan, and you'll have your proof.
You are a weird girl tho.
Still waiting on you to answer my question: "Are you a Holoaust denier?"
US and Israel haven't learned their history lessons. Palestinians and Abbas have.
Billions in US aid dollars to individual economies and militaries in the Middle East have not strengthened peace. The success of post-war Europe shows the key to unity is to get citizens of different nations to work together. That hasn't really happened with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-israel-havent- ... 05677.html
Edmund Burke famously said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” The Arab-Israeli conflict, steeped in history, is a case in point. A major piece of US Middle East policy presents a clear example of history being forgotten, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s recent statehood bid at the United Nations serves as an example of history being remembered.
If 90 years ago someone had said that England, France, and Germany would become the strongest of allies with integrated economies, he would have been laughed out of the room. Forty years later that impossible vision had become a reality. It was made possible because a lesson of history was not lost; the mistake made after World War I of severely punishing Germany through the Treaty of Versailles was not repeated after World War II. Rather Germany was allowed to rebuild both economically and politically.
In addition, through the brilliance of the European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan, the countries of Europe moved toward integration. With the exception of the Balkan wars following the breakup of Yugoslavia, that integration has led to a period of peace in Europe that has not been seen for centuries. One of the key ingredients to that success has been that nations were pushed to work with each other in various endeavors and formats, and in the process relationships were forged.
That lesson has been lost on successive US administrations as billions and billions of taxpayers dollars have been invested in the separate economies of Egypt, Israel, and Jordan – much of it directed toward military aid. While these dollars were intended to bolster the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaties of 1979 and 1994, they failed to do so.
Neither aid for separate economies or militaries strengthens peace. The weakening of these two peace treaties in the wake of the Arab Spring has happened in large part because those billions of dollars in US aid did nothing to bring Israelis and their Jordanian and Egyptian neighbors together.
To rectify this poor investment of foreign aid, the United States needs to reevaluate where it directs these billions. To support lasting peace in the region and the kind of relations the US had hoped to foster between aid recipients, it would be wise to take some of these funds and reallocate them toward economic projects between Israel, and Jordan and Egypt. In addition, funding for the United States Agency for International Development's Middle East Regional Cooperation Program and USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation should be increased.
Finally, the US should take the lead in establishing an International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace as advocated by the Alliance for Middle East Peace. This fund, especially with US support, would create better on-the-ground conditions necessary for bringing about a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. To do this, the fund would bolster the actions of the Israeli and Palestinian people-to-people nongovernmental organizations that work to create touch points of meeting and cooperation for people in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. I work for one of those organizations: the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, which prepares future Arab and Jewish leaders to solve the region’s environmental challenges.
One recent example highlights the important role these NGOs have to play in the region: Gershon Baskin, of The Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, played a key role in negotiating the Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, which saw the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Because of his organization’s grassroots work within both Israeli and Palestinian communities, Mr. Baskin was uniquely qualified to act as the conduit between Hamas and the Israeli government.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abbas has come under a lot of criticism by the US and a number of European countries for taking the issue of Palestinian statehood to the United Nations earlier this fall. With the subsequent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's vote to admit Palestine to its organization, the US has said it will not pay the $60 million this month it had previously committed to UNESCO. If the US decides to go through with withholding the funds, it will only isolate America further from much of the world community and do absolutely nothing for the peace process.
If the aim really is to support lasting peace and pave the way for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, the US could at least use the $60 million originally designated for UNESCO to fund USAID peacebuilding and development programs and the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is withholding $192 million in humanitarian and infrastructure aid to the Palestinians. The funds were previously committed for nongovernmental groups working on state-building and economic development projects, most of which are overseen by USAID. Palestinians working peacefully to build infrastructure are facing layoffs and offices are threatened with closure. This punitive action, too, does nothing to advance the peace process.
While the US and some others may be angry with the Palestinians for pursuing statehood recognition at the UN, it would be wise to pause and understand why Abbas is doing this.
For all intents and purposes, the peace process has gone nowhere for years in spite of the efforts of nations in the "Quartet." Over the decades, movement forward on the peace process has most often taken place only after something shook things up.
The 1990-91 Persian Gulf War led directly to the Madrid Conference in 1991, which led to the Oslo Accords in 1993, which led to the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. Similarly, the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was a direct result of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Many have speculated that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s goal in the 1973 confrontation was not to defeat Israel, but only to shake things up by gaining a foothold on the western bank of the Suez Canal.
Abbas, perhaps remembering these history lessons, apparently came to the conclusion that the status quo needed to be shaken up. To his credit he did not chose a violent option for this action. Abbas’s goal of going to the UN was to peacefully shake things up. History also teaches that such a decision should be not be so easily dismissed.
Rabbi Michael M. Cohen is the author of “Einstein’s Rabbi: A Tale of Science and the Soul” and works for the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
By Ted Belman
The Palestinian/Israeli conflict has entered a new era. Since the UNSC passed Res 242, it had been focused on the "peace process," which included the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap, Annapolis, and, finally, Obama's heavy-handed attempts to impose a solution.
One of the reasons why Obama couldn't get the PA to negotiate after three years of trying is because the PA was laying the groundwork to go another path, a path that would circumvent the peace process and rely on the intervention of the U.N. The PA realized that it had gotten all it could through negotiations, which is virtually nothing, and that to continue on that path meant that at the end of the line, it would have to sign an end-of-conflict-agreement with Israel. This, it was unwilling to do.
So instead, the PA has decided to get what it wanted from the international community and the U.N. It has spent the last three years lobbying the member states of the U.N. to support its bid for recognition as a state whose borders aligned with the '49 Armistice Lines. Its goal was to reach this stage without having to concede anything to Israel, much less sign an end-of-conflict-agreement. From this stage it would go on to fight for the lines in the Partition Plan recommended by the UNGA in Res 181.
Even though Obama tried his damnedest to get Israel to agree to negotiate based on the '67 lines and swaps, Netanyahu held firm. Obama ended up asserting that he would veto the PA bid in the Security Council and called for a negotiated settlement. Because he is now in the countdown to elections, he turned the "peace process" over to the EU, who made a proposal in September for the parties to have preliminary talks for a month and then to present comprehensive proposals for borders and security and then to finish a peace agreement before the end of 2012.
The EU failed to get the talks to begin but did get Netanyahu to agree to present comprehensive proposals in three months. Apparently the PA had presented such a proposal at Annapolis.
JPost reported when Blair was questioning whether there was an basis for negotiation when he was in Israel on October 27/11:
Blair explained in his interview that the Quartet was trying to get detailed proposals from Israel and the Palestinians on borders and security, to gauge how wide the gaps were, and whether there was a basis for negotiation.
On Oct 31, 2011, the PA had a pyrrhic victory in getting UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member state. The fallout from that "victory" was that the U.S. and Canada, inter alia, are now withholding funds from UNESCO. Furthermore, Israel has signaled her displeasure in word and in deed. Netanyahu announced the construction, without delay, of another 2,300 units east of the '67 lines, and that Israel would withhold the payment of taxes collected by her on behalf of the PA.
The significance of this announcement was that Netanyahu was boldly saying -- not only to the PA, but to the world -- that Israel is keeping Maaleh Adumin, Gilo, and Efrat, three major suburbs of Jerusalem lying east of the '67 green line, and is undeterred by demands that Israel not prejudice the outcome of negotiations or do provocative steps.
Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by Foreign Policy:
FP: This is the biggest foreign-policy issue of this week: The U.N. crisis caused by the Palestinian membership in UNESCO. And it's a crisis that's only getting larger and larger. There could be up to 16 U.N. organizations, including the IAEA and the World Health Organization, where the U.S. will have to withdraw based on the law if the Palestinians are admitted. What are we to think of this, and what should be done to get us out of this crisis?
CR: Well, you know, actually, if the U.N. wants to go down this road, let them see how well they do without U.S. support. I don't have any sympathy for UNESCO or anybody else that decides they are going to jump over what has long been the way we're going to get to a Palestinian state, which is negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The PA for its part is now mooting the idea of disbanding the PA. It is suggested that such a move would punish Israel, but Israelis think it would be for the best. For one thing, it would be the end of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap, including the Saudi Plan. It may or not be the end of the financial assistance from the U.S., EU, and Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent. Israel would outlaw the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, and all other terrorist groups calling for the destruction of Israel. And so on.
Condoleeza Rice also told AP that the gap has only widened "and they're running out of time." She did not sound optimistic for a peace settlement, or even for new talks, anytime soon.
"When they're not talking, they're sliding backward," Rice said.
So what has Israel been doing in the meantime?
At a recent lecture in the last week of October, Boogie Yaalon, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, said,
Time is not working against us, as many say. It is working in our favour because we make use of time. We build, we develop. we grow, we invent, we have babies. Time works for those who make use of it.
Vice FM Danny Yaalon, at another lecture, said the same thing. I later asked his key assistant if Israel is just building, or if it has a plan that it is following. He affirmed the latter.
Essentially, Israel is building up Hamas in Gaza and is sending in more goods such as building materials and will probably end the blockade. At the same time, Israel is undermining Abbas and the PA and is making life better for the Palestinians. She is encouraging commercial and industrial development in Ramallah, vastly improving Arab schools in Jerusalem, and lifting checkpoints. She continues to provide health care in Israel to both Gazans and Palestinians. They have never had it so good.
So while Abbas is working on the U.N., Israel is working on the ground to create a new reality.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ ... z1dzYpmHsb
— Socrates
Personal attacks are not ok see the Posting Guidelines
STOP IT NOW OR GO...it's your choice and your accounts can be read-only. You'll still have forum access.
Is this clear now?
* or longer