Maybe they were deserved....just a hunch....let see the details on what they entitle....instead of just showing numbers.... I would like to see the details....
Most of them are "condemnations" for various specific actions by the IDF. Condemnations are basically harassment. Most third-world countries could have been targeted with a similar number of these very specific condemnations.
The reason Arab nations don't fuck with Israel is because Israel kicks their asses repeatedly in wars. If you live on what is essentially an island surrounded by people who want to destroy you, you better have a good military if you want to survive. Israel has taken this idea to heart.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Oh, and please disregard the piece's irritating use of quotes around the word Israel.
Yeah some but I see lots of repeats as well....however I would think that some are indeed justified...some like I said look like repeats....but I would like to read the details...you cannot judge a book by its cover....
The reason Arab nations don't fuck with Israel is because Israel kicks their asses repeatedly in wars. If you live on what is essentially an island surrounded by people who want to destroy you, you better have a good military if you want to survive. Israel has taken this idea to heart.
No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....
Most of them are "condemnations" for various specific actions by the IDF. Condemnations are basically harassment. Most third-world countries could have been targeted with a similar number of these very specific condemnations.
This was such an entertaining read. I'm going to start a club and issue random "condemnations", "urges", "deplorations", "demands", and "censures" against posters here. And I'm going to pretend that those statements have some kind of backing. Sounds fun.
No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....
Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?
This was such an entertaining read. I'm going to start a club and issue random "condemnations", "urges", "deplorations", "demands", and "censures" against posters here. And I'm going to pretend that those statements have some kind of backing. Sounds fun.
Exactly my point!
Let's start with silverstain, by the way.
Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?
Well we will see...
I for one do not think that this warfare as bettered the Missle East as from what I have seen....
I for one do not think that this warfare as bettered the Missle East as from what I have seen....
Agree 100%. No good has come of any of these wars. From the Israeli perspective, the fighting needed to happen because Israel itself was attacked. At least, up until 1982, which I believe was the first time Israel was the "aggressor" (1967 was an Isreali pre-emptive strike, take that for what you will).
Agree 100%. No good has come of any of these wars. From the Israeli perspective, the fighting needed to happen because Israel itself was attacked. At least, up until 1982, which I believe was the first time Israel was the "aggressor" (1967 was an Isreali pre-emptive strike, take that for what you will).
Its a viscous cycle my friend...that repeats over and over again...something different needs to be done...I suggest radical concessions from both sides.....
Its a viscous cycle my friend...that repeats over and over again...something different needs to be done...I suggest radical concessions from both sides.....
For Lebanon...Israel helps pay for the clean-up.....the government of Lebanon must DO SOMETHING to disarm the members of Hezbollah (be strict instead of turning the other eye..if they want to be involved in government fair enough but lose the weapons...the government should provide the military...if not Hezbollah should be revoked as a political party and cracked down upon)....as well Israel needs to realize that one suicide bomber does not constitute a nation trying to fight them.....one nut should not equal wide spread bombing...Lebanon needs to have military at the border all the time to ensure no repeated acts of terrorism can be performed...they must do their job...how about a joint force between Israel and Lebonese forces on both sides of the border...you know work hand in hand for a change.....Israel could help the Lebonese government directly to disarm Hezbollah (another lets do it together things...share intelligence)....I could go on...for me it seems both sides NEED to work together on projects to better the relations...not to take separate initiatives...work on everything together would help both sides reach common goals....
The problem is when there is one minor attack...everything hits the fan....there is always going to be freaking nuts...have to deal with them on an individual basis....but the key here is Hezbollah disarming and that needs to be done and the Lebonese government needs to do that and with the help of the Israeli government they can.....not through fighting but systematically disarming them...give incentives for members turning in weapons or something...I dunno exactly what needs to be done but I believe there are many peaceful ways to make things happen...one key thing is that both sides need to remain cool headed as there will be bumps along the road...but workign hand-in-hand and building trust can help lessen those learning curves....
Thanks for giving examples. You were right on that Israel and Lebanon should really work together to secure the border. Lebanon's turning a blind eye to Hezbollah in the south just isn't going to work anymore. The real trick is the disarming of Hezbollah. And that means cracking down on Syria and Iran, which is a whole other issue.
Thanks for giving examples. You were right on that Israel and Lebanon should really work together to secure the border. Lebanon's turning a blind eye to Hezbollah in the south just isn't going to work anymore. The real trick is the disarming of Hezbollah. And that means cracking down on Syria and Iran, which is a whole other issue.
Which can also be done peacefully....the thing is NO ONE wants to work together and that is the biggest stumbling block right now...all sides are too ignorant to help each other...it needs to be done to build trust...but it is something the governments need to do first to provide an example for there people that they can all work as a team....people look up for inspiration and direction and when they do not see it in their government but instead see warfare and hate it passes down..."the body rots from the head down".....
Which can also be done peacefully....the thing is NO ONE wants to work together and that is the biggest stumbling block right now...all sides are too ignorant to help each other...it needs to be done to build trust...but it is something the governments need to do first to provide an example for there people that they can all work as a team....people look up for inspiration and direction and when they do not see it in their government but instead see warfare and hate it passes down..."the body rots from the head down".....
No, Hizbullah, Iran & Syria don't want Israel & Lebanon to work together, that's why they are murdering ministers, prime-ministers and people from the media who oppose to their regime and want to have peace with us.
No, Hizbullah, Iran & Syria don't want Israel & Lebanon to work together, that's why they are murdering ministers, prime-ministers and people from the media who oppose to their regime and want to have peace with us.
Hizbulah murdered which Prime Minister?
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
I thank Byrnzie for the below information. He knows more about the UNUSUKISRAEL resolution debacle than anybody I know on here.
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993
Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union’s profligate use of its veto. The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”5
Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”13
Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.
__________________
Walks on his own...with thoughts he can't help thinking...
Byrnzie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Byrnzie
Send email to Byrnzie
Find all posts by Byrnzie
Add Byrnzie to Your Buddy List
#2 07-16-2006, 12:34 AM
Byrnzie
Love Boat Captain Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Herts, England
Posts: 2,380
U.S Vetoes: 1972-1982
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories
3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/19/2002 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three abstentions
(Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US)
with four absentations
(Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia)
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
What action would you like to see that Israel is "immune" to?
Well, they could begin by forcing Israel to abide the over 60 U.N resolutions which it is currently in breach of. Their 'immunity' obviously stems from the fact that the U.S vetoes every resolution leveled at Israel, including every resolution for the past 37 years proposing a two state solution and an end to the occupation - as shown above by Silverstain.
So basically, your beef is that not all newspapers are biased against Israel? Stick to the Guardian, then. They've been doing a bang-up job of singing Hizbollah's praises these days.
I was really referring to the T.V news media - which is the medium which most people are exposed to. The biggest selling paper in the U.K is the Sun, which is basically a comic which spouts racist gibberish. The papers I mentioned offer a more balanced - some would therefore say 'left wing' perspective.
However, the t.v news media shys away from upsetting those in power, and the Yanks. Hence the 'obvious' bias towards all things Israel. As I said, if you compare what most people wite in the 'have your say' section of the BBC news web page and compare it what is presented by the web page itself in it's main stories - often anonymously - then there is a massive discrepancy in opinion.
Since the UN was established in 45, I think, almost 60% of all sanctions handed down have been against Israel. Its something like 450 out of 700. Harassment? You be the judge.
Harrassment. Obviously. I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the actions of Israel could it!!
No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....
What's the last war Israel lost with an Arab nation?
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?
How can Israel make peace with neighbors that have vowed to destroy them? Now whether it was a good idea for the British and U.S. to essentially give the green light for a Jewish nation to be created smack dab in the middle of a bunch of pissed off Muslims is another debate, but given the fact that Israel is not going anywhere, this is the mess we're left with.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
What's the last war Israel lost with an Arab nation?
Well I base my thoughts on the increased amount of terror attacks on their nation....plus the simple fact the area is still a powder keg hardly constitutes as Israel winning anything....
Well I base my thoughts on the increased amount of terror attacks on their nation....plus the simple fact the area is still a powder keg hardly constitutes as Israel winning anything....
There are far more people murdered per capita in the U.S. then there are in Israel. So does that mean we're losing some sort of war? I suppose by that logic we are losing a social war? Interesting thought.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Comments
Here are a 100 resolutions against Israel. Enjoy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
Here's a link:
http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html
Most of them are "condemnations" for various specific actions by the IDF. Condemnations are basically harassment. Most third-world countries could have been targeted with a similar number of these very specific condemnations.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Yeah some but I see lots of repeats as well....however I would think that some are indeed justified...some like I said look like repeats....but I would like to read the details...you cannot judge a book by its cover....
No Israel is backed by the largest military power in the world...that could be another reason....and if they really "kicked their asses" they wouldn't be in these positions they routinely find themselves in....
This was such an entertaining read. I'm going to start a club and issue random "condemnations", "urges", "deplorations", "demands", and "censures" against posters here. And I'm going to pretend that those statements have some kind of backing. Sounds fun.
Militarily speaking, Israel really has kicked some ass. They've won large wars against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. But that's not the point, I don't think. The point is, what can Israel do now to make some semblance of peace with its neighbors?
Exactly my point!
Let's start with silverstain, by the way.
Well we will see...
I for one do not think that this warfare as bettered the Missle East as from what I have seen....
Agree 100%. No good has come of any of these wars. From the Israeli perspective, the fighting needed to happen because Israel itself was attacked. At least, up until 1982, which I believe was the first time Israel was the "aggressor" (1967 was an Isreali pre-emptive strike, take that for what you will).
Its a viscous cycle my friend...that repeats over and over again...something different needs to be done...I suggest radical concessions from both sides.....
examples of radical concessions please.
For Lebanon...Israel helps pay for the clean-up.....the government of Lebanon must DO SOMETHING to disarm the members of Hezbollah (be strict instead of turning the other eye..if they want to be involved in government fair enough but lose the weapons...the government should provide the military...if not Hezbollah should be revoked as a political party and cracked down upon)....as well Israel needs to realize that one suicide bomber does not constitute a nation trying to fight them.....one nut should not equal wide spread bombing...Lebanon needs to have military at the border all the time to ensure no repeated acts of terrorism can be performed...they must do their job...how about a joint force between Israel and Lebonese forces on both sides of the border...you know work hand in hand for a change.....Israel could help the Lebonese government directly to disarm Hezbollah (another lets do it together things...share intelligence)....I could go on...for me it seems both sides NEED to work together on projects to better the relations...not to take separate initiatives...work on everything together would help both sides reach common goals....
The problem is when there is one minor attack...everything hits the fan....there is always going to be freaking nuts...have to deal with them on an individual basis....but the key here is Hezbollah disarming and that needs to be done and the Lebonese government needs to do that and with the help of the Israeli government they can.....not through fighting but systematically disarming them...give incentives for members turning in weapons or something...I dunno exactly what needs to be done but I believe there are many peaceful ways to make things happen...one key thing is that both sides need to remain cool headed as there will be bumps along the road...but workign hand-in-hand and building trust can help lessen those learning curves....
Which can also be done peacefully....the thing is NO ONE wants to work together and that is the biggest stumbling block right now...all sides are too ignorant to help each other...it needs to be done to build trust...but it is something the governments need to do first to provide an example for there people that they can all work as a team....people look up for inspiration and direction and when they do not see it in their government but instead see warfare and hate it passes down..."the body rots from the head down".....
No, Hizbullah, Iran & Syria don't want Israel & Lebanon to work together, that's why they are murdering ministers, prime-ministers and people from the media who oppose to their regime and want to have peace with us.
Hizbulah murdered which Prime Minister?
Syria murdered prime minister Hariri, who was the greatest opposer to both Hizbullah & Syria "pulling the strings" of Lebanon.
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
U.S. Vetoes of U.N. Resolutions on Behalf of Israel
By Donald Neff
Former Time Magazine Bureau Chief, Israel
This updated version was published in Fifty Years of Israel
Originally printed in Washington Report, September ⁄ October 1993
Donald Neff has been a journalist for forty years. He spent 16 years in service for Time Magazine and is a regular contributor to Middle East International and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He has written five excellent books on the Middle East.
On March 17, 1970, the United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser. It was a historic moment, since up to that time Washington had been able to score heavy propaganda points because of the Soviet Union’s profligate use of its veto. The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two years later, however, on Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2
The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.
The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4
Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”5
Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.
Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.
One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8
The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9
The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10
The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11
Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”13
Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17
The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21
The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.
Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.22
These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.
The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24
The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.
__________________
Walks on his own...with thoughts he can't help thinking...
Astoria 20.04.06 / Dublin 23.08.06
Reading 27.08.06 / Paris 11.09.06
Bologna 14.09.06
http://www.myspace.com/steve400
http://www.flickr.com/photos/byrnzie28/
Last edited by Byrnzie : 07-17-2006 at 12:00 PM.
Byrnzie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Byrnzie
Send email to Byrnzie
Find all posts by Byrnzie
Add Byrnzie to Your Buddy List
#2 07-16-2006, 12:34 AM
Byrnzie
Love Boat Captain Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Herts, England
Posts: 2,380
U.S Vetoes: 1972-1982
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories
3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/19/2002 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three abstentions
(Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US)
with four absentations
(Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia)
Full list of the use of the Veto on United Nations Resolutions
by the USA:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
=============================================
Cheers Byrnzie...
Well, they could begin by forcing Israel to abide the over 60 U.N resolutions which it is currently in breach of. Their 'immunity' obviously stems from the fact that the U.S vetoes every resolution leveled at Israel, including every resolution for the past 37 years proposing a two state solution and an end to the occupation - as shown above by Silverstain.
I was really referring to the T.V news media - which is the medium which most people are exposed to. The biggest selling paper in the U.K is the Sun, which is basically a comic which spouts racist gibberish. The papers I mentioned offer a more balanced - some would therefore say 'left wing' perspective.
However, the t.v news media shys away from upsetting those in power, and the Yanks. Hence the 'obvious' bias towards all things Israel. As I said, if you compare what most people wite in the 'have your say' section of the BBC news web page and compare it what is presented by the web page itself in it's main stories - often anonymously - then there is a massive discrepancy in opinion.
Harrassment. Obviously. I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the actions of Israel could it!!
What's the last war Israel lost with an Arab nation?
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
How can Israel make peace with neighbors that have vowed to destroy them? Now whether it was a good idea for the British and U.S. to essentially give the green light for a Jewish nation to be created smack dab in the middle of a bunch of pissed off Muslims is another debate, but given the fact that Israel is not going anywhere, this is the mess we're left with.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Well I base my thoughts on the increased amount of terror attacks on their nation....plus the simple fact the area is still a powder keg hardly constitutes as Israel winning anything....
There are far more people murdered per capita in the U.S. then there are in Israel. So does that mean we're losing some sort of war? I suppose by that logic we are losing a social war? Interesting thought.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-