Big Surprise (Mid-east related) - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Snibble · #1 12-21-2002, 01:13 PM

http://rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/world/mideast_conflict/latest_developments/story/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=6&u=/ap/20021221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_154

Quote:

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - The United States vetoed an Arab-backed resolution that would have condemned Israel for the recent killings of three U.N. workers, saying it was "inappropriate" to single out the Israelis.

Twelve other council members — including close U.S. ally Britain — voted in favor of the resolution Friday. Bulgaria and Cameroon abstained.

The resolution expressed "grave concern" at the killings by Israeli troops and demanded that Israel "refrain from the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the Occupied Palestinian territories." It also demanded that Israel comply fully with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the protection of civilians during war.

But the veto by the United States — one of five permanent council members with such power — means that the resolution was not adopted. The last U.S. veto, in December 2001, also was cast against a Mideast resolution and critics accused the Americans of being biased toward the Israelis.

"The proponents of this resolution appear more intent on condemning Israeli occupation than on ensuring the safety of United Nations (news - web sites) personnel," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote.

"Mixing these two issues is inappropriate and weakens the Council's voice on the need for both parties to take steps to avoid actions that endanger innocent civilians and United Nations staff," he added.

Syria's U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe, the only Arab member of the council, rejected U.S. attempts to amend the resolution to eliminate the reference to Israel's disproportionate use of force. The United States would also have dropped the demand for Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.

"We ... do not believe that it is in any way permissible to give Israel the right to kill United Nations personnel without accountability or sanction," Wehbe said.

"If the Security Council is unable to put an end to such Israeli practices because of the protection given by one permanent member state to Israel, that will open the door wide to flouting international humanitarian law," he said.

Negroponte, who called the Syrian draft "one-sided," said the United States reserves the right to resubmit its draft next week.

The U.S. veto came hours after top U.S., U.N., European Union (news - web sites) and Russian officials met in Washington to work on a roadmap to Israeli-Palestinian peace that envisions two states living in harmony.

"Adoption of this resolution does not contribute to an environment where both sides would be ready to move forward in implementing the practical steps in the roadmap," Negroponte said.

In Washington, a statement issued after the peace plan meeting deplored the killing of innocent Palestinians and U.N. workers in Israeli security operations. It said Israel should change its rules for countering terror to avoid civilian casualties and withdraw troops from populated Palestinian areas in the West Bank and Gaza.

Nasser Al-Kidwa, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, also accused the United States of protecting Israel from Security Council condemnation.

Israel's deputy U.N. ambassador Aaron Jacob expressed regret for the deaths, and accepted that attention must be paid to Israel's action. But he said "we cannot help but be distressed with what seems to be a singular attempt to focus on Israel."

Israeli soldiers shot and killed Briton Iain Hook on Nov. 22 during a gunbattle with armed Palestinians in the West Bank. The army said its soldiers mistook Hook's cell phone for a weapon after gunmen entered the U.N. compound. The U.N. relief agency denies that gunmen had entered the compound.

Two Palestinian school employees working for a U.N. relief agency were among 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza on Dec. 6.

The Syrian resolution also would have expressed "deep concern" at Israel's destruction of a U.N. World Food Program warehouse in Beit Lahiya, in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), on Nov. 30.

Yawwwwwn... what a surprise.

Just curious.. from a neutral standpoint, do you guys see anything wrong with this proposed resolution?

Lebenz · #2 12-21-2002, 01:27 PM

You are not likely to see the US Government do anything substantially against Israel. They are, in effect, our 51st state, and are a stronghold for the interests of Democracy in the otherwise sleaze-butt infested middle east.

This is not to say that the Israeli State is all that much better than her neighbors; just better connected, especially to many of us in the USA that have relatives that live there.

Kuan · #3 12-21-2002, 07:40 PM

I never saw the point in passing resolutions condemning certain acts. Could someone explain to me what they do? Does a country get a timeout if some resolution condemning their act passes?

I do not understand the relationship between Israel and Palestine at the moment, and I'm not talking about who has the god given right to live on the land or what happened in 1947. As far as I'm concerned, those boundaries were drawn into existence and none of those nation states have ever walked up to the boundary and planted their flag there. But that is what we've lived with for years and that is what we accept at the present. It's also unclear to me whether Israel has declared war against the state of Palestine, or if there has been any hint that Palestine has officially laid claim to any part of the west bank. (BTW, what's there?) So, as I have so clearly stated in this paragraph, I don't know.

Kuan

anthonyb · #4 12-21-2002, 08:56 PM

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/ph02.html

So far as I know, resolutions don't do much of anything. They are a nice way of distilling international opinion, however.

I have a lot of sympathy for both sides of the Isreal-Palestine struggle. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be an Israeli and live with the knowledge that people who are virtually next door are constantly devising ways of randomly killing civilians. (As much as we hear Al Qaeda talk about attacking Americans everywhere, I don't think we can really appreciate this to the same extent.) At the same time, the Palestinians have suffered tremendously - first they're evicted from their lands, then they're forced to live under the Israeli occupation. Even the ones that live in neighboring Arab countries don't have much more than refugee status.

The situation has gotten infinitely worse since Rabin was assassinated. I think he was probably the only one who had both the desire for peace, and the credibility to make it happen. It always ends up this way, doesn't it?

-anthony