US Vetoes Another UN Resolution Against Israel (This One On Arafat)

Non sequitur.

The US didn't oppose the resolution because of the selection of, say, Israel as opposed to China. That's an underinclusivity argument, which wasn't made.

Now if that's your own personal reason for opposing such a resolution... sensible enough.

Although, as for China, there's a very good reason to not propose resolutions in condemnation . As far as Cuba goes... I wouldn't be surprised if they've been made in the past. Note: I don't really care about worthless resolutions. I do care about the US's reasons for not voting for one, when they're logically inconsistent.

 

Originally posted by haven
Question:

Why must measures that condemn Israel also contain a denouncement of terrorism...

Why condemn (or try to condemn) only one side when both sides are doing wrong? Hmmm....


...yet measures that condemn Palestinian terrorism need not also denounce Israeli repression of Palestine?

Why not? If the repression exists, it should be condemned.

BTW, which resolution condemned Palestinian terrorism?



Logically inconsistent.

Sure. But who here argued that logic?

 

Great

The US politicians are using their time and tax-payor funds to veto a resolution that the whole world besides the US and 10 million Israeli's want.

Hmm.... Is it de ja vu, or are we always at the polar opposite of the world when it comes to Israel? More countries increasing their animosity of the US because of Israel? Could that mean a decrease in global usage of American goods and services???

What else is new??

Just add it to the almost 100 billion dollar cost, not including opportunity cost that the State of Israel has cost us. I personally don't think its worth it.

WHAT!?!?!?! I don't want to write more freebies and loans (that've never been paid) to Israel!?!! I must be a Nazi!!

Nope...just believe that we are all in this position of power within the world because of the strength of US commerce and we shouldn't jepordize it or weaken it based on our HANDOUTS to a few million people out in the desert.

 

OK... Israel threatens to kick Arafat out(or kill him) and the UN goes nuts. I can understand that he is an "elected" leader and deporting him would be "illegal" but I can come up with a few good points on why Israel threatens to do so and why the UN is wrong for trying to pass this resolution.

Fact 1: There are Palestinian terrorists who strap bombs on themselves and kill innocent people.

Fact 2: Arafat and the PA have done nothing to stop this for many many years. They blame this on the Israelis crippling their police force.

Fact 3: Israel has asked Arafat and the PA HUNDREDS of times for them to crack down on militants. The UN and the US have also asked Arafat to do something.

Fact 4: Arafat does not listen to the Israelis, the US, and the UN and does nothing to stop the bombings.

Fact 5: Israel has to go in to do the dirty work themselves, which makes them look like an oppressive occupier.


So where does the problem begin? Who is to blame? The terrorists, the settlers, the PA, Arafat, or Sharon and the IDF? My answer is: everyone is to blame. What good is a resolution that slaps Israel on the wrist when they are only acting in self-defense because people want to kill their citizens?

Personally, I am for expelling Arafat. The only thing that I would be afraid of is another person to come in and be ineffective at cracking down on militants.

 

Prove that Israel hasn't paid back loans. From what I have read, they have paid back every loan the US has given them. And yes, I know the US has given grants to Israel.

And no, you arent a Nazi.. you are just concerned where your tax dollars go and how they are utilized

 

I'm a bit confused, here. My only position is that it's inconsistent to desire that any condemnation of A be attached to condemnation of B. While condemnation of B need not necessarily include condemnation of B.

Administration figures have repeatedly criticized Palestinian terrorism without reference to Israeli repression of Palestine. Do you really wish to deny this?

If it is acceptable for the US to publicly criticize the PLO without counterweight, surely the opposite is legitimate for the UN?

It would be one thing if the US wished to deny that repression is occurring. THey'd be wrong - but logically consistent.

Right now, the position seems to be: Israeli repression cannot be criticized in a vacuum, because it is inextricably linked to Palestinian terrorism, and censuring the former w/o mentioning the latter is meaningless. Yet this does not seem to apply to the statements of the US. Of course, you do occasionally get a general statement to the effect that "a Palestinian state should someday exist..." but statements against Palestine, for consistency, should always be issued w/response to condemnation of Palestine according to the US logic on the UN resolution.

 

Would it make sense for them to support a resolution the 'US' doesn't? This seems to be a good example of the US expressing its opinion within the institution all of these same critics have been criticising us for not expressing our opinion within. Sound confusing? It is.

We're perfectly within our rights to vote against this resolution, just as France was within their rights to threaten to vote against intervention in Iraq. The disposition of a permanent member of the SC's right to use the veto is not based on what you think current world opinion is, its based on what that member feels is the right thing to do. We're try to keep from radicalizing Israeli opinion by singling them out for criticism when both sides are pursuing policies counter to any peaceful remedy. While we voted against this resolution, we did say they should not harm arafat, and we did make a POLICY change to express our displeasure with Israeli settlements in exactly the way most of you are complaining we should - by hitting them in the pocketbooks.

Where's the criticism of Germany, btw, for not voting for the resolution?

 

Deutschland ist schlecht

 

Germany has a very special historical situation with regards to Israel. Germany voting for a resolution that condemns something Israel does could lead to major problems. If there is a sensitivity scale from 1-100 for how careful Germany needs to be when it comes to criticizing a country, in Israel's case it is at 500. And still rightly so, in my opinion. It is a special case.

 

Originally posted by haven
I'm a bit confused, here. My only position is that it's inconsistent to desire that any condemnation of A be attached to condemnation of B. While condemnation of B need not necessarily include condemnation of B.

Don't worry, I'll try again.

A and B are integrally tied.

Administration figures have repeatedly criticized Palestinian terrorism without reference to Israeli repression of Palestine. Do you really wish to deny this?

I never did. I think that the administration should criticize Israeli actions more, but we were not talking about the administration. We were discussing the UN, and you adeptly ducked the the questions directed at the UN bias. If the US will try to balance it...great.


If it is acceptable for the US to publicly criticize the PLO without counterweight, surely the opposite is legitimate for the UN?

Nope.

Just because the US administration shows bias and fails to criticize Israel does not mean that the International body can now make the same error, eh?


It would be one thing if the US wished to deny that repression is occurring. THey'd be wrong - but logically consistent.

Right now, the position seems to be: Israeli repression cannot be criticized in a vacuum, because it is inextricably linked to Palestinian terrorism, and censuring the former w/o mentioning the latter is meaningless. Yet this does not seem to apply to the statements of the US. Of course, you do occasionally get a general statement to the effect that "a Palestinian state should someday exist..." but statements against Palestine, for consistency, should always be issued w/response to condemnation of Palestine according to the US logic on the UN resolution.

Asking for the UN to condemn terrorist groups does not really seem like that much of an unreasonable request, does it? We have spoken out against the removal of the head of one of the terrorist group factions (fatah), so why the hell can't we demand a condemnation of the terrorist groups? WHy is that soooo unreasonable to condemn groups that intentionally blow up civilians?