http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6139968.stm US vetoes motion on Gaza attack The US has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning an Israeli attack in Gaza that killed 18 civilians, including women and children. The draft, which also condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza, followed Wednesday's attack in Beit Hanoun. The US ambassador at the UN, John Bolton, described the text as unbalanced and politically motivated. Ten of 15 Security Council members backed the resolution. Four abstained - Denmark, Japan, Slovakia and the UK. This was the second time this year the US used its veto on a draft resolution on Israeli military operations in Gaza. The US has a history of vetoing resolutions condemning Israel which it feels are biased against the country, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN in New York. 'Not even-handed' The draft resolution - backed by Arab, Islamic and non-aligned states and formally proposed by Qatar - called for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. It also asked the UN secretary general to set up a fact-finding mission into the deaths in Beit Hanoun. The draft urged the Palestinian Authority to act to end violence - including rockets fired at southern Israel. The US ambassador said he regretted the Palestinian loss of life, but disagreed with the language used in the resolution. "This resolution does not display an even-handed characterisation of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace to which we aspire and for which we are working assiduously," he said. 'Green light' An Israeli government spokesman described the veto as "very satisfactory". "The draft resolution did not stipulate that what happened at Beit Hanun was a tragic error," Avi Pazner told AFP news agency. But Palestinian cabinet spokesman Ghazi Hamad of Hamas told Reuters the veto was "a signal that the US had given legitimacy to the massacres and a green light to [Israel] to ... carry out more massacres". Qatar's ambassador said the credibility of the Security Council had been called into question by the vote and the cycle of violence in the Middle East would continue. Israel launched its operation in and around Beit Hanoun last month in an effort to root out militants firing rockets. The deaths were caused when what witnesses described as a volley of tank shells hit a built-up civilian area. Many of the dead were from one extended family, and included several women and children. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apologised for the attack, describing it as a "technical failure".
As far as I can tell, you are advocating abandoning a longtime ally because they are unpopular? I can understand that that might be necessary but it would a bad taste in my mouth. Should we stop providing defense aid to specific countries because other countries suddently become prettier prom dates? Where is the point in the popularity scale that it we blink and change friends?
Not abandoning them, but stop protecting them when they pull obvious crap like this. Did you know that on average we spend more money per capita on each Israeli citizen than on the average US citizen. That is fracked up. DD
If that country no longer serves our interests, then yes we should. However, we do have interests at stake that would require our continued involvement in some form or capacity in the region, and that no doubt includes Israel; it's one of the major players in the region, along with Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. I think a 'disengagement' from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would prove -- in the long run -- a geostrategic disaster.
So if we have a defense alliance with a country and they get invaded and we judge that it costs more than it is worth to liberate them we should just ignore our treaties because it isn't in our interests any longer?
Exactumundo! US comes first for us Americans and then our allies. And just because they are our allies does'nt mean we have to support them when they are obviously wrong.
The US holds all the leverage in this relationship. We can criticize Israel without abandoning all ties with them. This is just silly unnecessary politicing that doesn't really serve to help us in anyway. Fine, abstain from voting if you want to save face but to veto it just unnecessarily inflames others and gains the US nothing.
Ok, I haven't actually read the draft resolution, but has anybody else? The United States claims that it exercised its veto on the grounds that the US didn’t feel the bill presented a fair picture. Normally I think this means that it didn’t at the same time decry Palestinian terrorism, probably in this case the mortar attacks that supposedly were the cause of the shelling in the first place. Is it actually possible that it might have been biased by the sponsors of the bill? I do know that in the past there have been legitimate issues with very biased declarations. Extreme example: If there is a draft resolution put before the UN that makes it law that all Israelis should be flayed alive should we abstain from voting out of fear from inflaming the rest of the world?
By the way I don't necessarily agree with the decision to veto the bill, I'm just asking if it might just be possible that there is more to this than just the US defending Israel at all costs so that Israelis can kill all the Palestinians?
The part the US really opposes is the second part of the resolution which demands Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza. The first part condemns Israel for the violence in Gaza caused by its tactical strikes. But the key thing to note is that this is a resolution, not some actual piece of action and as a result nothing comes out of this. Just abstain and let the Arab community have their bill. You have to play the politics of the UN and can't just pretend that your decisions occur in a vacuum.
I'm glad we nixed the resolution. I wish we would have started these uses of our veto power earlier than we did, so the Arab street wouldn't have the whole "Isreal is in violation of X number of UN resolutions" saw to fall back on. If we feel that the resolution does not reflect our thoughts, then we should get rid of it, not pass it along because using our veto pisses off the terrorists and their supporters.
Israel bugged out of Gaza a long while ago. 1.They are only there to put an end to missles hitting Ashdod, Sderot and the Western Negev. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket 2. The area hit is where the missles were being launched. Ground forces were used rather than aerial bombing, ala Lebanon to prevent worse casualties. 3. Ashdod is Israel's main shipping port. It's also 30 minutes from where I live, so you'll have to excuse me for getting my panties in a wad. 4. The deaths were caused by a radar failure, it's prompted an investigation, and a policy change in military protocol. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/786203.html 5. If the UN wanted to draft a resolution every time civillians were errantly killed by soldiers, the US would be in deep doo doo every DAY at the UN for the nasty urban fighting that goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan. 6. If this bothers you so much, then just imagine how people feel about the US. Not supporting a Qatar-led anti-Israel UN declaration is small stuff compared to bombing the crap out of half the ME in the name of "freedom." 7. These rocket attacks are being carried out regardless of what Israel does. They happened when Israel was still occupying Gaza, and they are worse now. To not do anything gives creedence to the right-wingers who say that Israel was "safer" when they occupied Gaza and use it as an argument not only to continue occupation in the West Bank, but to build more outposts. 8. When tanks are required to solve a problem diplomacy cannot, what do expect the consequences to be? 9. Israel isn't asking anyone to fight their battles for them, DaDakota, they are "fending for themselves." What under the circumstances would you have them do? Finally...I think Yossi is right. Think about what he's trying to say: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/786401.html And here's what the "other" Yossi had to say: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...ontrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0
how many israelis have died by rockets from gaza in the past year to warrant the murder of hundreds of palestinians?
This isn't the first time a question like this has been brought up. See Truman and the atomic bombs. Was it worth killing a massive amount of Japanese to save American lives? Not the exact scenerio, but the same logic. At what point do you consider rocket attacks an act of war? 1 rocket.. 20 rockets.. 100 rockets? Last time I checked, there was no longer a "truce" between Hamas, an orginazition responsible for countless Israeli deaths, and Israel. They even called for attacks on American interests. I'm sorry if I have a hard time having sympathy for the Palestinian "leadership." Do you hate Israel more than you care about the Palestinians? What good does a UN resolution do? If you want to call someone a "war criminal" then admit there is a war. Accidents happen in war.
