U.S. Vetoes Plan to End Israeli Operation

[adios]

Note that France voted for the resolution and I think it stregthens my case that Kerry's renewed diplomatic initiative will involve changing U.S. policy towards Israel as a concession.

U.S. Vetoes Plan to End Israeli Operation (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_palestinians)

U.S. Vetoes Plan to End Israeli Operation

3 minutes ago Top Stories - AP



UNITED NATIONS - The United States on Tuesday vetoed an Arab-backed resolution demanding an immediate end to military operations in the northern Gaza Strip (news - web sites) and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 11 in favor and one against, with Britain, Germany and Romania abstaining.


U.S. Ambassador John Danforth cast the U.S. veto after British and German efforts to find compromise language failed.


"Once again, the resolution is lopsided and unbalanced," Danforth told the council just before voting "no."


"It is dangerously disingenuous because of its many material omissions. Because of this lack of balance, because of these omissions the resolution lacks credibility and deserves a `no' vote," he said.


After the vote, Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, the only Arab member of the council, thanked the resolution's supporters and noted that the measure got more than the minimum nine "yes" votes needed for adoption.


"It is a sad day for the Palestinians and it is a sad day for justice," Baali said.


The resolution would have condemned "the broad military incursion and attacks by the Israeli occupying forces in the area of northern Gaza Strip, including in and around the Jabaliya refugee camp, resulting in extensive human casualties and destruction and exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation."


Israel launched the operation six days ago after a Palestinian rocket killed two children in the southern Israeli town of Sderot. The Gaza thrust has left 68 Palestinians dead.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that France voted for the resolution and I think it stregthens my case that Kerry's renewed diplomatic initiative will involve changing U.S. policy towards Israel as a concession.

[/ QUOTE ] How on Earth do you come to this conclusion??? The U.S. has the same policy in regards to Israel that it has since its inception. I don't see that policy changing in any way based upon who is elected president.

I found this with a simple google search:


Kerry position paper outlines support for Israel

By Nathan Guttman



WASHINGTON - In a position paper outlining his stance on Israel, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry promises not to negotiate with Yasser Arafat and expresses support for Israel's right to defend itself by attacking terrorist organizations.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/446429.html

[Cyrus]

"Note that France voted for the resolution and I think it stregthens my case that Kerry's renewed diplomatic initiative will involve changing U.S. policy towards Israel as a concession."

"It's raining outside ---> the waitress likes me." This is a statement as absurd as yours.

France has been voting in favor of such resolutions for years. The United States has been vetoing such resolutions for years. This is all so predictable, it's almost not worth being reported. But, for sure, there's no reason to believe, and especially on the basis of that routine Security Council vote, that the United States policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will change.

(After Ariel Sharon officially proclaimed the Bush-sponsored Roadmap For Peace dead before it even had a chance to be tried, without so much as provoking a pip of protest from Washington, that policy has been reduced to simply Whatever Israel Wants. Simple policies make for easy policies, right?)

[adios]

It's obvious where the French stand in relation to Israel and the Palestinians. Why the leftists deny that France wants major, one sided concessions from the Israelis in regards to the Palestinians and wants the U.S. to apply leverage to Israel to coerce those concessions is a mystery to me.

[Gamblor]

After Ariel Sharon officially proclaimed the Bush-sponsored Roadmap For Peace dead before it even had a chance to be tried, without so much as provoking a pip of protest from Washington, that policy has been reduced to simply Whatever Israel Wants.

Of course it has.

The Roadmap was on life support for 2 years; but the Hamasniks, the Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc. etc. pulled the plug.

[Cyrus]

As I already wrote, France's and America's respectuve positions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are no mystery. (Although you are grossly exaggerating when you claim that France "wants major, one sided concessions from the Israelis in regards to the Palestinians". The record shows that France has been a consistent friend of Israel for decades, and a trusted mediator in certain cases. Socialist president Mitterand, for instance, was on occasion more pro-Israeli than the Americans!)

But even if John Kerry is indeed after more consensus from America's allies and friends, what makes you think that he would have the US succumb to "French demands" and change American policy on Israel? American policy on Israel will change only when it suits American interests as perceived by the American leaders.

This is why the argument quoted herebelow is wrong:

"France voted for the resolution ---> Kerry's renewed diplomatic initiative will involve changing U.S. policy towards Israel as a concession."

[Cyrus]

"The Roadmap was on life support for 2 years; but the Hamasniks, the Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc. etc. pulled the plug."

As I recall, the Roadmap was received with stony chilliness and then sabotaged all the way - by Israel.

If you dispute that, then tell us, what kind of support did the Bush-formulated and Bush-sponsored Roadmap receive from Jerusalem exactly? Specifics, please.



...Oh, and a very small matter:, when you counter in French a negative proposition with an affirmative response (eg --You can't have the flu! --Oh yes, I have it!), you don't write "oui", you write "si". More careful next time because such slips make your witticisms a little pathetic.

[Gamblor]

"no, sir"

"but yes, you liar"

"no joke"

"the roadmap, that's the joke"

Quand on demande quelque chose, on doit connais qui on se demander.

[Gamblor]

Quand on demande quelque chose, on doit connais qui on se demander.

Allow me to rephrase.

Quand on demande quelque chose, on doit connais a qui on demande.

[Cyrus]

"Aussi le grammaire c'est un blague"

Aussi la grammaire c'est une blague.

"Quand on demande quelque chose, on doit connais qui on se demander."

Quand on demande quelque chose, on doit connaitre qui on va demander.

...I take it you did not "serve" in Lebanon. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ACPlayer]

The security council is willing to help us avoid further terrorist acts on our soil.

We on the other hand act as if we would like such attacks to continue.

Any wonder that the arab world sees us as part of the problem and as the enemy?

US vetos anti-Israel resolution (http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=100704121935)

[ QUOTE ]
The vetoed resolution had called for ‘the immediate cessation of all military operations in the area of northern Gaza and the withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from that area’.

It also sought to condemn ‘the broad military incursion and attacks by Israeli occupying forces’ in Gaza. The text said those attacks were inflicting ‘extensive human casualties and destruction and (were) exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation’.

It said Israeli defence forces also have restricted the movement of humanitarian workers delivering relief supplies to civilians in northern Gaza in the past two weeks.

It called for a cessation of violence, adherence to international humanitarian law, and for Israel and the Palestinians to immediately implement the long-stalled “road map” to peace backed by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Tuesday issued statistics on the conflict in Gaza ahead of the vote. It said 82 Palestinians have been killed there, including 24 children, since September 29. On the Israeli side, five have been killed, including the two girls.

It said that an average of 45 Palestinians have been killed each month this year in Gaza in clashes with Israeli forces while poverty rates were predicted to rise to 72 per cent this year there.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gamblor]

I'm Canadian.

We have our own language.

[Gamblor]

Of course.

The second someone challenges you, abandon your convictions!

[ACPlayer]

Our primary conviction must be securing the safety of the people in our country.

Then we should be concerned about human rights abuses by rogue groups and nations.

On both counts we should be supporting the UN resolution.

[Gamblor]

Our primary conviction must be securing the safety of the people in our country.

And yet, you would deny that right to the people of Israel.

More importantly, how safe would Americans be if every time there was a threat against it, it would fold like cheap cardboard?

I don't like your flag; I'm going to bomb the hell out of you. By your rationale, you're better of changing the flag and inviting a million more threats, as long as one isn't actually carried out.

That's what terrorism is, AC: If I kill enough of your people, they'll simply fold up and demand their government give me what I want.

[ACPlayer]

Heck no. I dont deny Israel any rights. They can always defend themselves.

I just dont like the fact that they a) are expansionist minded and b) indiscrimiate in the use of force against civilians and c) they have no desire for peace and in fact appear to work against the idea of peace.

I certainly and completely oppose our (USA's) one--sided support of Israel in the middle east conflict as it is clearly hurting us a great deal.

Sure, Israel is free to defend its borders -- we just dont have to help. How about defining the borders and making a determination about all the people in it that Israel does not want as its citizens.

[Gamblor]

I just dont like the fact that they a) are expansionist minded and b) indiscrimiate in the use of force against civilians and c) they have no desire for peace and in fact appear to work against the idea of peace.

a) Israel is only expansionist in that it is faced with constant threats of annihilation and thus requires strategic land to defend itself; The Golan Heights, for example, overlook the entire Galilee. To hand that over to a state who opposes the existence of Israel is suicide. The West Bank is similar; to allow an Arab military presence with a stone's throw of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is likewise suicide.

b) indiscriminate use of force against terrorist infrastructure. For example, Israel had for the most part stayed away from Gaza until Kassam rocket fire killed two toddlers, as well as a Thai worker in Kfar Darom last week. Now the Israeli military is in Gaza trying to stop the rocket fire. Naturally, the world is up in arms against the Operation.

c) Without security, there can be no peace. I remind you that Israel is prepared to accept the sovereignty and existence of each and every Arab state, while Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia do not recognize the existence of Israel.

[ACPlayer]

Please help me by showing me a Sharon proposal on what exactly the borders of Israel are that need defending and what exactly should the fate of the millions living in the Palestinian Ghettos should be.

Israel can defend itself if it wants to. As long as it continues its present path, I fdr one believe that our support of Israel is costing us a great deal more than we get (and I am not talking dollars here).

[Cyrus]

...touché.