The United States of America oppose the veto against sending United Nations in Palest

[Holy John]

Link (in french) : http://www.radio-canada.ca/url.asp?/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200112/15/001-usa-veto.asp

PS : (I'll try to find an english link as soon as I finish my post).

At the United Nations Center, in New York City, the United States opposed their veto against sending United Nations people to check out the situation in Palestine. The United States justificated their position by saying that without this veto, it would put Israel in an "political isolation". I2 countries out of I5 were in favor of sending the United Nations people in Palestine. The 3 other countries were England and Norway, wich abstain to vote. The other was the United States. Earlier this week, the European Union defended Yasser Arafat, saying he was the only one to really negociate with Israel, a point also defended by Israelis Foreing Affairs Minister, Shimon Peres. But Ariel Sharon continues to ignore the Palestinian Authority, stating that Arafat is the responsible of the attacks in Israel.

Personnaly, I really don't understand the US reasons for "political isolation", but I would translate that to : "We defend our ally", that'S it, that's all. A lot of countries are isolated politically (Cuba with the Helms Law is the most isolated country in the world - Afghanistan was until the liberation and the creation of a new Government).

But for what for the United States transgressed the will and vote of I2 other countries in favor of the proposition of sending United Nations workers ? Israel is now struggling against a whole people, acting and saying exacly what the United States did after Sept. II attacks, except that Israel have no future plans. At least I can give credit to the USA, even if I don't approve the whole Afghan attcks : the United Nations is there now, we can't deny it and while I disaprove the reasons why the US are in Afghanistan, I openly say that the Talibans needed to be wiped out. The US could claim (as they usualy do anyways) to "defend freedom, democracy, liberty...", but Israel cannot calim ANYTHING. In the cities controlled by Israel (in the Palestinian Authority zone), poverty is at an extreme, 70%-80% or even sometimes near a I00% of the people don't work, they gain approx. 30% of the salary of an equal work in Israel. Terrorism is not an "evil act", its a symptom. the Palestinians cannot hope anymore (they can't dream of better days) and they easily fall in opportunists (or in people with brains sometimes) in the magma of suicide terrorism. I do not defend terrorism, but when your only options are rocks against guns or suicide actions against civilians, what can you choose ? I repeat : I do not defend terrorism. I don't believe Arafat is behind this. What will happen if Arafat is killed or emprisonned ? Palestinian Authority won't exist anymore, the Palestinians will divide themselves in clans : the moderates and the extremists. Can I call that a genocide ? I wouldn't, but the temptation is there. A cultural genocide.

I approve a Jewish State, but I don't approve their politics with Palestine. While this country is young (in a historical perspective), I think that they could be more consequent with their decisions. Same as the USA's policy in that. Where is their resposibility of being the world's only mega-power ?

 

[Holy John]

English link : http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/12/15/mideast011215

cheers

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

?Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

?Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me d?fendrai...?
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinoc?ros', Ionesco

 

[sv]

Good lord, if you want to get into that, this is just scraping the surface. The United States has used its security council veto many many times over the last 30 years prevent justice for the Palestinians. Most specifically, the general assembly and security council have voted multiple times to condemn Israel for its aggressive actions, and to compel it to give back the territory it invaded and occupied in 1967 - each time the U.S. has invoked its veto power to prevent the Security Council from acting.

 

[STING2]

Its a military fact that if Israel had not invaded in 1967, that they could have been wiped from the face of the map. They were about to be attacked on multiple fronts by Arab armies. What they did then was an act of survival against countries that were openly trying to destroy Israel. Both Israel and the USA did the right thing in that case.

 

[Holy John]

An act of surviving in '67, I wouldn't say yes or no, because I don't know too much of it. What I saw in my political classes (if I can weel remember, because the situation over there is "difficult" to follow) is that Israel started the "act of war" (physically), but I might be completely out of field.

I can understand war as an act of "surviving" for a country, though not approving the concept of war (but let's be realistic : there will always be wars), but the war Israel is making now is an opportunist war, exacly what the USA did in Afghanistan : a reaction to a symptom. While in Afghanistan, the USA only reacted because they were attacked (remember the complete silence facing the cry of the women in Afghanistan a year ago or the destruction of the Buddhas), they could still claim of helping liberating Afghanistan (wich they did in a way), but Israel cannot claim anything valuable in attacking the Palestinian Authority without any future plans. I can understand violent reactions, cos were all humans, but now it's gone not only a "reaction", but a madness. Very very very delicate situation for the European Union as well, who cannot send troops without facing the USA or a political catastrophe in Israel (Peres vs Sharon). And the USA cannot send troops over there without facing morality, the EU, the UN (the world basically) and being treated as "war criminals". And the United Nations cannot send even workers there because of the veto at the Security Council. I know the US always did that, but now the situation is completely gone insane and out of control. So, we canot do anything with the USA / EU / UN, regardless the point they have, regardless what they would do (good or bad)... what does the world outside Israel and the Palestinian Authority can do in that case ? Sending Superman ??? Oh no, he's American... (bad joke).

cheers

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

?Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

?Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me d?fendrai...?
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinoc?ros', Ionesco

 

[DoctorGonzo]

Its a military fact that if Israel had not invaded in 1967, that they could have been wiped from the face of the map. They were about to be attacked on multiple fronts by Arab armies. What they did then was an act of survival against countries that were openly trying to destroy Israel. Both Israel and the USA did the right thing in that case.

Expropiation of land by force is a war crime. They could have fought their little war, then puulled back to their old borders, but instead they decided to get greedy....and the world has been paying for it ever since.

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by Holy John:
(remember the complete silence facing the cry of the women in Afghanistan a year ago or the destruction of the Buddhas),

Incorrect.

 

[Holy John]

Originally posted by U2Bama:

Incorrect.

Oh yes, there was a complete silence when an organization of Afghan women cried out loud their misery, except some usual "poor them" "we should do something" "damn Talibans", there was. Oh, shall I say, there were no actions made to really help them or completely liberating Afghanistan by helping the Northern Alliance. Same thing for the Buddhas. "The bastards" "What is Afghanistan again ?" "Oh, a country ?".... There was no real action to wipe out the Talibans, except of the Northern Alliance. Someone will probably read this and say "Yes, but my country gave money". It's correct, I don't neglect that, but where did the money go ? How effective was it ? The truth is that now that the Occidental world took action (i.e.: the USA) on the ground (i.e.: 30 000 feet in the air), the afghan people are in a better position that they were months ago and the main reason for it are airplanes in the ruins of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, not the cry of Afghan women. But this is a debate on the veto of the USA, not Afghanistan... but it's healthy to debate sincerly with diplomacy.

ceers



------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

?Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

?Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me d?fendrai...?
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinoc?ros', Ionesco

 

[Holy John]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Had the United States attempted to do something about the plight of the Afghan women prior to 9/11 Holy John, you would have been the first to criticize us. You can't have it both ways John.
MAP

Ok, it's nice to make suppositions like that, we all work on suppositions, but I disclaim your totally. You may not have seen or remember my thoughts on it, but the United States is the only mega-power in the world and therefore it should take its responsabilitites as a mega-power should do (both independently and in a UN aspect). The war were talking about never happened and therefore I cannot make a statement on it. It would probably never happened, the US Government negociating until august 200I for oil prospects in Afghanistan, negociations of course with the Talibans (wich never wanted to hear the US after taking power in Afghanistan). We could discuss a lot on the way to do the war that is currently going in Afghanistan. I do not approve many reasons and ways the war is going now in Afghanistan, but I approve the war against the Talibans in itself. But certainly, not the way "war against terrorism" is going.

But again, this is a topic about Israel...

Cheers


------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

?Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

?Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me d?fendrai...?
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinoc?ros', Ionesco

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Why it sucks to be America. If a crisis situation in a foreign country arises and America does nothing, it is branded insensitive. If it attempts to intervene, it is branded imperialistic. It's a no-win situation. Every time.

 

[DrTeeth]

by who?

 

[Danospano]

This is just an observation, but I've noticed that whenever somebody in this "Free Your Mind" is faced with the fact that they can't support their own side of an argument, they nit-pick at small details of their opposition's opinion.
Do I do this too? If I am, then tell me, because after reading so many people attack other viewpoints because they chose to use the word "little" instead of "big", is really annoying.

Cheers, Dan

 

[Holy John]

Its obvious that sulawesigirl4 didn't read the comments I made, right before her statement. If you feel bad about being an American, well I can't do anything about it. But if you feel bad about America taking its responsibilities as the world's only mega-power, then that's a real problem.

But I agree Danos... In this topic, anyways, we'v talked much about Afghanistan than about Israel.

But let's return to the subject of this topic : the attacks of Israel against the Palestinian Authority.

A friend of mine (really engaged politically, socialy and artisticaly) told me : Why does the European Union "dosen't puts his pants versus the US ? The US decided by their own of this non-UN intervention. The US permits itself to act whatever they want, wherever they want. Why does the EU dosen't send troops in Palestine to protect them ?"

I would approve the EU to send troops in Palestine to protect the people of Palestine, but the situation would change dramaticaly :

- Unlike the US acting with Israel, the EU would be physically engaged, therefore exposing the lives of their soldiers to a real danger.

- The Israelis government could (COULD) sheme : Sharon and Peres have drasticaly opposing views on this war. Sharon approves it, Peres dosen't.

- Israel could blame the EU of being "antisemithic" (is it the right writting ?) and all that "anti-jews" rethoric.

- USA / EU sanctions, as it's the fashion in those situations.

On the other hand, the US cannot send troops, facing the reaction of basically the whole rest of the world. But now, we are ignoring (we being the occidental world called 'civilized' [we could also debate on our 'civilized' ways])... ignoring a cultural genocide, ignoring misery in this area.

Now, if the statement I just made received for respond something cynical, it would be another confirmation about Danos' comment, wich is absolutely right.

But this debate, I remember, is about Israel.

Cheers

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : <A HREF="http://www.unesco.org

?Je" TARGET=_blank>www.unesco.org

?Je</A> suis le dernier homme. Contre tous, je me d?fendrai...?
"I am the last man. Against all, I shall defend myself..."
- 'Rhinoc?ros', Ionesco

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Had the United States attempted to do something about the plight of the Afghan women prior to 9/11 Holy John, you would have been the first to criticize us. You can't have it both ways John.

DoctorGonzo, the '67 war wasn't Israels' "little war." You needn't be snide about it. It was a war waged for Israels survival. I too wish that they hadn't expropriated the land that they did but I AM sympathetic to their point of view. There wouldn't be any expropriated land if Israel handn't been threatened with annihalation. If one declares war on a country and people and threatens to wipe said country and people from the face of the earth, one must accept the possibility of reaping what one has sown.

The situation in the Middle East is a complicated one and most reasonable observers acknowledge that both sides are to some degree at fault and that both sides must make CONSIDERABLE compromises. A bullet in the back of Arafat and Sharons' heads might not be a bad idea either.
Your constant shilling on the behast of the Palestinians to the exclusion of the Israeli point of view is a symptom of the problem and not in any way part of the solution.

MAP