Why is US using their Veto power to stop Palestinians at the UN?

1. 75

   Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years ago

   Palestinians are hoping to get their own state recognised by the UN.  The only country with veto power that has said that they would use it is US.  Even though Obama and Bush before both stated that they would back a state bid by Palestine.  So why this double standard?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you know, politicians are notorious liars, but Obama's answer will be because he can.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Its awful.  Sorry.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Ms Deeposted 13 years ago

   They have explained that the Palestinians are going to the UN to push the issue without having worked out an agreement with Israel, first. This is backwards. First make peace with Israel and drop the Hamas mission to destroy Israel, then be recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Shinkickerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land including East Jerusalem. There is no need under the law for the Palestinians to agree to anything. Israel has to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. That's the law. It's up to the Palestinians to decide whether to negotiate. The law and the whole world are on their side. The Israelis have no entitlement to make demands concerning the occupied territories.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Shinkickerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Also this has nothing to do with Hamas. The Statehood bid is by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. It will not include Gaza.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Danny R Handposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Those borders would probably remain to this day if 7 arab nations had not attacked Israel in 1967. Both parties have valid points in this conflict. Palestine is oppressed due to Israels security concerns. You would be unjust in giving one party what they want, and ignoring the concerns of the other.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We have been unjust for 60 years....Palestinian people have been ignored, so much so that there is hardly any land left that for them to have. It has been taken and taken and taken....with nary a word from anyone.
            
            Their concerns have been ignored, as if they do not even exist.

            replyreport
         2. 56

            Shinkickerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Israel attacked first in 1967 Danny.
            
            Just to clarify. I didn't say give one party what they want. I said its up to the Palestinians to decide what they want to give. They have international law and overwhelming UN support on their side. Its up to Israel to ask what the Palestinian want to give up. That's the starting point of negotiations. The land belongs to the Palestinians. Israel has no legal right to make demands about the occupied territories.

            replyreport
         3. 75

            Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Danny - what gives Israel the right to security at the expense of the Palestinians - its like giving the burglar in some ones house priority over the owner of that house.
            
            Palestine was a free land and due to the illegal balfour declaration Israel was created -UN at the time said two states but but only one state got recognition de to double standards and backhand deals - the other state is still fighting for its right in its own land for the last 6 decades.
            
            So much for being unjust to Israel's security concerns.  If they wanted peace they'd accept the two state solution.  There are millions of Israelies
            who want the two states solution, but they don't get a voice.

            replyreport
   2. 75

      Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Ms Dee,thanks for your response -
      
      just one question for you, if some burglars break into your house and take your valuables - you then call the police and the burglars once caught say - sure you can have your valuables back but you'll need to agree to our conditions (the burglars will dictate what you get back, when and how) - in that situation how would you deal with them?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         A better analogy is this:
         
         You live in many houses...23 in fact. You have your family in all of them, but you also have co-tenants in each. One day, the extended family of the co-tenants in the smallest one of your houses comes to live with the co-tenants, because they've been kicked out of their homes and because of the threat of violence, there's no reasonable place for them to live except for their family in this house. The co-tenants and their family are happy to share that smallest house of 23 with you (they are not interested in the other 22 larger houses), but they refuse to move out. You say no and try to push them all out; they rebel and exert ownership of that house, but don't kick your family out.
         
         How do you resolve this situation?

         replyreport
3. 69

   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

   1. Because Israel is our ally.
   2. Because recognizing Palestine won't settle the hostilities with Israel and it might exacerbate them. As Obama pointed out, negotiation and agreement between the parties is the only way that can be accomplished, and
   3. Because he's worried about losing conservative Jewish votes next year.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.
      
      Because 3 is a relatively small factor (Jews are 2% of the total US population, and the percentage that would shift over to vote Republican is minimal), I'd rather say:
      
      3a. Because he's worried about losing Jewish donors (like Haim Saban).
      3b. Because he's worried how being "weak on Israel" is perceived by conservative Christians.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         True, I forgot about the conservative Christians. However, I don't think he's going to get many of their votes no matter what.
         
         Dave Matthews, is there ANYTHING Obama could do to get your vote?

         replyreport
      2. 72

         earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with both of these posts.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Does it strike anyone else how odd it is that people who are 2% of the US population have so much power here???
            So much so, that 330 members of our Congress have pledged to support Israel no matter what?
            Would anyone be so complacent if they had pledged to any other country like that?
            
            This is the Unitesd States of America....how dare they!

            replyreport
   2. 75

      Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Just because someone is your ally - is no reason to back them up when you know they are in the wrong - good friends should always help each other to achieve good actions and not support them blindly.  It just shows how unjust and immoral you are if you follow blindly.
      
      Siding with illegal occupation is the same as doing it yourself.  People are appalled at what Hitler did to the Jews (annexed them in ghettos etc) but now that the Zionist regime in Israel is doing the same to Palestinians its all okay??
      
      shame on people who have this kind of attitude - all life Jew or otherwise is valuable and we should all support those people who are being subjected to this kind of ordeal for the last 60+ years.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What is your idea of a just outcome, Zubair?

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Two state solution where - at least Palestinians can attempt to get on with their own lives without being treated like criminals on a daily basis. And Israel can exist without having to worry about stone throwing and being branded an occupier.
            
            Real peace cannot happen unless we accept the 'wrong done' and remedy that in the best possible way - in my humble opinion that is a two states living side by side like millions of jews, christians and muslims that have done for generations in the historical Palestine and other Muslim countries.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you. I hope that's the eventual outcome, and I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

               replyreport
4. 61

   HSanAlimposted 13 years ago

   The members of the security council all have veto power over any resolution. They always have had, and they always will.  So your question has no basis in fact.
   
   No one country has a veto in the General Assembly but there are some things, like becoming a full fledged acknowledged State or country that require approval of the Security Council.

   replyreport
5. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Any chance Israel will be held to account for breaking the law by its illegal settlement encroachment and its possession of nuclear weapons????
   
   
   
   Any?? A snow-balls chance in H E double hockey sticks....(in case someone doesn't like "cussing", and will report).?

   replyreport
6. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Abbas's speech:
   
   http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/Gen … embly.html

   replyreport
7. 60

   Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago

   I'm all for giving the Palestinians their own state. They had it before 1945 and then they were pushed out to make room for the displaced European Jews since the region belonged to the Jews 2000 yeasr ago. This set off the Anti Semetic feelings with the Middle East that continues to this day.

   replyreport
8. 80

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   "Mr. Netanyahu’s office has issued a statement saying “Peace will be achieved only through direct negotiations with Israel.” You know, and I know, that Mr. Netanyahu has no intention of concluding a just and fair peace with the Palestinian Authority. His only concern is to continue the inexorable construction of more settlements, creating more “facts on the ground” until the idea of an independent Palestinian state becomes a mere memory of a bygone era. When Israel declared its independence in 1948 it did not do so after direct negotiations with Palestine. If Israel really wants to negotiate with the Palestinians, why would negotiating with an independent Palestinian government, on an equal footing, deter it from engaging in these negotiations?
   
   The Reagan administration launched an international information campaign under the slogan “Let Poland be Poland.” It’s time we let Palestine be Palestine.
   
   Abstain from this upcoming vote. Just think about it."
   
   Sincerely yours, Charles O. Cecil U.S. Ambassador, retired
   (Ambassador to the Republic of Niger during the Clinton Administration)

   replyreport
9. 89

   Paragliderposted 13 years ago

   Palestine has an absolute right to apply for UN recognition, especially in view of the failure of the US sponsored peace talks. It is simply patronising and unacceptable for the US to lecture the Palestinians on how they should conduct their foreign policy. It is also pretty stupid for the US to further alienate Arab (and World) opinion at a time when the whole Arab world is realigning itself.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.
      
      Israel did the same - it petitioned and respected the UN's decision on the matter. Ideally Israel and the PA would sit down and hammer out a deal, but it's clear Netanyahu has no interest in doing that.
      
      Sadly, of course, Hamas continues to have the goal of the destruction of Israel in its charter (something it has put into action with thousands of rocket attacks since it was voted into power in 2005 in Gaza). I can understand Israel's reluctance to deal with them. If you were in the same shoes, wouldn't you be, too?

      replyreport
10. 60

    kateperezposted 13 years ago

    Netanyahu was at the negotiation table.  "President" Abbas of the Palestine people was the one who refused to sit down.  Just to make things clear.      As for the US veto of Palestinian statehood, they have very little property, Israel won the land that it is now living on, and would we really want to vet a group that has made it clear that they are not friends to another neighboring country, support and provide help for terrorists in the region, and otherwise have even lost the support of their fellow Arab nations?
    
    It seems that if the USA says "no" then that is what they say.  Do I support Hammas?  NOPE!  Do I support the Taliban?  NOPE!  Do I support the death of more innocent children, women, men, and life?  NOPE!!!      Israel does not strike first... They strike hardest....
    
    Yell at me all you like, I won't be back to say more.  it is just that rhetoric has to stop, and education has to come forward.   Before speaking, find out what you are saying is fact....  "Trust, but verify".  Wise words to live by.
    
    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Pal … 95813.html
    
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d … e-1.362090
    
    "The Palestinian Authority's Fatah faction recently struck a reconciliation deal with Gaza's Hamas, ahead of the Palestinians' plan to declare unilateral statehood in the United Nations in September."   If I were Israel, I would not be willing to work with someone who is Hell-bent on killing me!

    replyreport
    1. 80

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       With what....rocks?
       
       Give it a rest..Israel is the 5th largest military in the world...with our help, they could destroy the world.
       
       They are the beast that needs taming. IMO

       replyreport
    2. 75

       Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It's clear from kateparez's response that she is still in cloud 9 in-respect of what the Zionist regime in Israel is doing to the world and especially Palestinians.
       
       This not a war against the Jews but the regime that is taking actions that resembles what the nazzis did to the Jews.  Think about the innocent millions in Gazza being kept in an open air prison and all those ghettoes much like those in Germany created by Hitler for the jews.
       
       Shame really that the peoples who suffered so much at the hands of Hitlar are doing the same to others after invading Palestine and displacing the inhabitants.

       replyreport
       1. 90

          livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Exaggerations of the truth don't help. The West Bank and Gaza don't have much in common with Auschwitz, Birkenau and other Nazi concentration camps.
          
          Do you know what does? The murder of over 300,000 Darfuris at the hands of Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed.
          
          Why does the Muslim world not care one whit about them, even though the death and displacement toll is one hundred times that of Israel vs Palestinians?
          
          Is it because the aggressors this time are Muslim Arabs?
          
          Sadly, that seems to be the case.

          replyreport
          1. 89

             Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             true

             replyreport
    3. 78

       Ms Deeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       kateperez, exactly!  The Palestinians want a state without peace with Israel.

       replyreport
11. 79

    Mitch Alanposted 13 years ago

    Great answer, kateperez...saves me the keystrokes...

    replyreport
12. 80

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    We have come to take part with our people in asking for our rights," said Mohammed Hamidat, 40. "With the current closed horizons, it's the only thing we can do, even if the result is failure. It's been years since we have seen anything new: this is a first step."
    
    Said Israeli settler Meir Bartler, 25: "We don't care what they're up to at the U.N. We have the bible, which says the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people."

    replyreport
13. 67

    awareposted 13 years ago

    we give Palestine 400  million a year also . their not our enemy . which makes them ?

    replyreport
14. 80

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    "There is an enormous difference between “recognizing Israel’s existence” and “recognizing Israel’s right to exist.” From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified.
    
    For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was “right” for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
    
    To demand that Palestinians recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians’ acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the “rightness” of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point."--John V. Whitbeck

    replyreport
15. 75

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I think they should move Israel to Texas.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Or to Cape Cod. lovemychris: amenable to you?

       replyreport
       1. 80

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not giving up my home for anybody.
          But I think you should, as you advocate it for others.

          replyreport
16. 80

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    "Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned on Wednesday there would be "harsh and grave consequences" if the Palestinians persist with their plan to seek UN membership as a state."
    
    Sound like a guy seeking peace?

    replyreport
    1. 90

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       ...from the gal who thinks Israelis deserve to have violence visited upon them.

       replyreport
       1. 80

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That is a lie and a slanderous statement....keep it up.
          
          Shows the depths people will go to support a religious ideology over facts and human decency.

          replyreport
          1. 90

             livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/83070?p … ost1786591

             replyreport
             1. 80

                lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                "from the gal who thinks Israelis deserve to have violence visited upon them."
                
                
                Where?

                replyreport
17. 60

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    Harder to steal Palestine, if it is an officially
    recognized state.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly....and it's painfully obvious what that gvt is all about.

       replyreport
18. 75

    moiragallagaposted 13 years ago

    The veto power is a mechanism to ensure that the powers at the time (the 5 current permanent members or P5) could protect their respective interests. Double standard? It has always been since the inception of the Security Council. So the U.S. exercising its veto to protect its interests in relation to the Palestinian statehood issue is nothing new. All the P5 in the Council have used it in one time or the other in a similar fashion but on various  different issues. Whether it is in the interest of the U.S. to exercise that veto on this issue is something for the American leadership and its people to sort out. I am not an American so I cannot presume as to what interests it serves the U.S. in this case, though I could see on this thread that the debate on that point is underway.
    
    As for veto powers, while it may have served as a check and balance during the cold war under the existing bi-polar global security environment at that time, I think the world has changed so much from that era. There are efforts underway to reform the Security Council to be more responsive to the new paradigm of today's global security environment, and you guessed it, the question of the veto power is a highly contentious issue. Obviously, those with the veto are not willing to give it up or even considering setting limitations on its use. As such, efforts at reforming the Council have been stuck for years.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Agree with moiragallaga.
       
       And that won't change until people stop thinking of 'Self Interests' but of Humanity and the good for everyone and support right and wrong for what it is rather than what it can gain them in terms of power and wealth.
       
       Unfortunately our politicians are greedy, selfish, immoral, dishonest monkeys jumping from branch to branch and supporting those that bring them power and money even if they are wrong - and until we vote in good politicians and remove the power of lobby groups we will never have peace in this world.
       
       Greed and desire for power and money - have always led men down the wrong path - history teaches us that well. Shame that many of us don't learn.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          The monkey analogy is great. Made me think straight away of Tony Blair.
          
          Making him a Middle East peace envoy was like... putting Gordon Ramsay in charge of an anti-swearing campaign.
          
          However, I don't have much faith in the idea of "voting in good politicians". Many of the people who want to go into politics are flawed to begin with, and most of the rest start off with good intentions, but get corrupted once they're in office (I say "office" rather than "power", because I don't think politicians are the only part of the power structure in Western countries - they're just the visible bit that people vote on and off every few years).
          
          There are a few backbenchers who genuinely seem to be in it for the good of their constituents, but surprise surprise, they tend to stay on the back benches.

          replyreport
          1. 62

             Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             According to today's Guardian, TB's role as Middle East envoy is being seriously called into question (as it should have been years ago) due to a gas extraction and telecoms deal in Gaza and the West Bank which stood to benefit corporate clients of JP Morgan. As  we all know he acts as their advisor for the princely sum of £2 million per annum. Tony Blair, not an honest broker, who knew!

             replyreport
             1. 61

                recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Tony Blair sold out the British people and detroyed the labour party for his own personal gain.  He is a traitor and should be put to death in an appropriate manner, hung drawn and quartered would be pleasant to watch.  I have nothing but absolute disgust for this turd.

                replyreport
                1. 62

                   Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I'm normally opposed to the death penalty but I'd actually make an exception in his case. You're absolutely right, he's a self serving, greedy, disgusting little man.

                   replyreport
                   1. 75

                      Zubair Ahmedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      I here TB has started a foundation guess what it is called - TonyBlairWealthFoundation.
                      
                      So much for Saddam having WMD and we must protect our people.  These greedy selfish S*B's should be brought to justice for killing innocent people in illegal wars and monopolising on other peoples pain.

                      replyreport