So creating Jordan and all the other Arab/Moslem nations was NOT a mistake in your eyes. You only want to WHINE about the tiny country.
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117" <zeus32117@...> wrote:
>
> Creating Israel was a mistake. Dealing with the current situation in the Middle East effectively enough may require most people on the planet becoming sufficiently good communicators. I think that it makes sense for most people on the planet to work together on making the world a better place. This may not happen until most people on the planet become much better communicators.
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <garyrumor2@> wrote:
> >
> > US Veto's Israeli Settlement Condemnation, Baharain & Libyan Violence, Japanese Stop WhalingFebruary 18th, 2011 The Obama administration has bowed to the Israeli lobby in Washington and vetoed a UN resolution to condemn Israel for its illegal settlements. This is an absurd US policy to have at a time when the Arab world is exploding with rebellion against the old order. The USA should be joining this new order. The BBC is reporting it as "bad news."
> > What is the Obama administration doing? They have not condemned the Bahraini regime for shooting its citizens. Great Britain, the source of the rubber bullets and tear gas canister being used should take action to ban those supplies to Bahrain. The USA, the main supplier of weapons to the military of Bahrain should refuse to supply any more weapons. We should tell them simply come to terms with the protesters or the US will pull the 5th Fleet. But the US won't do that because they don't have an alternative port in the Gulf to protect the oil shipping lanes from potential enemies.
> > Libya is in flames with rumors that the protestors have taken over the airport in Benghazi and that in retaliation the government has cut off electricity to the city, that is what is being reported on the BBC TV.
> > NHK News in Japan is reporting that democratization in the Middle East is unavoidable and that
> > whatever happens, the supply of oil must be maintained. They are also reporting that the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting held in Bahrain offered support to the government of Bahrain. We shall see if democracy or oil interests win.
> > Japanese whaling fleet stopped operations a month early due to harassment by the group Sea Shepard. This is a clear victory for those who want to preserve whales from extinction.
> > ————————————————————————————————
> > From Al Jazeera
> > US vetoes UN vote on settlements
> > Washington blocks resolution condemning Israeli buildings on Palestinian land as illegal and calling for quick halt.
> > Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 22:19 GMT
> > The United States vetoed a UN resolution Friday that would have condemned Israeli settlements as "illegal" and called for an immediate halt to all settlement building.
> > All 14 other Security Council members voted in favour of the resolution.
> > British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, speaking on behalf of his country, France and Germany, condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank. "They are illegal under international law," he said.
> > He added that the European Union's three biggest nations hope that an independent state of Palestine will join the United Nations as a new member state by September 2011.
> > The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world. An abstention would have angered the Israelis, the closest US ally in the region, as well as Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in the American Congress.
> > Washington says it opposes settlements in principal, but claims that the UN Security Council is not the appropriate venue for resolving the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
> > US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told council members that the veto "should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity.
> > "While we agree with our fellow council members and indeed with the wider world about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians," she said.
> > Palestinians said the veto is counterproductive to the peace process, helps Israel maintain illegal buildings.
> > "The American veto does not serve the peace process and encourages Israel to continue settlements, and to escape the
> > obligations of the peace process," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, a close aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
> > Earlier, the Obama administration has exerted pressure on the Palestinian Authority to drop the UN resolution in exchange for other measures.
> > Abbas has refused Washington's request to withdraw a UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel to freeze settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land.
> > The decision was made unanimously by the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive and the central committee of Abbas's Fatah movement on Friday, at a meeting to discuss US President Barack Obama's appeal to Abbas by telephone a day earlier.
> > "The Palestinian leadership has decided to proceed to the UN Security Council, to pressure Israel to halt settlement activities. The decision was taken despite American pressure," said Wasel Abu Yousef, a PLO executive member.
> > http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011218201653970232.html
> > =============================================
> > From Cristian Science Monitor
> > If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote? A United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements, which the US vetoed Friday, put the US in a difficult position at a time when Arabs are rallying for freedom and democracy.
> > By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / February 18, 2011
> > In its first United Nations veto, the Obama administration on Friday voted against a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "illegal."
> > As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US used its power to overrule the other 14 Security Council members, all of whom voted for the resolution.
> > The UN vote puts the United States in a difficult position – particularly at a time when freedom and democracy are being fought for in the streets of Arab nations.
> > "The US has a long history of trying to prevent the United Nations from becoming an instrument to coerce Israel, but I think in normal circumstances the US veto would be less uncomfortable," Stewart Patrick, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, told Bloomberg News. "They have a huge priority not to change the subject of the conversation from oppression of Arabs and Muslims by their own autocratic governments."
> > Still, the vote Friday is in line with stated US policy.
> > That is, it favors direct talks between the parties without a role for the UN in establishing a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors – especially with Palestinians. Friday's veto was the 10th time in the past 11 years that the US has voted against a UN measure considered critical of Israel. Over a longer period, there have been dozens of such votes on behalf of Israel.
> > At the same, officials continue to make clear that the Obama administration strongly opposes expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
> > Ambassador Rice: US opposes settlementsAfter voting on the resolution, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice emphasized that "our opposition to the resolution before this council today should … not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity."
> > "On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," Ambassador Rice said.
> > "The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians," she said. "In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating it. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore our opposition to continued settlements."
> > To the extent that he can, President Obama has played a direct role in this most recent issue. For nearly an hour Thursday, he spoke with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas about the Security Council issue.
> > But Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to head off the proposed vote. The US favors instead a compromise measure that includes a call for a freeze on settlements, a visit to the region by a UN Security Council delegation, and a statement by the "Mideast Quartet" (the US, the European Union, the UN, and Russia) referring to 1967 borders in reference to a Palestinian state.
> > What the UN resolution saidThe US-vetoed resolution, which had been sponsored by 130 countries, "reaffirms that the Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."
> > http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0218/If-Obama-opposes-Israeli-settlement-activity-why-did-US-veto-UN-vote
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment