Us Vetoes Condemnation Of Israel

[h1]

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday condemning Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.

The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.

The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided."

"Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region ... but events must be considered in their context," Negroponte said.

Critics said the veto condoned Israel's policy of assassinating militant leaders.

The vote was 11 countries in favor, three countries abstaining, and only the United States against.

Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, was killed in a missile strike Monday morning in Gaza. Israel has warned that all other leaders of the group could be targeted.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for dozens of bombings and shootings of Israelis during 31/2 years of violence. Israel says it is targeting the group's leaders to stop such attacks, but critics say killing suspects without arresting or trying them violates international law.

On Wednesday, the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva voted 31-2 to condemn Israel for Yassin's death, but the body has no power to punish countries. A resolution by the Security Council would have carried more international weight.

The 11 Security Council members who voted for the measure were: China, Russia, France, The Philippines, Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Spain, Algeria, Benin and Brazil.

Britain, Germany and Romania abstained.

The vetoed resolution condemned Yassin's death and called for a "complete cessation of extrajudicial executions." It also condemned "all terrorist attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction."

However, it did not mention any militant groups by name -- a traditional U.S. demand.

Only five members of the Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- can veto the body's resolutions. Thursday's veto is the United States' 79th and the latest in a long string of vetoes regarding Israel.

The Soviet Union and Russia have cast the most Security Council vetoes over the years, 121. Britain has cast 32, France 18 and China, 5.

Source: AP / CNN

[hobbes]

And what does this mean?

Would the UN do anything, anyway.

No, they are a bunch of brunch loving impotent pricks.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by haxor41789@26 March 2004 - 00:58
The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.

The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided."

Hmmm why not condemn the terrorists by name?

Very simple I would think. Very one-sided indeed.

It would seem then Israel should not be condemned but in essence,

"all assassinations should be condemned". What bullshit!!!

All along Hamas has been running bombs up Israel's ass, killing indiscriminately, and when Israel strikes back going after a "particular" outspoken terrorist leader, everyone is up in arms crying foul.

It seems Israel should just rollover and take a butt-fuck graciously.

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes
Would the UN do anything, anyway.

No, they are a bunch of brunch loving impotent pricks.

Hobbes, do you have any idea how much work the UN is doing around the world right now?

The US and Britain said there were WMD in Iraq and they had to go to war. There are no WMD so the UN's decision not to go in was correct wasn't it?

If your hostility is based purely on the UN not going into Iraq I think its misguided. I also think your ignoring all the work they do which isn't as glamorous or as newsworthy as open war.

As for the US vetoing the resolution just because it did not mention Hamas by name... I think thats a pretty lame excuse.

Why wasn't condemning "all terrorist attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction." good enough? That condemns Hamas doesn't it?

Put into this context the comment from the US Ambassador that the resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas" is either a lie, or shows that he doesn't think Hamas carries out "terrorist attacks against any civilians".

[hobbes]

Lefty,

What I meant was, even if we had, what would have been the actual result? Would it change anything or just be another piece of paper?

I really was not trying to argue about whether we should or should not have voted to condemn the act, but rather what meaning does this vote have. Would Israel have had to go to bed without supper?

[Biggles]

I would tend to agree that the UN is impotent. It is time the anachronism of the veto is dispensed with. Give the UN teeth.

Viagra for the UN should be our call on the streets.

[Rat Faced]

If you dont condemn anyone breaking International Law, then you are by the very nature, condoning it...either actively (like the US) or passively (like the UK)

You cannot then complain if the same crime is perpetuated on yourselves.

The Crime is "Assassination"



It doesnt matter WHO did it to whom....it was a crime, and should be condemned.


Why should they name Hamas? Should they name ETA? IRA? ....where does it end? How many terrorist groups are in the world? Or are some of them not "Terrorist" but "Freedom Fighter"?

A Blanket condemnation of terrorism in this way was, in my opinion, BETTER than naming any specific groups.

[vidcc]

I have to say that i agree...ALL terrorist acts should be condemed even if that condemnation is toothless in reality.
There is often a double standard when it comes to classification (terroist/freedom fighter), it all depends on which side of the fence you sit. Blow up the houses of parliament...terrorist. Blow up the saddam iraqi parliament...freedom fighter .
These are just examples and not wishes.
Many western governments have funded "freedom fighters" but to the government that they are trying to overthrow they are terrorist.

One other point....the UN is supposed to be a peace keeping force and not an invasion army so it does tend to go thhrough a much lengthier diplomatic process before it take military action.

[mrcall1969]

I think that in general the UN does a good job. Sometimes its hands get tied and other times it gets undermined by the actions of some of the member states. But, if you look at the job KFOR, for instance, is doing right now in Kosovo, then no one can say that the UN is weak.

Also, a lot of the humanitarian work it does in parts of Africa, I think, tends to get overlooked.

On the original post, I believe that to abstain or veto is indeed an approval to the action carried out, no matter what that may be.

[Chewie]

I'm afraid both the US and UK representatives reactions were to be expected; it doesn't matter what atrocities Israel commits - and there's been plenty, thank you very much - it's always seen as OK by power inside the US & UK.
Tit-for-tat attacks get you nowhere fast except war/terrorism; one begats the other.

I think both UK and US governments are acutely aware of atrocities in their own respective pasts.