Yes, that was the implicit imbalance behind the failed vote in the UN on February 18, 2011, that would have described as "illegal" Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, while reiterating demands that all settlement activity should cease immediately.
Although it was a UN Security Council ballot, and the vote was 14 to 1, the resolution itself had been sponsored beforehand by 130 member countries. Can all these countries be wrong? The British certainly don't consider themselves to be, as Foreign Secretary William Hague stated during the debate: "Today the UK voted with others, including France and Germany, to reinforce... our longstanding view that settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and constitute a threat to a two-state solution."
The United States, which earlier had called for an end of Israeli settlement activity, then renounced the effort after being snubbed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has now turned the clock back to repudiate its own previous stand as it vetoed the February 18 resolution.
How does the U.S. explain this blatant inconsistency? By a blithe sidestep coming from its UN representative, Susan Rice:
Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should... not be understood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel's security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.
Ms. Rice went on to state that the U.S. favors a two-state solution with a contiguous state of Palestine and added:
The only way to reach that common goal is through direct negotiations between the parties, with the active and sustained support of the United States and the international community. It is the Israelis' and the Palestinians' conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them.
Of course, the formulaic call for "direct negotiations between the parties" is another way of saying that the Israelis can remain in control, they being by far the strongest party.
No, it ain't cricket. But the game isn't over. The next scene will be in September with a proposal that Palestine be admitted to the United Nations.
Charles Cogan was the chief of the Near East South Asia Division in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA from August 1979 to August 1984. He is currently an Associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School.
"Around 20 minutes after this phone conversation, I arrived at the store," she recalls. "The impression I got over the phone was that there was a click between the manager and me. The conversation had gone smoothly, she sounded very nice, and it seemed that I fit the qualifications. But as soon as I got to the store and introduced myself she told me, clearly embarrassed, that she had just hired someone else for the job. It was a little odd. She didn't say so specifically, but it was quite clear to me that it was because of the color of my skin. Otherwise, it just didn't make sense that one moment she invites me to a meeting and half an hour later she suddenly doesn't need any help."
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ethiopians-need-not-apply-1.336958
(Does it not amaze @mericans how and why they managed to list themselves as a local interest group)
I hope the BDS campaign really picks up now and a fleet of humanitarian ships go to Gaza.
As bad as slavery ?
As bad as late entry into WW1/WW2 ?
As bad as using a second nuke without giving the japanese a chance to surrendor ?
Opinions can differ but evil is evil and we have shamed ourselves in this instance.
President Lincoln wanted to change a government policy by executive order and his whole cabinet voted against his idea. President Lincoln stood up and said I'm voting for it and the measure carries unanimously seeing how my vote is the only one that counts!
Members of his cabinet in later years admitted President Lincoln was right!
I wonder about those settlements in later years.
"The transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Forth Convention."
Its not complicated.
Yes, the UN can be wrong, and quite often is when it concerns Israel.
This same UN that seemed to have nothing better to do as the arab world goes up in flames and Iran mows down its citizens seeking freedom did what it usually does in times of turmoil...look to needle Israel.
Yes. (Maybe again tomorrow and twice on Sunday).
Here is a very well written article on the elements of "international law" pertaining to this controversy:
http://www.defensibleborders.org/rosenne.htm
In order to understand the true nature of the law involved, one must appreciate the difference between raw allegations, allegations which are supported and allegations which are proved (adjudicated). These are NOT the same, although many people (perhaps as many as 130 nations worth) often confuse the concepts.
The legal status of the disputed territories including EJ and WB are presently in the categories of raw allegations and some allegations which are supported (purely by votes of opinion from the various U.N. member nations). None are adjudicated. None. Also, no existing U.N. resolution (General Assembly or Security Council) create a legally binding obligation on the part of Israel to vacate either EJ or WB. The one that was just recently voted down would have been no exception--had it passed--which it did not (see the linked explanation). All it would have done (had it passed) would be to enhance the already existing illusion that Israel is defying its legal obligations.
The linked article is very concise and your 'fortune-cookie' remarks do nothing to offset that precision. Without a Chapter-7 UN Security Council Resolution (which has only been issued twice in history, Korea and Kuwait) we don't even get to the question of if the resolution is lawful under the UN Charter. Because it is not expected to be legally binding under Chapter-6 authority.
We do NOT live in a "one world government". You want to pretend? Go ahead. You are far from alone. Howvever, what we have in reality is organized chaos. Not even well organized. Just enough to fool the segment of the population who prefers such fables.
Last week, he cowered before the power-brokers of AIPAC and bowed to their demands to veto the UN SC resolution condemning the illegal settlements, by Israel, that have already been declared illegal by the rest of the world.
He made America stand in isolation against the entire membership of the UN Security Council in a move that will be seen as one of the defining moments of shame of his, now, ONE-TERM presidency.
How a man could get so far and then achieve so little by meekly acquiescing to the increasing demands of the Israel lobby, is a subject for case study for future students of international politics.
I think this time we should turn the tables, and ask her to prove parkinsonsam wrong.
Of course, whether the US vetoed the resolution because of pressure from AIPAC, or pressure from the RNC and DNC, is, in the end, irrelevant. That the US slapped basically the whole world in the face (shamefully, I will not be surprised if my own right-wing government votes against the expected proposal to upgrade Palestine to full UN membership, and given its stance on the subject of Israel, would have voted with the US had it not, for the first time ever, lost its bid for a UNSC seat) and voted to block something that even it admits was right, so as to keep Israel from being officially held even tokenly in the wrong is what matters.
Oh, yeah, least anyone think the US is partial to Israel's position (we clearly are not, right?), we believe Israel shouldn't build more in the West Bank, because we support human rights and actions that encourage trust and justice and all that diplomatic mumbo jumbo. We just don't believe anyone should actually expect us to support our words by actions. Talk always sounds good to us.
This was clearly a situation of Obama supporting a political constituency (Palestinians have no strong lobby group in Washington so guess who gets heard) and making a decision based on political expediency, not based on reality or truth. In fact, the real truth is found in the excuses given for why this veto was cast. That is not leadership, it is a failure to stand up when it is time to be counted. It is taking the political path of least resistance so the more difficult path of standing up for what is right can be avoided. That isn't going to fly, not now and certainly not come 2012.