Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

UN resolution on Arafat veto'd

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:30 / 17.09.03

US vetos UN resolution to protect Arafat.

I find this so bizarre. I need to find the text of the resolution, but this seems utterly self-defeating. How can this give anything other than the appearance of total contempt for Palestinians and Arabs?

The US 'vetoed the resolution because it failed to condemn groups such as Hamas, which it blames for promoting terrorism. "The Palestinian Authority must take action to remove the threat of terrorist groups'.

10:11 / 17.09.03

I often get outraged by the actions of the US with regards to Israel. But haven't you said to me in the past, "What do you expect?".

The US under Bush 2 made a bold statement when it declared that it would support the Road Map without favouring either side. However, the US has never been impartial in this conflict and this is hardly surprising, given the strategic importance of Israel.

I think the calculation in the US is that the Palestinians already think the US are contemptuous of their cause. So there is little to gain there, especially since Abbas departure. And Israel would be seriously offended if the US did not veto the resolution.

This veto is just the latest action in a long list of the US showing contempt for the Palestinians. I hate to be pessimistic, but it'll quickly be overshadowed by something else.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

11:50 / 17.09.03

I know, it just seemed so unequivocal. Democratic states aren't allowed to go around assassinating people. And then I remembered that George awarded himself that right a while back, so he doesn't want to cane Israel for it in case someone calls him on it.

Gah.

11:53 / 17.09.03

I think the US problem was the resolution didn't make any condemnation of Palestinian terrorists as well. But seeing as the simply vetoed the resolution instead of simply suggesting a change to the text suggests they would have vetoed anything condeming Israel and were just looking for an excuse...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:02 / 17.09.03

Perhaps equally important, why should a resolution stating that Arafat may not be assassinated condemn Palestianian terror attacks?

14:43 / 17.09.03

The security council claims authority to engage in military operations, and thus, it is important to the United States that it does not support a resolution it perceives to be significantly biased against one of its allies. I couldn't find a copy of the text on un.org, but it does sound like the U.S. is coming no closer to the middle of this conflict than Israel or the various Palestinian factions.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:37 / 17.09.03

Which means...?

16:04 / 17.09.03

Author William Blum's last book, "Rogue State", contains a lengthy appendix showing every US veto at the UN with regards to the condemnation of Israel between 196? and 1998. Just the numbers from those years alone are pretty staggering. And so, the pattern continues.

Also, doesn't Israel's Mossad now have some kind of special authorization or mandate to commit assassinations on US (and other foreign) soil?

14:25 / 18.09.03

Have the Israelis completely lost the plot?

On top of charges of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, NOW they've started tatooing Palestinian prisoners of war!

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020312/2002031230.html

Our Lady of The Two Towers

17:11 / 18.09.03

Perhaps they could make them where little crescent moon badges too...

I do wonder whether the best way forward for any hope of a peace process would be for both Sharon and Arafat to die peacefully in their sleep tonight. It all seems so pointless when the only people to give the Israeli people security is the Israeli government. And it's a shame the US don't seem to realise that if they truly wanted to help Israel removing support and forcing them to be a bit more reasonable would be the best thing.

17:22 / 18.09.03

The US are keen to help Israel. But neither party has peace as a top priority, both favouring "security". Security seems to mean expanding Israel's borders while denying Palestinians any human rights, of course. But it does make sense from a certain point of view.

09:26 / 19.09.03

But doesn't that logic fail when even the most combative of Israli PM's have manifestly failed to deliver security for the people through the pursuit of their current policy.

18:49 / 19.09.03

'it's a shame the US don't seem to realise that if they truly wanted to help Israel removing support and forcing them to be a bit more reasonable would be the best thing. '

And then there goes the market for arms, doesn't look too good on a balance sheet that 'peace' thing.

18:56 / 19.09.03

'it's a shame the US don't seem to realise that if they truly wanted to help Israel removing support and forcing them to be a bit more reasonable would be the best thing. '

And then there goes the market for arms, doesn't look too good on a balance sheet that 'peace' thing. [And while we're at it as far as I know there's some fundamentalist christian end-of-times belief around about reconciliation in Israel happening after all the good guys have been taken up to heaven. Now admittedly with this paricular brand of 'good' guy out of the picture any kind of peace process is a bit more likely but I don't think that's what they had in mind. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong abut this one.]

12:00 / 20.09.03

But doesn't that logic fail when even the most combative of Israli PM's have manifestly failed to deliver security for the people through the pursuit of their current policy. - sleaze

Yeah, you are right. My very short point was incomplete and hence innacurate in many ways. One has to factor in the role of the settlers, the distrust of arabs, the dream of a Jewish only greater Israel amongst other things. Security, in the way that Israel seems to see it, operates within a framework which is incompatible with peace, in my view.

Continuing the original point of this thread, the UN general assembly has voted by 133 to 4, demanding that Israel drop its threat to remove Arafat.

The resolution condemned Israel for threatening to remove Mr Arafat, but also the Palestinian suicide bombings. Despite this even-handedness, the US and Israel voted against, supported by Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

The resolution, though non-binding, served as a reminder of the isolated US position on the Middle East.

Earlier this week, it vetoed a similar resolution in the security council, saying that while it did not support removal of Mr Arafat it would not back wording that did not also condemn terror groups by name.

Last night it offered the same reason.

Clearly, the US is in a position that doesn't want to criticise Israel whatever it does. The excuse offered to vote against the resolution is just that, an excuse. I can't see the Road Map being revived in the light of this. I hope I am wrong.

18:13 / 20.09.03

There is no more "Road Map". Peace won't happen any time soon until Israel gets its settlers off Palestinian land, which probably has a lot more to do with strategic control over the water supply than actually expanding its borders for the usually presumed reasons.

11:16 / 22.09.03

Poor Palestinians, the Native Americans of tomorrow.

01:10 / 23.09.03

"Clearly, the US is in a position that doesn't want to criticise Israel whatever it does. The excuse offered to vote against the resolution is just that, an excuse. I can't see the Road Map being revived in the light of this. I hope I am wrong"

Yes it true that the Israels political import for any give US administration is peeminent but what seems like the univocal position here and in the rest of the UN is that israel is the only responsible party for the deadlock.

I think in truth its a Hegelian struggle for presige, for recognition by the other party, which is to say a strugle to the death.

This is why the israelis cant pull back till suicide bombing cease, victory in other words, and why the palestinians insist on israels withdrawal despite the continuing suicide bombings.

08:55 / 23.09.03

Hi Ex-timite. I disagree. What you have there is a fairly mainstream opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, IMO. You see, the Palestinian terrorists were on a ceasefire - the bombing had stopped. The Israelis decided to engage in "targetted killing". They aren't stupid and must have known that the outcome would do nothing to curb Palestinian terrorism - quite the opposite - but that it would destroy the Road Map. The same happenned with this Intifada.

You see, I don't think Israel's actions make sense unless you see their objectives as a Jewish state of Israel compromising of a large part of the occupied territories with an unviable (no border controls, no water, no chance of economic indpendence) Palestinian state as a neighbour. Or maybe no Palestinian state. They want a certain kind of peace - but not a return to 1967 borders and hence not any current peace proposal.

09:29 / 23.09.03

hey Lurid. so you disagree completely then? I think the mainstream opinion is on the left hand side(not very far necessarily) is to clearly cast moral responsibility for the situation as a whole on the israelis, making them responsible for the actions of all; and on the right (not very far either)(where i should say that it is not a matter of indifference or the jews fault ofcourse) it is equally pure and simple, a contest, between civilization and barbarism. theyre the options.

10:01 / 23.09.03

I don't think that moral responsibility is *entirely* with the Israelis but as a state, which is armed to the teeth, which is engaged in a brutal occupation and which is in contravention of international law, I think it bears the largest part of the responsibility.

You can't treat people so atrociously (torture, humiliation, punishment beatings/killings, land grabs) in an organised fashion, with your army and then see the inevitable terrorism that is fuelled by such actions as equally to blame. Sure, many Palestinians hate Jews and the suicide bombing is wrong. Absolutely. Just as the boy who throws rocks is wrong. My point is that the trained army sniper who shoots and kills the boy and then faces no justice for doing so is part of a society that is rather more in the wrong.

22:29 / 23.09.03

well i disagree again. but at any rate my original point wasnt about responsibility so much as a way of (hegel) explaining the current deadlock beyond issuses of responisibility and cultural difference in the terms of his master/slave dialectic, where parties vie for the position of master by being the most willing to risk death. thats lacans/kojeve's hegel at any rate.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:35 / 24.09.03

Full text of the resolution:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1402 (2002) of 30 March 2002, 1403 (2002) of 4 April 2002, 1405 (2002) of 19 April 2002 and 1435 (2002) of 24 September 2002.

Reiterating its grave concern at the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000 throughout the occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel and in the recent dangerous deterioration of the situation, including the escalation in extrajudicial executions and suicide bombing attacks, all of which have caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims,

Reaffirming the illegality of the deportation of any Palestinian by Israel, the occupying Power, and affirming its opposition to any such deportation,

Reiterating also the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

1. Reiterates its demands for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected President of the Palestinian Authority;

3. Expresses its full support for the efforts of the Quartet and calls for increased efforts to ensure the implementation of the roadmap by the two sides, and underlines, in this regard, the importance of the forthcoming meeting of the Quartet in New York;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Ex-Timite, may I suggest you put your views in a new thread? It's in interesting - if emotive - discussion.

02:00 / 25.09.03

why would you suggest i do that?

07:05 / 25.09.03

Maybe there is hope after all - Israeli pilots refuse to bomb civilians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/international/middleeast/25MIDE.html

08:58 / 25.09.03

Ex-timite: I think that Nick would like to limit this thread to the particular issue of the UN resolution in question. Our mini debate moves the discussion away from that, but as Nick says, you have an interesting point that you may want to start in another thread.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:57 / 25.09.03

More the interest than the desire to sequestrate - but otherwise we're going to have two related but not identical discussions running, and in my experience this leads to the Throwing Of the Toys From the Pram. Often by me.