Last-Minute Haggling Delays U.N. Vote on Condemning Israel's Barrier

(cont.) with West bank
...

If the 191-nation General Assembly passed the first resolution, its supporters would drop a second resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the barrier, diplomats said.

"We are close. Close to a breakthrough, close to collapse," Sweden's U.N. Ambassador, Pierre Schori, said of the negotiations.

The Palestinians went to the General Assembly after the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution last week that would declare that the construction of a barrier was illegal and call for it to be dismantled.

General Assembly resolutions carry symbolic weight but are not legally binding, unlike those passed by the Security Council. The Palestinians have non-voting observer status in the assembly.

TBO

A GA vote won't get reported, but an ICJ decision might.

Any GA resolution is going to be non-binding and quickly forgotten about along with just about every resolution the GA passes on anything at all. Wouldn't getting an advisory opinion on the barrier from the ICJ carry a bit more weight and possibly lead to the SC having to take the issue up again?

The US veto in the SC is just another in a long line of abuses of its power that the US has displayed. When they carry on like this with predictable scuttling of just about every resolution concerning Israel, it's clear that the interest of the US in casting vetos isn't in maintaining international peace and security, but in playing a completely different game where its muscle is constantly flexed to over-rule other members of the SC. Wasn't it the Bush administration that was bitching and whining not all that long ago about how France was abusing its veto power because it dared to even threaten to veto ONE resolution on Iraq?

Violet...

ILLEGAL ISRAELI ACTIONS IN OCCUPIED EAST JERUSALEM AND THE REST OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

RECALLING its relevant resolutions, including resolutions of the tenth emergency special session,

RECALLING Security Council resolutions 242 (1067) of 22 November, 1967, 267 (1969) of 3 July, 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September, 1971,446 (1979) of 22 March, 1979, 452 (1979) of 20 July, 1979, 465(1980) of 1 March, 1980, 476 (1989) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August, 1980, 904 (1994) of 18 March, 1994, 1073 (1996) of 28 September, 1996, and 1397 (2002) of 12 March, 2002,

REAFFIRMING the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

REAFFIRMING its vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,

CONDEMNING all acts of violence, terrorism and destruction,

CONDEMNING in particular the suicide bombings and their recent intensification with the attack in Haifa,

CONDEMNING also the bomb attack in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the death of three American security officers,

DEPLORING the extra-judicial killings and their recent intensification, in particular the attack yesterday in Gaza,

STRESSING the urgency of ending the current violent situation on the ground, the need to end the occupation that began in 1967, and the need to achieve peace based on the vision of two states mentioned above,

PARTICULARLY CONCERNED that the route marked out for the wall under construction by Israel, the occupying power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, could prejudge future negotiations and make the two-State solution physically impossible to implement and would cause further humanitarian hardship to the Palestinians,

REITERATING its call upon Israel, the occupying power, to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,

REITERATING its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land;

1. DEMANDS that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law;

2. CALLS ON both parties to fulfill their obligations under relevant provisions of the Road Map; the Palestinian Authority to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks; the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including deportations and attacks on civilians and extra-judicial killings;

3. REQUESTS the Secretary-General to report on compliance with this resolution periodically, with the first report on compliance with operative paragraph 1 to be submitted within one month and upon receipt of which further actions should be considered, if necessary, within the United Nations system;

4. DECIDES to adjourn the tenth emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the current President of the General Assembly to resume its meeting upon request from Member States.

...

How is it possible to spin this?

The US government is a fucking joke. :grr:

Appears they actually read the road map, too.

But as you and Ms. Crumble have said, the thing ought to be taken to the International Court of Justice.

More to the point, the United States ought not to have prevented Security Council action.

when do you think enough pressure could be applied to the US so as it recognises the ICC?

So long as there is a vociferous claque insisting that the normal practice of warfare is a war crime, the chances are not good. Persons who insist, for example, that the NATO campaign against Butcher Slobo was a criminal enterprise, or that Israeli attacks against a Hamas leader are crimes but a Hamas attack against Israelis is freedom fighting, do a great deal to discredit the entire concept of laws of war and their enforcement by international tribunal. The cry of "War Crime" is not a handy rhetorical club to beat on one's political opponents with; it must be a soberly considered conclusion informed by some knowledge of the practical usages of war, the actual regulations involved, and a resolve to apply them to a side one supports as well as a side one opposes. Until this is the general practice, the argument that unjustified charges will be brought as mere political acts will find great agreement with the people of our country.

certainly the US would not be a party to claims that Slobo was subjected to any action outside of the law..or that Israeli attacks on Hamas constitute war crimes..but as a mere peacenik it would do my heart good to see a major superpower lead the way and endorse the ICC and not persue political agendas thru the UN..

by the way ..I enjoy all your replies to questions posed..

My expression seems to have been less than clear, for which you have my apologies; it really is past Beelzebub's bedtime.

The United States would not be party to such charges: the reason the U.S. government has refused to join the Court is fear that such charges would be brought against U.S. personnel, when there was no real basis for such a charge. That is a view widely shared by the people of the country, and so there is no political pressure to join and to heed the court.

A number of persons on the left seem to believe that the representatives of the world's powers gathered in Geneva after World War Two and formulated documents that outlawed the normal practice of warfare, without quite noticing they had done so. They did, of course, no such thing: the wording of the regulations leave ample room for the normal practice of warfare, including a great deal of incidental harm and discomfiture to civilians in the course of it. War-fare is not, after all, a very precise business, when all is said and done. Armies cannot even reliably undertake not to cause a good portion of their own casualties in battle.

But that misconception, and the great joy of calling an opponent a war criminal, leads some to make in all apparent seriousness a plethora of wild and baseless accusations. Such charges, in fact, play into the hands of those who oppose the Court. We share a desire to see the Court come to exert influence on the greatest powers of the world, but it is not going to happen over-night. It will have to build up credibilty and precendent, and can only do so by concentrating at first on open-and-shut cases by minor power offenders. This will get people into the habit of agreeing with the court's decisions, and regarding it as a sober and responsible body. Persons who wish there to be real enforcement of the laws of war would do well to applaud these, rather than to protest the injustice of a focus on the misdeeds of lesser states, for it is only by this means that the court will be able to establish the necessary habit of acquiesence essential for there to be sufficient political pressure to bring major governments to give it heed.

whilst perhaps , I reside in the world of idealism..foolishly, I would advocate the US provide a lead and set the pace on international justice for all to follow..whilst this may come at some expense to the US itself, it would, I believe lead to a safer, more just world..

My preference would be for the United States to have taken the lead in acknowledging the Court, and it is my belief that doing so would have provided the surest long-term assurance against the sort of abuses many in our country fear. If the United States had done so, it is certain that U.S. jurists would have been prominent on its bench. The Court must rely on the military power of supporting states to bring miscreants before it, and in the world today, and for the foreseeable future, the United States is the predominant military power. These two factors together would have made the United States of such value to the Court's operation that a pattern of deference, and a respect for the norms of the United States in legal matters, would have been certain to grow up within its institutional culture.

US, Israel, Micronesia, and what other Pacific island chain?
Airstrip One probably abstained, like last time I believe.

Marshall Islands

Australia, Burundi, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Malawi, Nauru, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda and Tuvalu...

Okay, who's Airstrip One?


I like trying to work out the motives for the abstentions. Starting in alphabetical order, I spotted the sycophantic suck-up motive, but I'm not sure what the motive is for PNG. Maybe they're getting a fair amount of US aid or something...

Violet...

Washington's aircraft carrier in the North Sea, otherwise known as "Great Britain".

I think PNG is in US/Australia's pocket as far as aid goes, likewise those Central American neolib utopias who have a past history of being supported by Israel (or rather, supported by US weapons corps using Israel as a proxy). Don't understand the Africans.. Tuvalu's another Pacific island group like Micronesia and whatever other Pacific island chain voted against this. Ecuador doesn't make sense.

Sometimes we vote the right way on I/P.

C'mon give us some credit. :cry:

I meant usage. thanks for the correction.

We are plagued here by doubleplusgood Duckspeakers, skilled in Blackwhite....

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

RECALLING its relevant resolutions, including resolutions of the tenth emergency special session,

RECALLING Security Council resolutions 242 (1067) of 22 November, 1967, 267 (1969) of 3 July, 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September, 1971,446 (1979) of 22 March, 1979, 452 (1979) of 20 July, 1979, 465(1980) of 1 March, 1980, 476 (1989) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August, 1980, 904 (1994) of 18 March, 1994, 1073 (1996) of 28 September, 1996, and 1397 (2002) of 12 March, 2002, ...........

AND ALL THE OTHER HATE-FILLED RESOLUTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL WE CAN MUSTER

REAFFIRMING the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.....EXCEPT DURING 1967 !!

CONDEMNING all acts of violence, terrorism and destruction ...
BY ISRAEL ONLY AND ONLY PAYING LIP-SERVICE TO JIHADOFASCISTS!!

CONDEMNING in particular the suicide bombings and their recent intensification with the attack in Haifa......BEGRUDGINGLY!!

CONDEMNING also the bomb attack in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the death of three American security officers......CAUSE WE CANT
PIN IT ON ISRAEL !!

DEPLORING the extra-judicial killings and their recent intensification, in particular the attack yesterday in Gaza......
BECAUSE WE ALWAYS SUCK-UP TO TERRORISTS

STRESSING the urgency of ending the current violent situation on the ground, the need to end the occupation that began in 1967, and the need to achieve peace based on the vision of two states mentioned above....BUT DO NOTHING TO ACHIEVE IT OTHER THAN PASS ONE-SIDED RESOLUTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL!!

PARTICULARLY CONCERNED that the route marked out for the wall under construction by Israel, the occupying power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, could prejudge future negotiations and make the two-State solution physically impossible to implement and would cause further humanitarian hardship to the Palestinians....AND QUITE FRANKLY
WE DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HOW MANY INNOCENT ISRAELIS ARE KILLED!!

REITERATING its call upon Israel, the occupying power, to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.....WHILE WE
ACT AS TERRORISTS ENABLERS BY IGNORING THE ENDLESS ATROCITIES COMMITTED AGAINST ISRAEL !!

REITERATING its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de facto annexation of land;

1. DEMANDS ....THAT ISRAEL ROLL OVER AND GO AWAY !!


2. CALLS ON TERRORISTS TO KEEP GOING CAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HASSLE THEM

3. REQUESTS the Secretary-General TO CONTINUE IGNORING THE FACTS BY BURYING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND!!


4. DECIDES to adjourn the tenth emergency special session UNTIL WE
CAN INVENT ANOTHER TRUMPED UP RESOLUTION WHILE WE REALLY COULDNT GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT ANY ISRAELI.

Calm down. Seems to me that UN conventions and international law are not worth respecting when Israel is concerned.

Don, there's a difference between supporting a cause passionately and supporting a cause passionately and with such rage and lack of rationality that it clouds ones ability to stick to facts when criticising UN actions. If you want to actually discuss this particular resolution in a constructive way, you'd be doing both yrself and the cause you support a big favour, because right now yr doing neither any good...

Violet...

That reminds me of the "more Pope-like then the Pope" thing... :eyes:

98% of the world's nations voted for the resolution "BECAUSE WE ALWAYS SUCK-UP TO TERRORISTS"?
:eyes: