Wednesday, July 12, 2006

U.S. rejects revised draft of UN resolution on Middle East

Israel's recent assault on the Gaza Strip, in an attempt to free the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, has been widely criticised as heavy handed and counter productive. Their decision to destroy the power station in Gaza, ensuring that the Palestinians will be without electricity for a year, has been labelled collective punishment and a war crime.

Yesterday, an attempt was made to issue a UN resolution on the subject.

It bent over backwards in an attempt to be even handed.

It expressed "grave concern" about the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and condemned "all acts of violence, terror and destruction" including the recent abduction and killing of an Israeli civilian in the West Bank.

It called on the Palestinian Authority to "take immediate and sustained action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets on Israeli territory."

However, it also condemned Israel's arrest and detention of dozens of elected Palestinian officials and the "large-scale military assault" in Gaza launched after Palestinian militants seized one of its soldiers.

It demanded that Israel "immediately cease its aggression" against Palestinian civilians, pull its forces out of Gaza and release the detained Palestinian officials.

So it would be hard for anyone to say that it was a one sided resolution. Indeed, most of us would recognise that it is fair to say that both sides have behaved badly and that the firing of rockets must stop as must the collective punishment of the Palestinian people for crimes that they have not personally committed.

However, despite all this, the resolution didn't even go to a vote, because everyone recognised that without the backing of the US, who have the power to veto, there is no point even going through with that formality.

Did the US give it's reasons for objecting to the resolution? Oh yes, step forward John Bolton.

"Our position remains the same, that we don't see at this point any utility in council action at all."
So there is nothing going on in Gaza, on either side, that should concern the Security Council at all.

That is the official American position. It's fine. Nothing to worry about. Leave it as it is.

The kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit? Not a worry.

The capture of most of the Palestinian Authority? Business as usual.

I wonder if most Americans have any idea of how scandalous their government's behaviour seems to the rest of the world.

No-one, no matter how fervently they argue for either side in this dispute, could possibly look at the present situation and say, it's fine. No need to intervene.

And yet, that is the official American position. It's a position that is as ludicrous as it is shameful.

Click title for full article.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Geez. What a downer Israel is. A real fucking buzzkill. I personally wish some god would come and wave his hand over the governments of America, England, and Israel, and just turn all these despots into oinking pink swine. After all that's what they already are on the inside; let veneers reflect contents.

Kel said...

Musclemouth, It's getting worse by the bloody day.

Now it's looking like it could escalate into Lebanon. You'd think the fact that their last venture into there took almost twenty years to extracate themselves from would make them think twice.

But Olmert must prove that he's as hard as Sharon was.