HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Arab League Decries Veto of U.N. Resolution [ The Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 01]
CAIRO -- The Arab League voiced astonishment and concern Sunday at the U.S. decision to veto a U.N. resolution calling for international monitors to help curb violence between Israel and the Palestinians. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/la000100064dec17.story (or not).
From: thirdrail (Monday, December 17, 2001)
On Saturday, one vote scuttled a UN Security Council resolution condemning "acts of terrorism." The same nay-saying nation also managed to short-circuit two separate but similar resolutions this year, before Council members could cast a vote.
On the face of it, such actions would seem to be the work of one of those "rogue" states which harbor or otherwise abet terrorists. While Libya, Iraq, Somalia, the Sudan, and North Korea appear to be high on the list of potential targets in the US war against terrorism, none are listed as permanent members of the Security Council, able to sink a resolution with a single vote.
Which country refused to condemn terrorism "targeting civilians"? Answer: the United States. "Why?" requires a more detailed answer.
The recently defeated resolution addressed violence in the Middle East and opposed "all acts of terror, particularly those targeting civilians." Not terribly controversial, although Britain and Norway abstained; the other 12 Council members voted in favor. And despite Britain's abstention, their UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, offered a statement in keeping with the general spirit of the resolution, saying, "We urge Israel and the Palestinian Authority to pull back from the brink and work together to end violence."
What, then, is the problem?
*This resolution called for an immediate end to "all acts of violence, [and] provocation," renewed negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, and the implementation of recommendations contained in the Mitchell Report.
However, it also condemned "all acts of extrajudiciary executions [Translation: state-sponsored killing of those suspected, but not tried or convicted, of terrorist activities.], excessive use of force and wide destruction of property." Guess the state to which this portion of the resolution best applies? Here's a hint: UPI reported that "[w]hile the voting was taking place, more than 20 Israeli tanks and army vehicles entered the Gaza Strip village of Beit Hanon and killed one Palestinian while wounding 18 others and arresting dozens."
*The resolution requested the introduction of an international monitoring force in the region, a proposal to which the Israelis have long objected, and one the US previously vetoed. Since May 1990, the United States has vetoed only six resolutions, all involving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Guess which side the US unfailingly supported--no matter what?
*Finally, the resolution recognized "the essential role of the Palestinian Authority [and Yasser Arafat], who remains the indispensable and legitimate partner for peace and needs to be preserved fully." Here, again, Britain's ambassador seemed to agree and is quoted by Reuters as saying, "It serves no one's interest to undermine President Arafat or to weaken the Palestinian Authority." The European Union continues to regard Arafat and the PA as necessary, in spite of Israel's declarations that Arafat is "irrelevant."
II: Is Arafat "Irrelevant"?
Define "irrelevant." In what sense, by what standard of measure, does anyone who is blamed for virtually every problem connected to this dispute become irrelevant?
An item from China's Xinhua news agency, "Israeli Cabinet Decides to Break All Contacts with Yasser Arafat" (filed December 12), reported that Israel's diplomatic-security cabinet "decided Arafat was 'directly responsible for the series of terror attacks and therefore decided that [he] is no longer relevant to the State of Israel and there will be no more contact with him.' "
Actually, Israel has been intent on rendering Arafat "irrelevant"--one way or another--for quite some time. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit--Israel's closest ally in the region--revealed 11 days ago that Ariel Sharon "openly expressed the desire to be rid of Mr. Arafat" during a telephone conversation. (See "Turkish PM says Sharon targets Arafat," BBC News, December 7.) Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, quickly issued a denial. No, there were no plans to topple Arafat.
Given Israel's extensive use of "extrajudiciary executions," concern arose in various quarters that Arafat might be assassinated. Sharon thought it necessary to assure Mr. Bush that he would not order this targeted killing. The same day the BBC story broke, Agence French-Presse reported that Sharon told visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher that Israel had "no intention of 'hurting' Arafat."
Define "hurting." Does instantaneous death--via missile, car bomb, or bullet--hurt? Perhaps Israel will leave this matter to Palestinians unfriendly to Arafat. [For a speculative but worthwhile consideration of who might replace Arafat, see David Plotz's "The Next Palestinian Leader: Who Will Follow Arafat?," originally posted December 7 on slate.com, recycled last Friday as "After Arafat."]
NEXT: The Blame Game
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
