What Happens if the U.S. Uses the Veto on Palestine?

[TalonStrike]

Is that it? Would Palestine then be denied the right to become a state? Why would only the United States' opinion matter? Could the veto be overridden?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Terrorists need love too!

 

[iGas]

Is that it? Would Palestine then be denied the right to become a state? Why would only the United States' opinion matter? Could the veto be overridden?

IMHO, it would mean that the US in denial of the inevitable if Palestine is Veto. The US opinion does matter greatly on the UN, because the UN is on US soil and the US the is the main contributor. However, the US will isolate it self on the world stage if it keeps on going alone.

 

[cubby1223]

Luckily, though, world leaders don't form their opinions based on bloggers

 

[cubby1223]

Is that it? Would Palestine then be denied the right to become a state? Why would only the United States' opinion matter? Could the veto be overridden?

I'd suggest you take a refresher course on the U.N. and how it functions. Then come back an analyze how this Israel/Palestine situation fits in.

 

[gevorg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k40su7eHgIs

 

[dawp]

The request is to the General Assembly and the US only has veto power in the Security Council so the US may not be able to do anything except to bellyache about the vote.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The request is to the General Assembly and the US only has veto power in the Security Council so the US may not be able to do anything except to bellyache about the vote.

You do not know what you are talking about!!

the request has to go through the security council first!

The Palestinian effort to gain U.N. membership and recognition through a General Assembly vote is based on false assumptions. The General Assembly has no authority to override the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires a Security Council recommendation before admitting a new member state. The Uniting for Peace precedent has no bearing on this matter and is similarly unable to override the U.N. Charter. Moreover, the U.N. role in state recognition is nonexistent beyond being a reflection of the sovereign decisions of the member states. If the Palestinians push forward with their unilateral statehood scheme, they will escalate tensions with Israel and the United States, while hurting the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, the only realistic path to Palestinian statehood.

 

[theeedude]

USA can block it. But it will pay a price. All the good will that was generated from the support of the Arab spring, poof, gone. General Assembly can still vote to admit Palestine as an observer state, similar to Vatican and Switzerland until not too long ago, and the vote will expose just how isolated Israel is internationally.

 

[Whiskey16]

I have always wondered about the psychological ability for one to willingly repeat falsehoods and be comfortable in argumentative position of questionably proclaimed 'truth.'

Sure, a most common motivator and enabler is to be intentionally dishonest in order to promote a false narrative that supports/undermines the intent of the presenter. Yet there must be an immoral sensibility to permit such ease of whipping up a misrepresentation and then whole heartedly fabricating a narrative argument around that falsehood.

I may give a benefit of doubt toward ignorance and a blind ideological dogma where when facing corrections they must be flippantly discounted as nonsense simply out of such reality not being politically desirable. Though with the continued repetition of rebuttals of valid corrections facing his willing stubbornness to repeat errors, the deliveries b JEDIYoda may be best bluntly described as lies.

Crudely put, this is a common tactic in marketing/lobbying of "flinging shit in the hope it will stick."

Now the crutch of this little thesis is directed at JEDIYoda, who despite having been unequivocally corrected upon his perpetuating directive for Manufactured Deceit, continues belligerently forth with the same falsehood:

The Palestinian effort to gain U.N. membership and recognition through a General Assembly vote is based on false assumptions.

No, there is absolutely no bearing in reality for your continued complaint about the Palestinian Authority ever to consider nor attempt UN membership directly from the United Nations General Assembly.

Consistently the choices have been to petition the Security Council for membership to then be followed with a supporting vote in the General Assembly or directly approach the General Assembly for at least 2/3 thirds support for non-voting status within the UN..

We are currently witnessing the former of those choices, with the second and weaker option being still a possibility in the expectation of failing a positive return from the Security Council.

JEDIYoda, this is a fair request to respect others for discussion in this forum by acknowledging your error and to stop pushing forth that same argumentative failure all in an effort to remain argumentative.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do not know what you are talking about!!

the request has to go through the security council first!

The Palestinian effort to gain U.N. membership and recognition through a General Assembly vote is based on false assumptions. The General Assembly has no authority to override the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires a Security Council recommendation before admitting a new member state. The Uniting for Peace precedent has no bearing on this matter and is similarly unable to override the U.N. Charter. Moreover, the U.N. role in state recognition is nonexistent beyond being a reflection of the sovereign decisions of the member states. If the Palestinians push forward with their unilateral statehood scheme, they will escalate tensions with Israel and the United States, while hurting the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, the only realistic path to Palestinian statehood.

Can you see that from a Palestinian perspective what you call the only realistic path to statehood no longer appears realistic? 1948 was a long time ago to the minds of the young. I think the Palestinians feel hopeless and have been helped to feel that way. The settlements look like a land grab to me, just like we pushed the Indians off their land here in the good old USA except it's a different age. I rather think the Palestinians see such things far far more than me. What the Jews have done in my opinion is create massive hate and then claim security issues. Yeah, of course. When you stick somebody in the eye eventually everybody goes blind long after the original eye stickers are dead. There is no cause and effect now. There is just total insanity on both sides. The Israelis and the Palestinians are both fucked by fucking each other. They are a cancer on the world to the point where more and more, fewer and fewer people give a fuck about either side. Hate is contagious.

 

[TalonStrike]

The request is to the General Assembly and the US only has veto power in the Security Council so the US may not be able to do anything except to bellyache about the vote.

Good. Palestine should become a state.

 

[SandEagle]

You do not know what you are talking about!!

the request has to go through the security council first!

The Palestinian effort to gain U.N. membership and recognition through a General Assembly vote is based on false assumptions. The General Assembly has no authority to override the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires a Security Council recommendation before admitting a new member state. The Uniting for Peace precedent has no bearing on this matter and is similarly unable to override the U.N. Charter. Moreover, the U.N. role in state recognition is nonexistent beyond being a reflection of the sovereign decisions of the member states. If the Palestinians push forward with their unilateral statehood scheme, they will escalate tensions with Israel and the United States, while hurting the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, the only realistic path to Palestinian statehood.

look, i can use exclamation marks too!! how ironic of you to concern yourself over UN matters. only when it is convenient for you, eh!! but you turn a blind eye on the hundreds of UN rsolutions that Israel is guilty of violating. dont be such an obtuse hippocrite.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The US should abstain in the security council vote (with a backroom agreement with the Israelis). Then, sell more arms and goodies to Israel. Israel should, in good faith, end the settlements, pull out and tell the world that they are giving the Palestinians another chance.

Then, when the "state" of Palestine attacks Israel (again), they can crush them (again) and annex the territory for good.

If the Israelis do not agree to the above, then we should just veto their bid, end aid and openly side with Israel. It is better to be a true friend or a true enemy.

 

[Whiskey16]

Then, when the "state" of Palestine attacks Israel, they can crush them (again) and annex the territory for good.

Just as illegal and condemnable as it is now.

No solution there, buddy.

Though at such a point, Israel will be the aggressor upon an equal at the UN. Even it fails this Security Council bid and only advances with the less than an equal of a non-voting status at the United Nations, a Palestinian government gains the strong moral and diplomatic avenue with access to the International Criminal Court to indict the state of Israel and its authors of policy for high international crimes of aggression.

Israel and the USA wish to avoid any diplomatic gains upon the Palestinians -- regardless of the injustice and criminal intent of their actions. A weak and relative non-UN entity that remains the Palestinians (on past resolutions marked as the PLO) is what the nefarious states of the USA and Israel demand.

Schadenfroh, I see that you are along with Nebor and JEDIYoda as advocates for the greater application of military arms by Israelis with a wet-dream commitment to a more violent and explicit act of state expansion and ethnic cleansing.

• Watching past videos of the Poles face the onslaught of Germans and Soviets may prompt happy dreams for you ill lot. Or is it viewed differently upon those who are more brown and possibly Muslim?

That point is quite blunt but entirely accurate in its historical equivalence. If you dislikes the past Germany state policy of lebensraum, then don't be hypocrites and advocate Israel doing the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just as illegal and condemnable as it is now.

No solution there, buddy.

Schadenfroh, I see that you are along with Nebor and JEDIYoda as advocates for the greater application of military arms by Israelis with a wet-dream commitment to a more violent and explicit act of state expansion and ethnic cleansing.

• Watching past videos of the Poles face the onslaught of Germans and Soviets may prompt happy dreams for you ill lot. Or is it viewed differently upon those who are more brown and possibly Muslim?

That point is quite blunt but entirely accurate in its historical equivalence. If you dislikes the past Germany state policy of lebensraum, then don't be hypocrites and advocate Israel doing the same.

You always become what you fear. All those who are brutalized become brutal in turn when they can. Hate is contagious. You either take your hate up on the cross and let it die there or you become another agent in the destruction of the human race. Hate is a death wish externalized. You hate the other knowing someday he will kill you. To hate is to long for death because hate is the soul killer. To live without soul is to suffer in hell. Only love for one another can save the human race. The greatest critics of Israel are Jews, Jews who love and the same with the Palestinians.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Just as illegal and condemnable as it is now.

No solution there, buddy.

So, let me get this straight - you are advocating the right of the Palestinian state to attack Israel?

 

[Whiskey16]

So, let me get this straight - you are advocating the right of the Palestinian state to attack Israel?

No. You are making crap up.

It is bad form to take another out of context:

..they [Isreal] can crush them (again) and annex the territory for good.

You very well knew what I was referring to. Please do not again fling shit to be needlessly argumentative.

 

[SamurAchzar]

It is bad form to take another out of context:You very well knew what I was referring to. Please do not again fling shit to be needlessly argumentative.

Yes, I know all too well what you have been referring to. Talking about taking things out of context:

Israel should, in good faith, end the settlements, pull out and tell the world that they are giving the Palestinians another chance.

Then, when the "state" of Palestine attacks Israel (again), they can crush them (again) and annex the territory for good.

So, let me repeat myself, are you advocating the Palestinian right to attack Israel?

 

[Whiskey16]

Yes, I know all too well what you have been referring to.

No, you fabricated a tangent.

SamurAchzar, you are not learning. You are still flinging shit:

So, let me repeat myself, are you advocating the Palestinian right to attack Israel?

I was concise in my binary answer to you. That explicitly written word was, "No."

:whiste:

As far as I am concerned, your tit-for-tat with me is over.

 

[SamurAchzar]

No, you fabricated a tangent.

Judging by the rest of your post I could not have trusted you to really understand the question.

As far as I am concerned, your tit-for-tat with me is over.

Don't be a party breaker. Let's play for some more.

SamurAchzar, you are not learning. You are still flinging shit:

I was concise in my binary answer to you. That explicitly written word was, "No."

:whiste:

So together we've established that a Palestinian state does not, in fact, have a right to attack the state of Israel.

Now, let me ask you another question: do you think the Palestinian state will attack Israel, despite not having a right to do so?

 

[Whiskey16]

Now, let me ask you another question: do you think the Palestinian state will attack Israel, despite not having a right to do so?

Under international law a state has a right to self defence.


You venture forth with hypotheticals?

Let us witness you recognising the present day reality of:

• The status-quo is of Israel illegally occupying and under military support, colonising lands beyond its territory.

That is a war of aggression and of cause to warrant military reaction.

The Palestinian Authority, rather than taking up arms against such aggression of high crimes, is:

In fact, the power of Abbas’s strategy lies in the fact that he and his team are actually doing what the world has been asking the Palestinians to do for decades: working within the framework of international law and institutions.

The moral litmus test is against Israel, SamurAchzar.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Under international law a state has a right to self defence.

You get A+ from me. Israel, as a recognized state, in fact has the right for self defense, including the occupation of territories if unjustly attacked, in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. In case Israel is attacked, it has full right, under International Law, to retaliate with occupation and possibly annexation.

You venture forth with hypotheticals?

Let us witness you recognising the present day reality of:

• The status-quo is of Israel illegally occupying and under military support, colonising lands beyond its territory.

That is a war of aggression and of cause to warrant military reaction.

The Palestinian Authority, rather than taking up arms against such aggression of high crimes, is:



The moral litmus test is against Israel, SamurAchzar.

But of course, I wasn't discussing the situation at present, and neither was Schadenfroh in his original post. The base assumption was a situation where in the Palestinians have their own sovereign state with no Israeli occupation whatsoever. You might want to stick to the discussion and not jump between different scenarios as dictated by your rhetoric.

 

[Matt1970]

Under international law a state has a right to self defence.


You venture forth with hypotheticals?

Let us witness you recognising the present day reality of:

• The status-quo is of Israel illegally occupying and under military support, colonising lands beyond its territory.

That is a war of aggression and of cause to warrant military reaction.

The Palestinian Authority, rather than taking up arms against such aggression of high crimes, is:



The moral litmus test is against Israel, SamurAchzar.

You have a delusional way of looking at things. The very fact the Palestine is even here shows Israel's restraint.

 

[Pulsar]

You get A+ from me. Israel, as a recognized state, in fact has the right for self defense, including the occupation of territories if unjustly attacked, in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. In case Israel is attacked, it has full right, under International Law, to retaliate with occupation and possibly annexation.



But of course, I wasn't discussing the situation at present, and neither was Schadenfroh in his original post. The base assumption was a situation where in the Palestinians have their own sovereign state with no Israeli occupation whatsoever. You might want to stick to the discussion and not jump between different scenarios as dictated by your rhetoric.

Thank you Samurachzar. Concise, to the point, and Mr. Waxing Eloquent over there doesn't get to try to weasel out of his own word smithing.

I agree. Give them a state. Try to help them succeed. If, however, the palestinians decide to attack in force, then it's over. The argument then will be what constitutes "in force". I.E., what level of response Israel is justified in using when they ARE attacked.