UN vote for Israeli withdrawal from Palestine incurs strong Washington Oppositon

[Jukai]

Equus needs to name drop who was the snitch was so we can have a blanket party.

 

[Rod1]

The Palestinian vote was a procedural draft. They could have voted no and it still could have passed.

Procedural drafts cant be vetoed, there is no such thing as UN veto as he was implying in his post "Voted against but didint veto".

Also how was it procedural if its asking for the removal of Israeli troops?

 

[Jukai]

Procedural drafts cant be vetoed, there is no such thing as UN veto as he was implying in his post "Voted against but didint veto".

Also how was it procedural if its asking for the removal of Israeli troops?

You can veto a procedural draft, but you can also vote no.

But I may be wrong on the procedural/significant voting thing. I thought they weren't actually literal, just procedural and significant are two different levels of resolutions. I am having trouble looking up info on it.

Edit: Substantive resolutions apply to essential legal principles and rules of right, analogous to substantive law, in contrast to procedural resolutions, which deal with the methods and means by which substantive items are made and administered.

Hypothetically, the 'substantive resolutions' were previous resolutions that said Israel had to get the fuck out of Palestine. This was a procedural resolution was telling them when and how. But I'm beginning to have doubts about whether it was a Substantive or Procedural resolution because different articles are using different language.

 

[dissolved]

Equus needs to name drop who was the snitch was so we can have a blanket party.

It wasn't me, so that narrows it down significantly

 

[dissolved]

*edit* just reread the OP article again.

 

[Sauron]

I just heard on the CBC news this morning that the Palestinian proposal that was rejected was for Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders . . . Is this accurate? If so, sounds like a wishing for the moon proposal.

That's where these things start.

Before you know it (and Israel knows it) there's all manner of sanctions that snowball into something much bigger. Political protection via the UNSC is probably more important than anything else for Israel. The problem is that the USA lacks a spine to confront Israel. They'd rather take bibi's insults and slights than use their huge leverage over Israel to make them compromise.

 

[Rod1]

You can veto a procedural draft, but you can also vote no.

No, you cant, as i said before, there is no such thing as UN security council veto.

A country either votes yes or no, if a P5 votes no, then it doesnt passes, but if it abstains or its a procedural draft, then it passes.

But I may be wrong on the procedural/significant voting thing. I thought they weren't actually literal, just procedural and significant are two different levels of resolutions. I am having trouble looking up info on it.

Procedural are resolutions that have really no effect to my understanding, like for example calling for a solution to the palestinian conflict but without establishing a time limit or conditions, basically worthless.

Hypothetically, the 'substantive resolutions' were previous resolutions that said Israel had to get the fuck out of Palestine. This was a procedural resolution was telling them when and how. But I'm beginning to have doubts about whether it was a Substantive or Procedural resolution because different articles are using different language.

Its the other way around, procedural are the worthless one, thats why the P5 put their veto power in said resolutions (the ones with actual consequences).

That being said, there is no such thing as veto power, if a law passes then it passes. The issue is that it cant pass if a P5 votes against which is effectively a veto.

 

[Jukai]

No, you cant, as i said before, there is no such thing as UN security council veto.

A country either votes yes or no, if a P5 votes no, then it doesnt passes, but if it abstains or its a procedural draft, then it passes.



Procedural are resolutions that have really no effect to my understanding, like for example calling for a solution to the palestinian conflict but without establishing a time limit or conditions, basically worthless.



Its the other way around, procedural are the worthless one, thats why the P5 put their veto power in said resolutions (the ones with actual consequences).

That being said, there is no such thing as veto power, if a law passes then it passes. The issue is that it cant pass if a P5 votes against which is effectively a veto.

I pulled the info on the difference between procedural and substantive from Britannica and wikipedia. I know that's not a great source but do you have something better?

But you seem to be right on not being able to veto a procedural vote.

Edit: It appears the difference between procedural and substantive votes are widely contested to the point where they will actually hold votes on whether an issue is procedural or substantive

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Equus needs to name drop who was the snitch was so we can have a blanket party.

Only one person called names, but I'm not gonna blow up his spot. He knows who he is and he should feel bad.

 

[dissolved]

That's where these things start.

Before you know it (and Israel knows it) there's all manner of sanctions that snowball into something much bigger. Political protection via the UNSC is probably more important than anything else for Israel. The problem is that the USA lacks a spine to confront Israel. They'd rather take bibi's insults and slights than use their huge leverage over Israel to make them compromise.

I think in general the US is okay with the status quo in the region. There would be a significant amount of cost and potential regression of infrastructure, balancing of power that isn't worth it all in the end tbh. And the fact remains, that a "we're at war with Israel" has been a constant from the Palestinians and most of their supporters. So what has been historically a situation of constant chaos is in a form stability which for the U.S. and many other countries is good enough.

 

[Rod1]

I pulled the info on the difference between procedural and substantive from Britannica and wikipedia. I know that's not a great source but do you have something better?

But you seem to be right on not being able to veto a procedural vote.

Edit: It appears the difference between procedural and substantive votes are widely contested to the point where they will actually hold votes on whether an issue is procedural or substantive

It also appears that any of the P5 can change a procedural resolution to substantive effectively giving them total veto power against any resolution.

Anyway the point as i said, still remains there is no such thing as an scenario where the US voted against but didnt veto. If a resolution passes it passes and if it doesnt, it doesnt.

 

[Jukai]

It also appears that any of the P5 can change a procedural resolution to substantive effectively giving them total veto power against any resolution.

Anyway the point as i said, still remains there is no such thing as an scenario where the US voted against but didnt veto. If a resolution passes it passes and if it doesnt, it doesnt.

And for that, it looks like you are right.

 

[weed]

I think in general the US is okay with the status quo in the region. There would be a significant amount of cost and potential regression of infrastructure, balancing of power that isn't worth it all in the end tbh. \

I disagree. The US treats all the rest of the countries one way or another but then on a separate category alone, is how we "treat" Israel - in many cases you can argue we adhere to Israel more than we don't. this in turn not only earns us enmity from the Arab world but from all other countries as well.

you know how frustrating it is to read on here all the time people saying the "US is Israel's bitch"? we're supposed to be the most powerful nation on Earth, & should have respect from all countries under the Sun considering our citizens/immigrants come from all of these countries. yet we favor Israel like no other, supporting them financially, politically & the like & in turn what do we get? we taint our reputation further when she disregards international law & UN policies & regulations. our relationship with Israel is un-American through & through.

God forbid we experience another terrible terrorist attack - when these terrorists see Israel carry on as she pleases, they look on to us. to not have have that threat looming over us would be well worth it, way better than it is now.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

Chomsky said Israel is or should be viewed as a U.S. military base (like one) and an arm of American global hegemony. I can see how from a foreign policy perspective Israel is "good". We currently control that advanced radar in Israel and decide how much or what advanced weapons they get and they are guaranteed things from us because many of our politicians are loyal to Israel.

However, when our leaders are not playing empire does Israel really provide more to us than some other nations?

I think not.

Israel helps the "Empire" and so our empire playing leaders who love war so long as it does not effect them often find an ally in Israel as Israel is willing to do dirty work and hurt its image so long as it has conditional congressional American backing.

Past presidents have tried and have stood up to Israel before with outrage from AIPAC bought members of congress


Remember George Bush Sr anyone? He stood up to Israel and traitorous or insane members of congress called for his head! as did all Christian Zionist.

Remember Carl Levin spewing his hate of Obama because Obama was NOT bowing to Israel? And how Faux news spins it to make Obama seem like a practicing Muslim who hates the west and therefore ONLY standing with Israel is the right thing?

 

[weed]

Senator Lindsey Graham said "turning our back on Israel is turning our back on God" or something.


does he mean Israel & everything pursued to benefit & her interests come first, & all laws established & obeyed by man come after?

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

Lindsay Graham tried to say that Chuck Hagel is the "most Anti Israel" Secretary of Defense "we have ever had"

and that is NOT true.

James Forrestral was Secretary of Defense and tried to prevent Israel from even being created, he pressured lobbied Truman to NOT go through with the Vote. George Marshall was also opposed to creation of Israel.

So those two were definitely more anti Israel than Hagel and Caspar Weinberg, Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary was considered by pro Israel crowd to be "anti Israel".


Id encourage anyone in South Carolina to do their best to throw Lindsey Graham out of office because he OBVIOUSLY HAS DUAL LOYALTIES!

 

[weed]

^^ damn didn't know he was from SC. I have a LOT of family in NC & drove down to SC plenty of times. the people there are friendly as all hell. can't believe they elected this d-bag.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

They probably don't know what they are electing!

Of course there are exceptions. There are crazy right wing Christians who worship Israel and want world war III to happen because only then can they be saved. There are also some people who don't care how many Palestinians Israel slaughters because to them palestinians are always just dead brown muslims so they don't care!.

But they would likely care if the dead children were white and Christian!


You should tell your family the truth and make light of Mr Graham's apparent DUAL LOYALTIES

 

[weed]

haha they're Jehova's Witnesses. you think they would vote for him?

 

[spin]

US taking Israel's side.. this is something new?

it's almost as if they are allies