Syria Urges U.S. Not to Veto UN Resolution on Raid

[salin]

Syria Urges U.S. Not to Veto UN Resolution on Raid

By Inal Ersan

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria urged the United States on Monday not to block a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel's air strike near Damascus, saying Washington should help prevent escalation of tensions in the Middle East.


"We hope that the United States does not use the veto and that it practices its role as a superpower in preventing aggression and escalation," an official source at the Foreign Ministry told Reuters.


"We hope that the United States joins those who condemned this aggressive operation and those are the vast majority in the world community," the source said.


Syria called an emergency Security Council meeting on Sunday over Israel's attack to secure a measure that condemns the raid, saying it threatened regional and international peace.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/ts_nm/mideast_syria_usa_dc

[bicentennial_baby]

1. They will

Of course the U.S. will veto it...another failed reslution in the fatally flawed UN Security Council...Kofi's right, we need UN reform NOW!

[Flying_Pig]

2. Israel: Full-fledged co-conspirator in U.S./PNAC plans....

for world domination, the political subjugation of the Middle East, and the capture of its oil resources.

Of course, the U.S. will veto. There will be no hope for the U.N., until they re-organize, move from the U.S., and take away U.S. veto power. As it is very unlikely any of that will ever happen, the next best thing is the election of a Dem president, one who will honor good world citizenship.

[Josh]

5. I try to stay to stay out of these threads, but I have a question -

why is it okay for the US to retaliate against terrorist training camps (Afghanistan, 1998; Yemen, 2002) but it's not okay for Israel to do it?

And why does the non-mainstream left continue to side with terrorists all the time? It's hard being on this side of the spectrum sometimes.

[even]

6. Israel can do

whatever it wants when it quits picking my pocket. This is a failed state that can't exist without our patronage. Whatever happens WE PAY FOR IT!

[Josh]

8. Yes, you pay for it -

the United States has an incredibly symbolic and historical link to Israel and it's the ONLY country in the middle east that is friendly to the US. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Israel warned the US that they were coming in (too bad no one was listening, of course). You think Saudi Arabia would have warned you?

Like it or lump it, the US needs allies in the world and it needs them desperately in the middle east, and Israel is the US's number one (and only) ally over there, and the reason they get your money (so does Egypt by the way - $3BILLION A YEAR, but you don't complain about them at all despite the fact that they're an oppressive, unelected regime) is because the United States decided a long time ago (during the Yom Kippur War) that they would sit by and watch Israel, surrounded by 25 countries who wish it didn't exist, storm its borders and wipe its citizens off the face of the Earth.

And what the hell do you mean by a 'failed state'?

[Evil_Dewers]

15. Why do you think Saudi Arabia hates the US?

I'd say one huge reason is the US support for Israel--no matter what crimes Israel commits.

The US could pick up 25 allies in the middle east if they flushed Israel down the toilet.

Israel is a failed state w/o $4 billion annually coming from US taxpayers and billions in unsecured "loans" from the US which will never be paid back.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Most Israeli Aid Never Leaves The U.S.

It goes to all those wonderful defense contractors and bankers.

Israel's problem is over 5 decades on non-stop war has created a nation under duress. Sharon/Likud is preying on this sentiment but their goal has never been peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians, it's been the expulsion from Judea and Sumaria. Couple this with RW Christian Coalition born-agains like the Whistle Ass and expect further escalation.

Sadly, yesterday crossed a big line...attacking Syria. I see Sharon standing there daring Assad to hit him back.

[The Stranger]

27. Josh, my friend, repeating here what the media spews will not get you

that to which you are no doubt accustomed. Israel is now the agressor, and everyone realizes this; there is no symbolic or historical link other than billions in aid; the billions given Irael (most of which is hidden as grants or loan guarantees) massively dwarfs aid given to all other nations combined; and U.S. policy in the region has cost it its true historical allies in Europe and, indeed, even Asia; the pathetic, tribal desert regimes (some of which are occupied by Israel) you paint as "25 countries who wish it didn't exist" would best be termed as laughable, if they only rose to that level.

[salin]

9. Siding with terrorists? Or fearing escalation that is unstoppable?

There are many who recognize the dilemna that Israel faces. Years of being faced with rhetoric of "running the Jews into the Sea", and policies of neighbors that reinforced that attitude/fear.

But who see that the current means of handling the situation is working to exacerbate the problem. Such that fear on both sides is so high - and to each side so justifiable - that for now it appears to be an unending, escalating violent stand-off. And that this situation only puts all citizens, Israeli and Palestinian, at great risk of violence.

It is a great problem that few with strong passions in this area are able to "see" both sides of the problem, and validate concerns on both sides of the problem - without doing so a viable "equation" (solution) can not be found.

Why is recognizing that the Israeli's have a serious security issue, and that their fears, escalated by terrorist attacks that harden the longer term fears of the rhetoric (the denial of the right to Israel's existence - though that rhetoric is not a common stand among surrounding countries as it was in the past - but the fears and memories linger), is seen as being appologists? The current cycles of violence only serve to make more intractable these fears.

Then again, why is recognizing that the aggressive pace of establishing settlements, and the current 'retalitory' strikes have not been effective - and only have served to escalate the violence, and that rational people without a bone to pick would recognize that the counter-reaction of the Palestinians is rather predictable, why is this seen as being "on the side of terrorists?"

Right now - with no intervention - each side is between a rock and a hard place. And without intervention - the problems are escalating to a very dangerous point that could easily tip into regional, full-scale war. This event would put all Israeli's at much greater risk than they currently face. It would put the Palestian's at greater risk than they currently face. This is at a crisis point.

No solution will be found until each side can to at least a degree, understand the motivations of the other side - and thus in the solution address them.

I tend to stay out of these discussions as it tends to be viewed in a black/white non-complex way in which each side is righteous and anyone espousing views that do not fall in line with position a or position b are vilified.

I believe the time for vilification needs to be behind us. Lest the situation be left to continue to move from a slow boil to a very dangerous, regional, lethal, war.

[Josh]

10. Thank you -

I agree with a lot of what you said, and yours was a reasoned and thoughtful argument - something I almost never find here when the discussion point is Israel. Usually the "discussion" is just one person writing, "Likud/Sharon want to rule the world. PNAC this, Bush that, Sharon's a fascist/Nazi."

I'm sick of it. Thank you for your civilised discussion. Now, let's get the hell out of this thread before it becomes just like all the others.

Cheers.


Josh

[Flying_Pig]

11. My support for Israel ended, when they chose Sharon and his...

fascist Likud party to govern the country. Sharon is a war criminal, and I cannot, and will not, support him.

Then, there is the aspect that Israel has allied itself with U.S. fascist neocons (PNAC & the Bush Regime), who are in the process of starting world wars for oil and real estate. What's to support here?

That said, I support those Israelis who stand for democracy and peace, and there are many. Further, I support the concept of the nation of Israel, but not the way they're going about it. Sharon, the Likud, and the right-wing religious parties allied with them, want nothing less than the destruction of the idea of a Palestinian state, and to institute apartheid. This will not bring peace to Israel, nor the Middle East.

Does that answer your questions?

[Evil_Dewers]

14. Josh

Why do some DU'ers support the repressive, ultra-right wing Likud party headed by terrorist Ariel Sharon?

Did Israel make a case that a supposed Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in another country (Syria) planned and funded the latest bombing in Israel? Or did Israel just act out in order to look like they were doing something?

Rummy and Wolfie and Condi wanted to blow the shit out of Iraq after 9/11 to make it appear the US was doing something.

[Kitsune]

16. It's not okay.

Killing people is never okay, and it only creates more terrorists anyway.

[The Stranger]

23. You mean

And why does the non-mainstream left continue to side with terrorists all the time?

You mean siding with Sharon, Likud and state-sponsored terrorism?

Good question.

[Tinoire]

25. It's not ok for the US either

This war on a noun, on terrorism, is a fraud to further our own imperialistic goals.

We mostly create the terror wherever we need an excuse to invade.

I condemn both countries. Israel and my own. We are both on the same agenda and have been for a long time. Anglo-saxon domination is all it is- the British Empire marching on with humans pawns paying the price...

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. How can the US veto something

that they approved of?

Sharon did not do this without the WH and Pentagon both being fully informed.

[Paulie]

4. If they do

The Syria will take it to the General Assembly. We'll see what happens then!

[Spazito]

7. Seeing as the US is still trying to get a resolution passed...

on Iraq, doesn't this put them in a bit of a quandry? If the majority of countries support the Syrian resolution and the US vetoes it, that will also shoot the US resolution down in flames, imo.

[tinnypriv]

12. Rules are rules

If you have to go to war in Iraq to enforce technical violations of UN security council resolutions, I'm pretty sure you have to vote "Yes" on a resolution condemning a violation of the UN charter.

[legin]

13. The problem is

this is going to make the UN look a bit weak.

So a resolution is presented to the UN Security Council even if the u.s. don't veto it (which they will), what happens after that ?

Nothing probably, except that the Likudniks will be going around on all the major television networks saying how this shows the traditional anti-semitism of the UN.

I have to say that this attack has proved to be slightly disheartening, because it shows that not only can the right-wing take the piss with impunity, but they quite enjoy doing it too.

After that wonderful day we had a few days ago with Limpballs going down it almost seems like this is a reply to it from the right wing.

Anyway, no worries, I will recover my normal mean and nasty demeanor in a very short space of time. ;-)

[Tommy_Douglas]

17. The UN has already been shown to be weak...

Much like the League of Nations when Hitler told it to take off...

The UN only succeeded when you had the main powers playing within its structure. The United States under Bush has shown no interest whatsoever in what other nations thought of its actions and as such they've severely damaged the ability of the U.N. to function in a relevant manner.

[legin]

20. Yup n/t

.

[legin]

21. Possibly

The only reason the UN existed anyway was because of the Soviet Union.

The u.s. needed something that could get as many allies in its corner as posible, and to legitimise the actions of the u.s. as well as condemn the actions of the Soviets.

Now the u.s. has the complete run of the planet, possibly the UN's only function now as far as the u.s. is concerned, is to be a hinderence to the interests of the u.s. as the right wing see them.

[legin]

22. Also

thinking about the guiding philosophy behind the PNAC report and that behind the UN, it is difficult to see how they can co-exist in the same universe.

So with the neo-cons is not just the I/P issue, it is also about the ideas that shape the world. The neo-cons know in advance that at some stage they are going to have a battle with the UN, it is just built in to the situation. And now is a good a time as any to have it.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Tommy_Douglas!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[legin]

19. It's a rather a strange thing

to give the green light to, when you are trying to get a resolution through the UN to get international troops for Iraq, and there is the donors conference coming up in two or three weeks.

The neo-cons were apparently unhappy about bush* going back to the UN and trying to internationalise the situation, so perhaps they have had a chat with Sharon to get him to torpedo the initiative.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. All of the above

I believe this is their new product for fall roll out. Expanding the war in the Middle East, with Israel in the lead (their troops are rested and ready) and creating a crisis at the UN. It's all part of the plan, except this time they didn't go to anyone for approval. While everyone was trying to figure out if Arnold is a Nazi and is Maria anorexic, Rummie and his civilians where helping Sharon getting ready for Phase III.