BBC: US 'may not veto UN resolution on Jerusalem'

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.

It is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden."

more

[Violet_Crumble]

1. It's wrong how the US abuses its veto power...

What's wrong with voting based on whether something's right or wrong rather than 'protecting' or chiding an ally?

[Tripmann]

2. Well this could be interesting

Possibly another small piece of credibility for the US in brokering peace negotiations.

[Jefferson23]

3. Thank you for posting encouraging news, we shall see.

[shira]

4. Abba Eban on the UN...

"If Algeria introduced a UN resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Do you even bother reading posts you reply to?

That had nothing at all to do with the OP...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

6. You really need to ask that question considering how many posts I know you have replied to of Shiras

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It was a rhetorical question. I already know she doesn't read what she replies to.

:)

[shira]

9. The UN is a joke WRT Israel. That you take it seriously says more of you than anything else.

UN Human Rights Council slams Israel in 4 resolutions
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2010/03/24/happening-now-us-stands-alone-in-human-rights-council-votes-on-israel/

The UN Human Rights Council slammed Israel in 4 resolutions today, with another scheduled tomorrow. The Council’s five against Israel surpass the total combined amount of resolutions it will dedicate to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea.

Wonderfully progressive organization, huh? Scapegoating Israel to the detriment of tens of millions who suffer around the globe.

Nice.

F--k everyone else who suffers around the globe! ;) YEAH! The UN rawwwwwks!!! WOOT, WOOT!!!

As to the article, the Obama administration was elated at the fact that Israel agreed to a settlement freeze some 5 months ago, and that freeze purposely did not include Jerusalem. If Obama chooses to go this route, he risks losing the trust of the vast majority of Israelis on the entire peace process (and that's not too good as Israelis trusted Clinton and Bush). What motivation would Israel have (not just Nutty's administration) to make deals or concessions with the USA if the latter just pockets the concessions and doesn't follow through on its end? One reason Sharon got Israel out of Gaza was due to the trust he had in Bush to follow through on the USA's end (conceding land swaps based on the '67 borders which Obama denied). No such risks will be taken with Obama WRT the W.Bank if there is no trust.

Of course, if you're an advocate of the USA pressuring Israel to cave and hand everything to the PA without the PA having to negotiate, change or do anything in response, what kind of 'peace' do you expect will result once Israel is forced out of the W.Bank without a cooperative Palestinian peace partner?

Doesn’t this US government understand that if you prove yourself to be anti-Israel, you will destroy any incentive Israel has to enter negotiations with you as the mediator? Can it not comprehend that it is giving the PA every incentive to keep raising the price?

Can it not sense that if it undermines Israel’s trust in Washington, it will push the whole country further to the Right? If the US government politely asks to stop building in east Jerusalem in exchange for some tangible benefit and for a limited time, many Israelis would be willing to agree. But if this happens in a framework of enmity and threat, with the “reward” being no benefit and even more concessions to follow, even doves will grow sharp beaks.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171995

[azurnoir]

10. If the UN is so bad one would think Israel would withdraw

but there must be something in it for Israel huh? So whine away LOL

[shira]

12. Do you deny the UN's hostility vs. Israel?

On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.<41><42>

Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day). Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."<43>

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."<44> The European Union, Canada and the United States were also critical of the Council's focus on Israeli violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#UN_Secretaries_General

That doesn't really bother you, does it?

And yet, you would describe yourself as someone who cares for human rights?

[azurnoir]

13. so you support my contention? that's good

Israel should withdraw from a body that is so bigoted against it right? Unless of course the benefits to Israel somehow outweigh the detriments

[shira]

14. Again, do you agree the UN is bigoted towards Israel? Why is this so difficult for you to answer?

And why aren't you disturbed by the wiki quotes from my last post?

[azurnoir]

15. that question has nothing to do with my observation

which is that one would logically think that if Israel is really so disturbed by the UN then it should withdraw wouldn't you agree with that?

[shira]

16. Funny how you can never admit bigotry against Israel and stand up for oppressed millions worldwide

....who are being ignored by an organization that purports to champion human rights for all.

[azurnoir]

17. I neither admit or deny I merely made an observation

you on the other can not admit that remaining a UN member must somehow benefit Israel my question to you was merely rhetorical as I did not expect an answer

[shira]

18. But why not just admit it? What do you have to lose by doing so? Tell you what....

I'll answer your question once you answer mine, okay?

[azurnoir]

19. I have already answered just not the answer you wanted

playing quid pro quo will get you nowhere, as to your "answer" I really do not care as I said it was rhetorical

[Taitertots]

22. The answer to both of you is...

Israel is being held to a different standard as Palestine. The UN doesn't take the threats and attacks against Israel as seriously as it takes Israel's response to these actions. How can Israel loosen the blockade when they know it will cost Israeli lives?

Israel should not withdrawal because despite being treated less than fairly, it is the only body for them to defend themselves and their actions to the international community. There can't be a false dilemma where staying in the UN means they endorse every action of the body.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yeah, Israel has the protection of a permanent member of the Security Council...

And it's definately got different treatment in that regard. I've noticed it's mainly Americans with a decidedly RW stance on international affairs that whine away about how unfair the UN is, and that's because unlike in the US, the rest of the world doesn't slaver over Israel and merely shed crocodile tears when Israel does the wrong thing...

Uh, loosening up the blockade will not cost Israeli lives. It has and will continue to claim Palestinian lives, but that doesn't seem to matter to those who only care about the lives of Israelis..


Has it occured to you or Shira that maybe Israel should stop doing the wrong thing? Or do you both actually think Israel doesn't deserve the criticism it gets at the UN?

[shira]

28. It should have the protection of more nations against blocs of rogue states singling out Israel

Maybe you missed it, but these people aren't exactly RW Americans who have a problem with the UN's bigotry against Israel...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=307951&mesg_id=308095

Why are they wrong, Violet?

As to your question about Israel doing wrong things and that's why the UN (or blocs of rogue nations pick on them), tell me - if Israel always did the right thing would assholes like David Duke and shitheads running Iran stop their bigoted singling out of Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Ah, so the US shouldn't ever vote on what's right, but just play favourites?

That's the way RW Americans who hate the UN carry on.

Why do you always link to yr own posts which have nothing at all to do with the OP?

As to my question, you didn't answer it, but I gather from that question you fired off at me that you think it's acceptable for Israel to do the wrong thing because of David Duke. Here's an idea for True Believers such as yrself. How about insisting Israel behave the way all states are expected to behave and demand Israel do the right thing?

[shira]

32. The US often stands against the bigotry of a bloc of rogue nations that have a majority of UN votes

But being a closed-minded true believer, you can't even admit the UN is ridiculously biased and bigoted against Israel to the detriment of millions of people suffering under rogue regimes using Israel as a scapegoat in order to "look over there". You totally ignore what Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan have to say about the UN's bigotry.

:eyes:

My post #9, starting in the middle, has everything to do with the OP so it appears your reading comprehension is at issue here, not me.

As to Israel doing "the right thing", what does that have to do with the fact that most UNGA and UNSCR resolutions since 1948 have been directed against Israel (more than all other nations in the world combined)? Only a true-believer would deny this is a very serious problem.

You think the UN's ridiculously trumped up Goldstone Report, that had a bigot like Colonel Travers as its military expert on the panel, was an honest effort sponsored by the UN?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. The US has veto power in the Security Council so I don't know what yr going on about...

Criticising Israel for doing the wrong thing isn't bigotry, and I'm not the closed-minded True Believer who supports everything Israel does without question - you are.


Yes, you keep on labelling those who dare to criticise Israel when it does the wrong thing as bigots. As far as tactics go I know it's got me well on my way to loving Israel every bit as much as you do!

[shira]

36. And the US rightly used veto power to strike down the bigoted Goldstone Report...

....that a certain hateful bigot like Colonel Travers helped to create.

Would you really like to argue that the trumped up and bigoted Goldstone Report was something the USA shouldn't have vetoed?

I'm not sure why any liberal or progressive could back the Goldstone effort - and other stinky UN efforts like that - when so many millions of others around the world are suffering and need attention.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I see you yet again totally ignored the post yr replying to...

As I already said, criticising Israel is not bigotry and it gets really lame to see you flinging round the word *bigot* every sentence or so.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting into a pointless argument with you over any of yr pet obsessions that you bring up in thread after thread as it's very clear that you have no interest in having any sort of rational discussion on those issues, or even discussing the subject of the OP itself...

[shira]

43. Of course criticism of Israel is not bigotry when the obvious is denied.

We had a conversation about Colonel Travers and his remarks about certain Jews about a month ago, remember? Would you like to pretend that his stinky beliefs had nothing to do with his contribution to the UN report? A report that fabricated charges against Israel (and held back against Hamas) and that most Israeli leftists do not take seriously?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Yr still not bothering to read and digest what I'm telling you...

So here it is again.


As I already said, criticising Israel is not bigotry and it gets really lame to see you flinging round the word *bigot* every sentence or so.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting into a pointless argument with you over any of yr pet obsessions that you bring up in thread after thread as it's very clear that you have no interest in having any sort of rational discussion on those issues, or even discussing the subject of the OP itself...

[shira]

45. You're conflating

I don't argue that any or all criticism of Israel is bigotry. DU'ers like Oberliner, LB, and Pelsar are quite critical of Israel but I would never label their criticism as bigotry or demonization. There's a big difference between the 2 types of criticism and I'm certain you're aware of that, but you have this tendency to attribute twisted views to me that I don't have. Why is that Violet?

Why pretend that Travers' contribution to a UN report is not very questionable based on his own stinky bigotry?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. What utter bullshit. You do fling the bigotry accusation at most who criticise Israel...

And of the three DUers you dragged into this, two of them are rarely critical of Israel. And seeing there's little difference in the views of myself and the remaining DUer, and you have labelled my criticism as being antisemitic, obviously there's some other reason other than our actual beliefs and criticisms that leads you to make that judgement...

[shira]

51. Yeah, you should really think about why I don't feel at all that LB's views are bigoted

FTR, people like David Hirsch or Carlo Strenger are also quite critical of Israel and both LB and I don't have any problems with them. I may not always agree with their views but I'll never claim they are in any way bigoted.

Makes you wonder just what the difference is b/w Strenger, Hirsch, LB, etc.... and Ben White, Norm Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, etc.

Oh yeah - Pelsar and Oberliner are rarely critical of Israel. :rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

52. That's exactly what I was wondering seeing as how her views and my own on the conflict differ little

But there I go again speaking about my own views when an authority such as yrself is present to correct me! Is it possible for you to speak only for yrself? It's just that you have a tendency not to get things right when you talk about what other DUers say or think, so I'd prefer to hear other posters opinions on whether they have no problems with particular writers from themselves rather than from you...

You got it. Neither of them are often critical of Israel. Both of them are what I'd consider to be very firmly in the pro-Israel camp...

Anyway, I'm still wondering how you manage to twist things so badly that you can take two people with similar views on the conflict and label one as having antisemitic views on the conflict, while claiming the other doesn't...

[shira]

53. I've explained many times the difference between criticism and demonisation

One camp with Hirsch, Strenger and LB criticizes rationally (even if I don't always agree) and the other group commonly demonises very irrationally against Israel, employing bigoted tropes and memes.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Well, that's what you think you've been doing, but I must have missed the rational explanation...

I'm getting really confused here. How is my criticism of Israel irrational while another poster who holds very similar views on the conflict and levels the same sort of criticism is engaging in rational criticism? That makes no sense...

[shira]

55. I'm not sure why you believe your criticism of Israel is as rational as LB's

It's quite funny you think your views on I/P are similarly rational and unbiased.

[Tripmann]

56. I think the easiest way to clear this up guys is for shira

to post LBs and violets views on a particular I/P related topic. That way we can all see what she means.

[shira]

58. so Tripmann, you can't tell the difference either?

Tell me this....

Do you find LB's views on I/P to be closer to Pelsar and Oberliner or to you and Violet?

[LeftishBrit]

59. I'm the one to answer questions about my views, not anyone else

Here are my views on I/P, and people can come to whatever conclusion they wish about whether they agree with my views. I suspect that few here will agree with all of them.


I support Israel's continued existence in just the same way as I support the continued existence of any other country.

I support an end to the Occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

In support of this, I am strongly in favour of nonviolent protest against the Occupation, and would support unilateral declaration of independence if this occurred.

I am against any form of violent terrorism, especially against civilians.

I am against the blockade of Gaza and was totally against OCL.

I am against boycotting Israel. I am particularly against academic boycotts.

I am for America using aid as a 'carrot' and 'stick' in favour of peace. After all, they implicitly used it in the other direction for a while.

I consider that both Israel and Palestine are being brought down by their own right-wingers, especially the religious right.

I consider that a peaceful one-state solution would be the ideal - as would a progressive secular government in every state in the Middle East, pie in the sky, and gold raining from heaven. As none of these things are likely to happen in the near future, and as demanding the impossible in international politics generally = WAR, we should be looking toward the only possible solution: two states.

I support all projects leading to increased intercultural contact; and most of all, much more educational integration between Jews and Arabs in Israel from an early stage.

I consider that many people outside the region use the conflict to bolster their right-wing xenophobic views - on both sides. On one side, it can be used to justify antisemitism and more general xenophobic-isolationism; on the other, to justify Islamophobia, Europaean anti-immigrant bigotry, and American 'culture wars'. I consider that it's disgusting on both sides.

Israel with a population of about 7 million is NOT responsible for every evil in the world, not even in the Middle East, and is certainly not responsible for other countries' wars. No Israeli government has ever 'run' Britain, America, or any other country. (In fact, some Israeli governments haven't even managed to run Israel!) Demonizing Israel as the cause of all the world's evils is disgusting.

It is NOT true that human rights organizations only focus on Israel. Most human rights organizations are far from perfect, as are most organizations of any sort; but some pro-Israel groups demonize them in a way that can sound very much like some anti-Zionists' demonizations of Israel. The biggest danger of this is that it can lead to the very thing that it supposedly opposes - ignoring worldwide human rights abuses, as people may assume that there are no campaigns against oppressions in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Congo, etc., and may therefore not join and support such campaigns.

When evaluating any source, and especially any opinion-piece, whether pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian or neither, a good rule of thumb is that the Left may not always be Right, but the Right are almost invariably Wrong!

[oberliner]

62. Great post!

Glad you are part of this discussion forum!

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Maybe you could go through and point out what views you also hold?

I've done it and I would be interested to see you do the same....

[oberliner]

71. I don't see anything in the post that I would disagree with

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Thanks for posting that. I can see one area where we differ in our views...

And that's boycotting. When it comes to academic boycotts I used to oppose those, but recently have taken more of a *meh* line on them, but would go back to opposing them as well as boycotts of Israel (that's not including goods made in the Occupied Territories, which I'll always boycott as long as the Occupation continues) if Israel changed its treatment of Palestinian universities and put an end to the blockade of Gaza...

While I agree with what you said about a one-state vs two-state solution and while the idealist me supports a one-state solution and the pragmatist me supports a two-state solution and pragmatist me always wins out in most situations, my support of a two-state solution acknowledges that Israel's continued settlement activity is moving to the point where there won't be a way of creating two independent and viable states, and that trend needs to be stopped and reversed. I would hope and expect that there would be close economic ties between the two countries and that if things remained peaceful that in a matter of generations both states would have joined together into some sort of federation...

[Tripmann]

63. So, another claim

you can't back up.

Thought so.

[Taitertots]

35. You are creating another false dilemma

Just because the US vetoes unreasonable resolutions against Israel doesn't mean they can't be treated improperly. You can't say that the US/Israeli cooperation means anything that happens in the UN is biased toward Israel.


I don't think Israel deserves most of the criticism it receives. They are in a situation created outside their control with little options for them. They are not doing the wrong things, just stuck with unfavorable choices. Choices caused by failure of the international community to protect Israel in the past.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Actually, I'm not doing anything of the sort...

So you don't think Israel deserves to be criticised over its treatment of the Palestinian people and that Israel has no options. Just curious, but are you actually aware of what UN resolutions that the US has vetoed when it comes to Israel? Or do you automatically decide they're 'unfair' because they contain criticism of Israel?

[Taitertots]

57. Yes you did, now you are creating a straw man

Your straw man is that I don't think Israel can be criticized, or that any criticism of Israel is unfair.

Please stop mischaracterizing my beliefs and accusing me of straw man positions.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. No, I didn't. I'm going on exactly what you said in yr previous post...

Which was: 'I don't think Israel deserves most of the criticism it receives. They are in a situation created outside their control with little options for them.'

So, to clear things up, what criticism of Israel do you think is deserved and which isn't?

[Taitertots]

67. Yes, but it doesn't matter

If you were aware I posted:
"I don't think Israel deserves most of the criticism it receives. They are in a situation created outside their control with little options for them."

Why would you post:
"So you don't think Israel deserves to be criticized over its treatment of the Palestinian people and that Israel has no options"
I'm going to assume you understand how these are two dramatically different statements.

I think Israel should make conciliations regarding a more continuous west bank in exchange as a part of the peace process.
I think Israel need allocate more resources to Palestinian infrastructure.
I think Israel should not expand until the disputed borders are resolved.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Yeah, actually it does matter...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the discussion about criticism in the form of UN Resolutions? So, what criticism in what Resolutions do you think are actually deserved and which aren't? After all, you've read the Resolutions in question, haven't you?

Just on a side note, what you posted as an example of yr own personal criticism of Israel is actually a list of suggestions rather than criticisms. And that third one is really telling. You say that Israel shouldn't expand until the disputed borders are resolved. Until? So after the borders are resolved, then yr all for Israel expanding?

Do you support a viable and independent Palestinian state coming into being?

[LeftishBrit]

60. I think that Israel should stop doing the wrong thing, and so should all countries!

(more pie in the sky, I know...)

As regards the UN: I think that a lot of the argument implies that the UN is a different sort of organization than it actually is. It's not an impartial law court. It's a political organization. As such, it has quite possibly prevented a third world war. But it's been totally ineffective at preventing more localized conflicts; and the amount of criticism that it levels against a country tends to reflect a political popularity contest, more than some sort of utterly impartial justice.

Israel does deserve most of the criticism, but then so do plenty of countries that never get it.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Does it bother you how psychotic it sounds to say everyone is against you?

The entire planet disagrees with Israel's Occupation and treatment of Palestinians, and I will add Israeli Arabs to the mix.

[shira]

26. In the post you just responded to, I quoted from Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon WRT the UN on Israel

What part of their comments do you disagree with?

Is it not a fact that the UN has a history of bigotry towards Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I already know it's a fucking joke the way the US vetos things critical of Israel..

I take the abuse by the US of the Security Council very seriously. The OP is about the Us vote in the Security Council, so maybe you'd like to try addressing that instead of knee-jerking away about something the OP wasn't about?

[shira]

25. In the post you just responded to, I commented about the OP

Let's see now, can you admit the UN has been bigoted towards Israel and this has been to the detriment of millions of other people who suffer under rogue regimes that use Israel as their scapegoat?

[Violet_Crumble]

29. No, you ranted away about the HRC. The OP is about the US vote in the SC...

Try and focus on what the OP is about...

btw, I don't admit things that are delusional and paranoid fairy tales from True Believers...

[shira]

30. I'll quote myself from the middle of post #9 above which you obviously did not read

As to the article, the Obama administration was elated at the fact that Israel agreed to a settlement freeze some 5 months ago, and that freeze purposely did not include Jerusalem. If Obama chooses to go this route, he risks losing the trust of the vast majority of Israelis on the entire peace process (and that's not too good as Israelis trusted Clinton and Bush). What motivation would Israel have (not just Nutty's administration) to make deals or concessions with the USA if the latter just pockets the concessions and doesn't follow through on its end? One reason Sharon got Israel out of Gaza was due to the trust he had in Bush to follow through on the USA's end (conceding land swaps based on the '67 borders which Obama denied). No such risks will be taken with Obama WRT the W.Bank if there is no trust.

Of course, if you're an advocate of the USA pressuring Israel to cave and hand everything to the PA without the PA having to negotiate, change or do anything in response, what kind of 'peace' do you expect will result once Israel is forced out of the W.Bank without a cooperative Palestinian peace partner?

See, that's directly related to the OP. Guess you missed it.

As for delusional and paranoid fairy tales from true believers, in post #12, I quoted from the 2 secretary generals of the UN and here it is again...

On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.<41><42>

Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day). Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."<43>

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."<44> The European Union, Canada and the United States were also critical of the Council's focus on Israeli violations.

Are Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon delusional and paranoid true believers, Violet? ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

33. No, I stopped after the first few paragraphs of complete nonsense and emoticons...

But what you claim is about the OP has nothing to do with it anyway and I don't know why you want to waste people's time with crap about making deals or concessions with the US..

No, Kofi Anna and Ban Ki-Moon aren't delusional and paranoid true believers, and I never said they were, so cut the crap...

[shira]

37. Exactly - so like I said you didn't read it and falsely accused me of not commenting on the OP.

So why did Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon make such 'RW' comments about the UN's stinky bigotry that you claim does not exist? Moment of weakness perhaps? Perhaps the 'Lobby' made them do it? ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

42. If yr going to waste my time replying, at least read the post before replying...

I said:

But what you claim is about the OP has nothing to do with it anyway and I don't know why you want to waste people's time with crap about making deals or concessions with the US..

No, Kofi Anna and Ban Ki-Moon aren't delusional and paranoid true believers, and I never said they were, so cut the crap...




And what's with 'Perhaps the 'Lobby' made them do it?' What's that supposed to mean?

[shira]

69. I dealt with the OP regarding what America's vote would mean

Now once again, what do you think led Annan and Moon to make such conclusions about the UN's hostility and bias against Israel, if such hostility and bias doesn't exist?

[Tripmann]

8. Oh noes

A quote from an israeli politician who, shock horror, has something negative to say about the UN.

Anything relevant to the OP to add??

[IndianaGreen]

20. Eban said that a long time ago, when Israel still had the moral high ground

:-(

[shira]

27. Well what does that say for the UN then? That it was bigoted even before Israel "lost its way"...

...and that it hasn't changed since?

[proteus_lives]

70. Sad but true.

Israel will never get a fair shake at the UN.

[azurnoir]

11. Hopefully we do abstain it is really time

actually it's much more than time

[cqo_000]

38. US official says No Security Council initiative on Jerusalem

WASHINGTON – An Obama Administration official denied a recent BBC report according to which the US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli construction in east Jerusalem.

The official told Ynet on Tuesday, "There is no such initiative before the (Security) Council, and we are not pursuing or encouraging any such action."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3869905,00.html

[azurnoir]

46. LOL thanks what this means is that the thing was a

BS false flag aimed at smearing Obama and the US

[oberliner]

47. False flag aimed at smearing Obama and the US?

What are you basing that claim on? False flag by who? The BBC?

[azurnoir]

48. If there is no resolution on Jerusalem

it is a false flag where did the BBC get its info? From unnamed "diplomatic" sources hmmmm

[oberliner]

50. Always good to be suspicious of "unnamed sources"

Poor reporting by the BBC here.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Agree - 'unnamed sources' are frequently unreliable.

[Tarc]

39. I'd rather see a "yes" for a change

Though an abstain would be a good first step.