Saturday, September 16, 2006
US veto at the UN - a slap on the face of world opinion
11 March, 1997
The Editor
The Daily
Mumbai
Dear Sir
Each time, US uses its veto against Palestinian demands and in favour of Israel, it bleeds.
The overall US position is that UN is not the forum to fine tune responses that a tangled affair like Arab- Israel calls for. It is therefore, basically the failure of US's own diplomacy that drags the matter to the world forum. If President Clinton could have foreseen adverse Palestinian response to any attempt to build Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, which is not very improbable, and if so, then he is unnecessarily tarnishing his own country's credit in the world, after investing so much goodwill into the resolution of Palestine-Israel conflict. Vetoing a UN resolution, and that too sponsored by its own European allies, is, as always, a slap on the face of world opinion. A very grave insult indeed.
Yassar Arafat would not have to approach the UN at every turn, if the machinery to implement Palestine-Israeli accord had more teeth. On the other hand, if Arafat has gone on to UN with a view to strengthen the Clinton administration's hand in curbing Israeli intransigence, then the attempt has back fired. Jerusalem's status in international legal terms is still undecided and the US has all along been very scrupulous in sticking to the legality of the matter. It is therefore surprising that it has shown so muted a response to Israel's usurpation of Arab properties and plans to build Jewish settlements in that part of Jerusalem which Palestinians have, more or less, resigned to accept, as possibly its part of the eventual capital of the future State of Palestine.
#248
The Editor
The Daily
Mumbai
Dear Sir
Each time, US uses its veto against Palestinian demands and in favour of Israel, it bleeds.
The overall US position is that UN is not the forum to fine tune responses that a tangled affair like Arab- Israel calls for. It is therefore, basically the failure of US's own diplomacy that drags the matter to the world forum. If President Clinton could have foreseen adverse Palestinian response to any attempt to build Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, which is not very improbable, and if so, then he is unnecessarily tarnishing his own country's credit in the world, after investing so much goodwill into the resolution of Palestine-Israel conflict. Vetoing a UN resolution, and that too sponsored by its own European allies, is, as always, a slap on the face of world opinion. A very grave insult indeed.
Yassar Arafat would not have to approach the UN at every turn, if the machinery to implement Palestine-Israeli accord had more teeth. On the other hand, if Arafat has gone on to UN with a view to strengthen the Clinton administration's hand in curbing Israeli intransigence, then the attempt has back fired. Jerusalem's status in international legal terms is still undecided and the US has all along been very scrupulous in sticking to the legality of the matter. It is therefore surprising that it has shown so muted a response to Israel's usurpation of Arab properties and plans to build Jewish settlements in that part of Jerusalem which Palestinians have, more or less, resigned to accept, as possibly its part of the eventual capital of the future State of Palestine.
#248
