Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    20 Dec '17 14:35
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/jerusalem-haley-sends-threatening-letter-members-171220082816709.html

    US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has sent a threatening letter to members of the UN General Assembly ahead of a vote on a resolution against the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    In the letter, obtained by Haaretz, Haley wrote that US President Donald Trump "will be watching [Thursday's] vote carefully" and "requested I report back on those who voted against us…"

    The warning came after the US was outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Monday against Trump's decision on Jerusalem.

    Trump announced on December 6 that the US formally recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will begin the process of moving its embassy to the city, breaking with decades of US policy.

    The move led to a wave of global protests, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets in recent days to denounce his decision.

    Threatening words

    Furious over the Security Council resolution against the move, Haley on Tuesday said it was "an insult" that would "not be forgotten".
  2. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55451
    20 Dec '17 14:44
    Originally posted by @vivify
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/jerusalem-haley-sends-threatening-letter-members-171220082816709.html

    US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has sent a threatening letter to members of the UN General Assembly ahead of a vote on a resolution against the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    In the letter, o ...[text shortened]... gainst the move, Haley on Tuesday said it was "an insult" that would "not be forgotten".
    It is outrageous that the rest of the world objects to Israel's choice of Jerusalem as the place for its embassy.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    20 Dec '17 14:481 edit
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    It is outrageous that the rest of the world objects to Israel's choice of Jerusalem as the place for its embassy.
    And the way to deal with that is by threatening other nations?
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    20 Dec '17 14:48
    14 members of the council vote to publicly and formally chastise the United States for deciding where its embassy should be, a decision that's well within its sovereign discretion.

    That doesn't bother you.

    Nikki Haley says that the United States will remember.

    That bothers you.

    🙄🙄🙄
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Dec '17 14:56
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    It is outrageous that the rest of the world objects to Israel's choice of Jerusalem as the place for its embassy.
    The UN is to busy saving countries like Libya.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Dec '17 14:57
    Originally posted by @sh76
    14 members of the council vote to publicly and formally chastise the United States for deciding where its embassy should be, a decision that's well within its sovereign discretion.

    That doesn't bother you.

    Nikki Haley says that the United States will remember.

    That bothers you.

    🙄🙄🙄
    I'm skeered. :'(
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    20 Dec '17 15:083 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    14 members of the council vote to publicly and formally chastise the United States for deciding where its embassy should be, a decision that's well within its sovereign discretion.

    That doesn't bother you.

    Nikki Haley says that the United States will remember.

    That bothers you.

    🙄🙄🙄
    So you approve of threatening UN council members (and by extension, the countries the nations they represent)?

    And Haley (as Trump's mouthpiece) didn't merely say the U.S. will "remember", she said it's an "insult". I know, downplaying this as much as possible makes you feel better about threatening other countries. Who needs allies, right?
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    20 Dec '17 15:10
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I'm skeered. :'(
    Let's put this in the only way you are mentally capable of understanding the gravity of a situation:

    What if Obama threatened the UN?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Dec '17 15:26
    Originally posted by @sh76
    14 members of the council vote to publicly and formally chastise the United States for deciding where its embassy should be, a decision that's well within its sovereign discretion.

    That doesn't bother you.

    Nikki Haley says that the United States will remember.

    That bothers you.

    🙄🙄🙄
    The US decision violates Security Council Resolution 478, adopted in 1980, which specifically states:

    The Security Council,

    Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

    Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

    Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

    Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

    1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

    2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

    3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

    4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

    (a) All Member States to accept this decision;

    (b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

    6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;

    7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.

    Adopted at the 2245th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America).

    https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

    Security Council resolutions are binding international law, so the US decision is in violation of IL. Therefore, the proposed resolution was quite mild under the circumstances:

    The Security Council,

    Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1850 (2008), and 2334 (2016),

    Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

    Stressing that Jerusalem is an issue to be resolved through negotiations,

    Expressing deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,

    1. Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;

    2. Demands that all States comply with the Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to these resolutions;


    3. Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quarter Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967;

    4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


    It is no wonder that 14 members of the Security Council voted for a resolution reiterating well-established international law. Violations of IL are certainly not within the legitimate "sovereign discretion" of any State, no matter how powerful.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Dec '17 15:36
    five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
    and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

    Bolivia (2018)
    Egypt (2017)
    Ethiopia (2018)
    Italy (2017)
    Japan (2017)
    Kazakhstan (2018)
    Senegal (2017)
    Sweden (2018)
    Ukraine (2017)
    Uruguay (2017)

    http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

    Even US allies like the UK, France, Japan, Italy, the Ukraine,Uruguay, etc. etc. etc. voted for the resolution. What does that tell you, sh76?
  11. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81451
    20 Dec '17 15:58
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
    and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

    Bolivia (2018)
    Egypt (2017)
    Ethiopia (2018)
    Italy (2017)
    Japan (2017)
    Kazakhstan (2018)
    Senegal (2017)
    S ...[text shortened]... ly, the Ukraine,Uruguay, etc. etc. etc. voted for the resolution. What does that tell you, sh76?
    it tells me they are in violation of international law...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-fegelman/jerusalem-israel_b_2735338.html
  12. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55451
    20 Dec '17 15:59
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
    and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

    Bolivia (2018)
    Egypt (2017)
    Ethiopia (2018)
    Italy (2017)
    Japan (2017)
    Kazakhstan (2018)
    Senegal (2017)
    S ...[text shortened]... ly, the Ukraine,Uruguay, etc. etc. etc. voted for the resolution. What does that tell you, sh76?
    It tells you that there is an obsession with condemning Israel when basic democratic rights and rights against women are routinely violated in many of Israel's neighbors and absolutely nothing is said.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    20 Dec '17 16:02
    Originally posted by @vivify
    So you approve of threatening UN council members (and by extension, the countries the nations they represent)?

    And Haley (as Trump's mouthpiece) didn't merely say the U.S. will "remember", she said it's an "insult". I know, downplaying this as much as possible makes you feel better about threatening other countries. Who needs allies, right?
    Of course we should work with allies, but when those allies spit in our faces, a mild rebuke ("we will remember" is hardly a threat) is not unreasonable.
  14. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81451
    20 Dec '17 16:05
    Originally posted by @vivify
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/jerusalem-haley-sends-threatening-letter-members-171220082816709.html

    US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has sent a threatening letter to members of the UN General Assembly ahead of a vote on a resolution against the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    In the letter, o ...[text shortened]... gainst the move, Haley on Tuesday said it was "an insult" that would "not be forgotten".
    cant find a threat...anywhere...are you sure you comprehend what "threat" means?
  15. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    20 Dec '17 16:071 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
    and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):

    Bolivia (2018)
    Egypt (2017)
    Ethiopia (2018)
    Italy (2017)
    Japan (2017)
    Kazakhstan (2018)
    Senegal (2017)
    S ...[text shortened]... ly, the Ukraine,Uruguay, etc. etc. etc. voted for the resolution. What does that tell you, sh76?
    It tells me that the UN is obsessed with anything and everything anti-Israel.

    Tens of unprovoked rockets have been fired at civilian areas from Gaza since Trump made his announcement. But go catch the UN giving a damn about that.
Back to Top