Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Mar
7
In an extraordinary development in New York, an emergency session of the United Nations failed to agree on a condemnation of the killings, the first major attack in Jerusalem in four years.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, Britain, France, the European Union, Canada, Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, condemned the strike, while President Bush assured Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, of full US support.
But any hope of an agreement was lost as Israel and Libya traded insults and accused each other of terrorism.
The United States had drafted a statement which read: “The members of the Security Council condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack that took place in Jerusalem which resulted in the death and injury of dozens of Israeli civilians.” It had hoped the 15-nation council would unanimously support the text but Libya, backed by several other council members, prevented its adoption.
“We were not able to come to an agreement because the Libyan delegation with the support of one or two others did not want to condemn this act by itself but wanted to link it to other issues,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters after the council meeting.
The Libyans wanted to include in the statement language condemning the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza, which have killed over 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians. Khalilzad rejected the move, arguing that killing students in a school was different from the unintentional killing of civilians.
Dan Gillerman, the ambassador of Israel, which is not on the council, referred to Libya as the country responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, adding: “Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Security Council is infiltrated by terrorists.” Libya, a long-time enemy of Israel, was elected to the council last year after the United States dropped its objections.
Someone remind me – how is it that Libya is on the council in the first place? Oh – yeah – there it is in that last line. The U.S. dropped its objections to having Libya on it.
And who exactly objects to Israel being on it? Did Libya ever propose a separate resolution that’s been shot down that reflects the portion they wanted to insert?
Disclaimer: Other than being on a Model UN ICJ court, I know little about the inner-workings of the U.N. (though I’ve eaten at a great French restaurant just around the corner from it). Feel free to educate me, in an objective way before lunging into the subjective ways.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:03 am March 7th, 2008 in Foreign Affairs, Government
Comments
7 Responses to “Libya blocks U.N. council resolution condemning killing of Jerusalem seminary killings”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
JMZ,
This ties in directly to our discussion on the other thread about the students. The violence being done to the Palestinians is wholly ignored by the U.S. and our few remaining allies.
The “unintentional” killing of 120 civilians should be ignored while killing 7 seminarians is an atrocity.
Until we recognize that these killings are not seperate incidents but only part of the horrible circle of violence in Israel, no real peace can be achieved.
Craig – no one I know or read says they are separate. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t take a look at the distinguishing features and discern their meaning or portent.
Thanks for reading and commenting as calmly as you do, seriously.
JMZ,
I am referring to the post above:
“The Libyans wanted to include in the statement language condemning the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza, which have killed over 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians.
Khalilzad rejected the move, arguing that killing students in a school was different from the unintentional killing of civilians.”
No condemnation of Israel is allowed because their killing of imprisoned civilians was somehow justified. I don’t think the Palestinians see that way.
Don’t you find it interesting that the terrorist nation of Libya risked its newly aquired status to try and have that included in the resolution? It was definitely not in their own self-interest to take such a stand.
Well – let me suggest:
1. Libya can make the proposal separately. Why must it be attached? They are on the council – let them propose what they believe should be a condemnation.
2. Who says there can be no condemnation of Israel or that it isn’t allowed? I am not aware of the failure of such attempts, but let’s look at that before we say that they aren’t allowed.
3. “Risked” its status? Why do you say they risked it?
Craig – I don’t know our ages relative to one another, but let me just say that I have a very close friend who grew up in Libya for several years. (She’s Catholic but converted to Episcopal when she got married.) She lived in Tripoli in the late 1960s and 1970s. Her dad sold parts for oil rigs. Her parents were prevented from leaving the country in the 1980s and there property was seized but eventually they left. I am curious to know if you are aware of how our country has and our corporations have tangled with Libya and Libya’s treatment of our ex-pats, among others.
I ask this because I think you are being a bit naive and cavalier about Libya. It’s a brazen country – I doubt they see their hope for including certain condemnations as a risk at all.
Let me answer in reverse order:
I was in the Navy when Mumar drew his “line of death” across the Gulf of Sidra. I know he isn’t a saint.
3. Libya just won its seat on the U.N. Security Council in October. It took 4 years of kissing major international butt to get that position. They also are making major economic advances due to the lifting of decades of sanctions. Blocking the unanimous passage of this resolution will cost them.
2. Just last year, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for launching a Nov. 8 missile strike that killed 18 civilians in the town of Beit Hanoun. The U.N. General Assembly passed their condemnation 156-7 on November 18th.
1. Do you honestly think the U.S. would not veto a resolution presented by Libya to condemn Israel for their incursions into Gaza?
Craig – Your #1 is very fair to ask – but don’t you believe that, esp. for a country like Libya, just raising the issue is important?
What is the value of being on the security council if not to help shape their belief of what should be condemned? I am okay with that – them wanting Israel condemned for incursions into Gaza – but those condemnations shouldn’t go unanswered, with no condemnations of the hurling of rockets into Israel by the same.
And then – when I write that, when you read that – don’t you see – because I do – the pointlessness of such condemnations anyway – what do they really accomplish?
I know – I just did a Tevye but that’s what that part of the world is like – we cannot be pawns too and do this condemnation dance.
I am not an opponent of the UN, but in this sense, it really makes you wonder what value it serves, if their efforts have such little impact.
JMZ,
You don’t see the value of the U.N. when you look at what a disaster Iraq has been? Acting alone in a vendetta against Saddam has cost the U.S. dearly in blood, money and resources and decimated Iraq.
Libya knows first-hand the costs of condemnation and sanctions and now is reaping the benefits of compliance.
I bet Israel WISHES it could get more U.N. recognition. Maybe then they wouldn’t be so wholly dependent on the support of the U.S.