Haley slams UN for treatment of Israel in face of strong criticism
Haley slams UN for treatment of Israel in face of strong criticism
© UNTV Nikki Haley
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley defended President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Friday — slamming member countries for their treatment of Israel, in the face of harsh criticism over the controversial US policy move.
The meeting — which was called in response to Trump's Wednesday announcement about plans to also relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem — highlighted the broad global opposition to the move despite Haley's insistence that the US remains committed to a two-state solution.
She also said that the US has credibility with both the Israelis and the Palestinians and any peace agreement would likely be "signed on the White House Lawn."
"The United States is not predetermining final status issues. We remain committed to achieving a lasting peace agreement. We support a two-state solution if agreed to by the parties," Haley said.
Several countries voiced their opposition to the US decision prior to Haley's comments.
"As was indicated by Macron, we regret the decisions announced by the US President on Wednesday to unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to prepare for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem," said French Ambassador Francois Delattre.
Egyptian Ambassador Abdellatif Aboulatta stated: "We'd also like to stress that such unilateral decisions is a violation of international legitimacy and thus it has no impact on the legal status of Jerusalem since it is a city under occupation."
"There will also be grave negative impact of such a decision on the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis," he added.
The Palestinians are not a member of the Security Council but Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour was invited to attend the meeting.
"The US decision to award Israelis impunity undermines and essentially disqualifies its leadership role to seek peace in the region," he said.
"Indeed, the resounding rejection of this provocative decision by the world leaders is indicative of the injection of all such illegal policies and measures and of the immense concerns regarding the dangerous implications of this decision including on the prospects for peace and security in the region and beyond," Mansour added.
Haley also went on to condemn the United Nations for its treatment of Israel and said the US will not stand by while Israel is attacked or be lectured by other countries about its position on Israeli's and Palestinians.
"Over many years the United Nations has outrageously been of the world's foremost centers of hostility towards Israel," Haley said. "The UN has done much more damage to the prospects of Middle East peace than to advance them. We will not be a party to that."
"The US no longer stands by when Israel is unfairly attacked in the United Nations," she added. "And the United States will not be lectured to by countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating both Israelis and Palestinians fairly."
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
Now that the backstabber Obama is no longer POTUS, I would say that the US has credibility with the Israelis, but I'm not so sure about the Palestinians.
Now that the backstabber Obama is no longer POTUS, I would say that the US has credibility with the Israelis, but I'm not so sure about the Palestinians.
US money has.
The bias against Jews in the UN isn't going to change - a bias that people perpetuate for a thousand years doesn't change overnight.
She also said that the US has credibility with both the Israelis and the Palestinians and any peace agreement would likely be "signed on the White House Lawn."
Haley is as big an idiot as her boss. Palestinians will listen to nothing from the US, the US has just shot down any chance for a peace deal until Trump is finally impeached of is otherwise forced out of office. He has shown that the US has a distinct anti-Palestinian bias, so why should they have anything to do with Trump? I see more terrorism, and closer ties with Iran in Palestine's future. I would highly recommend that Americans stay out of Jerusalem and Israel in general during the holiday season.
Just curious. Do you agree with the UN's bias against Israel?
I do not see a UN bias. Israel wants to be part of the global community, they want UN membership. When the Israeli's took East Jerusalem during the 6-Day War, the UN in accordance to it's rules, determined that since Israel fired the first shots, they cannot claim to keep their land gains, regardless of how they may religiously feel. The UN does criticize Israel, and the US shields Israel from UN Security Council actions. There is a bias on both sides. The UN has determined that the status of Jerusalem needs to be negotiated, as does the 2 state solution. Israel is obviously hoping to change the facts on the ground sufficiently to not leave any land left to negotiate. The Palestinians will fight, and Trump has nothing to offer them, nor will they listen to him now anyway.
In 1967, Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships before June 5, was an unlawful act of aggression (the closure of Israel’s outlet from the Red Sea in defiance of the Geneva Conference of 1958 on free navigation “through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and … the territorial sea of a foreign nation” (For 16 years Egypt illegally blocked Israeli use of the Suez Canal))). The Israeli response was a lawful act of self defence under Article 51 and Resolution 3314. ( See mythsandfacts.org )
So, the blockading of the Straits of Tiran was a Casus Belli , which led to the Six Day's War and all its consequences.
If you can't see that the UN is biased against Israel there is no purpose in any further discussion with you.
Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.
There are two sides to every story:
Al Jazeera was banned in Canada for it's unbelievable bias and fake news. It is a Muslim medium and no surprise it would discredit anything about Israel. It's also been banned elsewhere not too long ago but I'm not going to waste my time looking for it.
I recall a story a while ago that an interpreter at the UN was recorded making a comment about not believing how much bias against Israel there was there - I doubt that the interpreter still has that job.
Well, that's easy, whenever someone disagrees with your pre-conceived notions, you just stick your fingers in your ear.
All they've got is Al Jazeera and Palestinian propaganda, so don't wait around for the truth. As for an argument, all they've got are insults and ridicule, so don't bother to wait around at all.
I don't put my fingers in my ears - I'm capable of believing the truth and not believing bullshit. Come up with something that isn't Palestinian propaganda and outright lies and I'll listen. You can believe all the shit you want and I don't really give a damn.
I would consider this to be more appropriate:
They are also forgetting their history, a history that was shared by the creation of the UN in the first place. After World War II, Berlin was split between the Allies. Half of the city was given to Russia to administer along with half of Germany, the East half of each. The Western half was split between the UK, USA, and France to administer. This resulted in what became known as East Germany and East Berlin, and West Germany and West Berlin. The Russians made East Berlin the capital of East Germany. Did anyone say it was an unwise decision by the Russians? Did anyone say that Berlin shouldn't be the capital of either of the two Germanys? Why can't Jerusalem, which was the HISTORICAL capital of what was the kingdom of Judah (and before that the Kingdom of Israel before the split) which was historically the homeland of the Jews, be the capital of modern Israel?
That's hardly a good comparison.
The Berlin situation was the punishment decided by the victors of WWII and not intended to be permanent (although Russia probably thought otherwise at the time).
The British arbitrarily redefined the borders of all of the ME as punishment, because many of these countries directly or indirectly aligned themselves with the Axis or the Nazis due to their
common anti Semitic views
Jerusalem has been the center of 3 major religions and it's history is far too complicated to make that comparison.
But, the Jews have the biggest and most historical claim on the city. It was their capital until AD 70 and was still considered a Jewish holy site until 364 AD:
There is nothing complicated about it. It is very much like the Native Americans and the laws enacted allowing them to reclaim land that was taken from them by the US government.
Actually, there is. Palestinians can possibly be the remnants of the Canaanites, who are the people that the Israeli's took the land from. Both peoples have a claim to the land, which is why negotiations are still needed. It's a shame that the US will not be welcome at those negotiations until Trump is gone, but that is the result of electing amateurs.
Canaan, son of Ham, Grandson of Noah.
Like I said the area was contested back as far as 7000 BCE
when the Egyptians and Phoenicians tussled for power in the region.
The original Levant, Canaan included all of modern Palestine, Syria, and parts of Jordan - why don't we let Israel occupy that country as well?
The OT justifies the conquest and occupation as being the fulfillment of the prophesy of a Promised Land...
That is the problem of using a religious book as a political document.
If the OT is being used as a political document, it's not the only religious book that is.
You're right, and you guys get so angry when countries use the Koran to govern with, yet seem perfectly OK to use the Bible. It's called hypocrisy.
Israel & the US.
I don't have a problem if Muslim countries use the Koran to govern. I have a problem when Muslims want to use the Koran to govern non-Muslim countries, such as their demands in western countries that Shariah Law be followed.
"The US decision to award Israelis impunity undermines and essentially disqualifies its leadership role to seek peace in the region," he said.
I wonder what "OTHER" country is "WILLING" to step up and take the "lead" for a change.
Maybe France ?
Germany ?
Egypt ?
Maybe Iran ?