The U.S. blocked a one-sided UN Security Council statement today that called for an Israeli cease-fire but ignored rocket attacks from Hamas. In response, Russia will reportedly propose a similar resolution to the entire council body — which needs nine votes to pass, but can be vetoed by the U.S. — later today:
Russia said on Monday that if the 15-member council could not agree on a statement then it would put a resolution – a stronger move by the council than a statement – to a vote later on Tuesday to call for an end to the violence and show support for regional and international efforts to broker peace.
A resolution is passed when it receives nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the five permanent council members – Russia, China, Britain, the United States and France. Some diplomats said a vote on the Russian resolution would likely be tight and could force a veto by the United States.
The Security Council is generally deadlocked on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which U.N. diplomats say is due to U.S. determination to protect its close ally Israel. The council held an emergency meeting last Wednesday to discuss the Israeli strikes on Gaza but took no action.
The U.S. will veto, but if it gets enough votes it will still be a diplomatic blow to Israel. Russia, China, Pakistan, Morocco and Azerbaijan are pretty much givens, and even if they can’t get to nine, the vote would be close. Of course, if the rumored cease-fire takes hold, the resolution threat will disappear. That’s probably yet another reason why the U.S. is hoping for an early agreement today from Israel.
Should the US eventually veto Russia's pro-Hamas resolution, will Susan Rice, America's putative Secretary of State, once again repeat the rant against Israel that she uttered last time when she vetoed the request of the Falestinian's to be recognized as a state? Or will she be too concerned about mustering a Senate majority that she will keep her foul trap (the woman who according to Dana Milbank gave the finger to Richard Holbrooke) shut tight.
Russia is still part of the Marxist-Islamic Alliance despite the breakup of the USSR. The Left licks Islamic ass.
Are you unaware that Moscow has had huge problems with Islamists, who have killed a great number of Russians in terrorist attacks, e.g., the Beslan school massacre that saw 380 dead, about half of them school children? And do you count China (nee Red China) as still Communist, because they have their conflict with Uighurs?
It is fascinating that Russia and China persecute Muslims in their own countries but nevertheless are united with them as far as foreign policy–and especially anti-Israel policy–is concerned. Similarly, Muslims do not allow communists to function in their own countries but join with them to fight Israel and the United States. nThank you for bringing this point up and showing how illogicial the Marxist-Islamic Alliance is.
Clearly you don't do "nuance," because your "Marxist-Islamic Alliance" is cartoonish at best.*****Who do you count as "Marxist" these days? Present day China, where there is privately owned property;, privately owned businesses; billionaires; people entering and leaving the country more or less freely; internet access, even if the state tries to keep a lid on it; etc.?
(continued) *****Not a "free" country by any means and still governed top-down by those professing to be Communists, but it's very doubtful that Karl would count it as a real "Marxist" state, and more importantly what they are about outside their borders has nothing to do with spreading Communism to other countries and everything to do with their non-ideologic military, diplomatic, and financial interests. Or present day Russia, which tried to convert Afghanistan from Islam to Communism and failed so completely that their empire came to an end? Russia too would be a huge disappointment to Karl, all the more so because of the direction it has taken since Yeltsin, evolving into what is best described as Putinism.***** n
(continued) *****So which are the "Marxist" countries do you see as participants in that great Marxist-Islamic Alliance of which you speak? North Korea and Cuba? Which other ones, and is their foreign policy best explain by a Marxist agenda or by clear self-interest? Does eveyone who is to the left of center politically, wherever the center is, qualfiy as a Marxist in your eyes, or are you less inclusive with that label, limiting it to those who really do wish to see the sort of thing that Marx had in mind, or at least something more like the Soviet Union before it dissolved? (And it is utter nonsense, to say as you have, "Like Russia, the Anglicans of Britain are united in spirit with Islam.") n
Marx looked forward to a world where everybody would think alike. His economics made no sense at all. The Labor Theory of Value is idiotic–would paintings by me and Rembrandt be equally valuable if we spent the same amount of money on materials and the same amount of time doing the painting? nChina has abandoned Marxist economics in favor of Marxist capitalism–not a contradicction, since Marx said that all countries would have to go through the capitalist stage. Chairman Mao made a mistake, according to Marxist theory, by trying to jump from feudalism to socialism. China has opened up a bit in order to make money, as a good Marxist capitalist should, but maintains its faith in thought control and opposition to democracy.
Is there any doubt that the UN has devolved into a malignant organism? It's a travesty that we even have to care what this dysfunctional 'world body' decides. n nOn second thought, the UN merely reflects the world. What does that say? n
This would be the same Russia that pulverized Grozny with air strikes and artillery on any and all targets?
Nothing to do with Islam, g_jochnowitz. The C of E is not entirely liberal, the hippie-esque Archbishop Rowan notwithstanding. He will be succeeded by a traditionalist, a former executive in the oil industry, Bishop Justin Welby. The attempt by the liberals in the Anglican Communion to shoe-horn this change at the last minute simply failed. The conservative faction still has a beating heart and chose to uphold traditional interpretations, that's all. Gender egalitarianism in religion is a new ideology and most established religions, including Christianity and Judaism, do not respond to fads reflexively or instantly. If they did, they wouldn't be around. Theology and faith operate under different principles than political, judicial and social activism.