- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Israel says they are going to try and win it this time. Shouldn't the US and others in the West back this play by Israel, despite all the cries and whines from the Muslims and Arab countries.
Should the UN even use a full membership vote for the process.....knowing that the Arab and Muslim countries would vote based out of Racism?
Non-permanent member don't have veto power, so this would be just a guarantee'd vote for the US bloc.
Since the US does have veto power, it doesn't strengthen our hand in the UN very much.
I imagine they will have an uphill battle getting elected, but it's a prestige move, rather than anything important.
Given that Israel is the target of numerous threats in their region, they should ABSOLUTELY be on the council. Not that the UN is worth :twocents: anyway though....
Mornin' WP. :2wave: Still.....why would Belgium even be considered over Israel. More than likely they will be shut down due to all the Muslim Countries voting against them.
Btw.....Welcome to the Forums of Debate Politics.
Israel plans to run for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council for the first time ever for 2019-2020, its envoy said on Thursday.
"We're going all out to win," Ambassador Ron Prosor told the Reuters news agency, adding, "It's about time."
Prosor said Israel will be vying against Germany and Belgium for two seats allotted to the "Western European and Others Group." Technically Israel should be a member of the Asia-Pacific Group but has been blocked from that group by Muslim states.
Winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority in the 193-nation General Assembly, and UN diplomats predicted that it will not be easy for the Israel to win.....snip~
Israel to Run for Security Council Seat in 2019 - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News
What do you think about this. Sure to cause a major uproar in the UN.....huh? Note that Israel was suppose to be part of the counsel for the Asian Pacific Group region but was and has always been blocked by Muslim states. Israel was going to go for the Spot in 2018 but Germany blocked them stating they would go for a spot. Which Israel then filed a formal complaint. Thoughts upon the matter?
I voted yes. Following on from what has been brought up, Israel has more need-and will also be more accountable-if given full membership.
Paul
Indeed, they would be more accountable; no more illegal settlements.
Heya Gunner. :2wave: Think we would listen to them when it came to things in the ME for a change?
I think we definitely need to -listen-to what Israel has to say. But also hold them to account over issues of contention. Where do you feel Israel is not being listened too?
Paul
It is difficult for me to entertain the idea of Israel occupying a seat on the Security Council when they are in the process of issuing licenses to foreign oil companies to drill in occupied territory, which is in contravention of international law. So, I would have to vote no.
1. This is the first I've heard of this.
2. Legally speaking, the Palestinian territories are not occupied. In any case, based on this logic Morocco would not be a part of the UNSC due to its "occupation" of Western Sahara.
I would like some form of evidence to support this.1. Yes, this is the first you've heard of this.
2. Legally speaking?? According to international law, the legal status of Palestinian territories is that of occupied territories--not disputed territories. This is supported by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
My point was that neither "occupation" nor violations of international law have seriously prevented any country from sitting on the UNSC.So, what exactly is your point?
Heya ML. :2wave: So do you think that Israel should be accepted onto the Security Counsel?
It would be a nice change for them to be legitimately represented on the Security Council. The odds are always heavily stacked against Israel in international fora.
1. This is the first I've heard of this.
2. Legally speaking, the Palestinian territories are not occupied. In any case, based on this logic Morocco would not be a part of the UNSC due to its "occupation" of Western Sahara.
Is that too say that they are part of Israel?
The best label to be placed on territories that are being administered by another government but were never legally a part of any other recognized sovereignty is "disputed."
In this situation, however, the Golan Heights actually were part of Syria, and if I'm not mistaken they are therefore considered occupied territories.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?