Israel seeks seat on Security Council

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:03 AM

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 22 September 2005
Israel is seeking to capitalise on what it sees as an increase in international contacts - including with Muslim countries - by seeking a place on the UN Security Council.

It has indicated that it wants to join other countries in being allocated a rotating place on the Security Council for the first time in the 57-year history of the state. The move follows contacts including an unprecedented meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, which both countries said was partly in recognition of Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza.

Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, told the UN General Assembly in New York this week that a seat on the Security Council would help Israel "take its rightful place as a country with full and equal rights in this institution". Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group".

Although the group has been allowed to have a vice-president of the General Assembly for the first time - its UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman - membership of the group was conditional on it not having a seat on the Security Council. This was to ensure that the frequency with which the existing members took their seats was not reduced.

Mr Gillerman has just become the first Israeli to chair a session of the General Assembly since Abba Eban in the early 1950s. Mr Shalom said he had met counterparts from more than 10 Muslim and Arab countries this week - something he said would have been unthinkable even two years ago.

The highest profile foreign figure to back the bid is the controversial US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Mr Bolton told Jewish leaders in New York that it was no longer tenable to have a single UN member which was ineligible to be a Security Council candidate.

Mark Regev, a foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday that "in a new climate and atmosphere" Israel judged that the right time had come to signify its desire to be a candidate for council membership.

Israel is seeking to capitalise on what it sees as an increase in international contacts - including with Muslim countries - by seeking a place on the UN Security Council.

It has indicated that it wants to join other countries in being allocated a rotating place on the Security Council for the first time in the 57-year history of the state. The move follows contacts including an unprecedented meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, which both countries said was partly in recognition of Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza.

Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, told the UN General Assembly in New York this week that a seat on the Security Council would help Israel "take its rightful place as a country with full and equal rights in this institution". Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group".

Although the group has been allowed to have a vice-president of the General Assembly for the first time - its UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman - membership of the group was conditional on it not having a seat on the Security Council. This was to ensure that the frequency with which the existing members took their seats was not reduced.
Mr Gillerman has just become the first Israeli to chair a session of the General Assembly since Abba Eban in the early 1950s. Mr Shalom said he had met counterparts from more than 10 Muslim and Arab countries this week - something he said would have been unthinkable even two years ago.

The highest profile foreign figure to back the bid is the controversial US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Mr Bolton told Jewish leaders in New York that it was no longer tenable to have a single UN member which was ineligible to be a Security Council candidate.

Mark Regev, a foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday that "in a new climate and atmosphere" Israel judged that the right time had come to signify its desire to be a candidate for council membership.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle314239.ece

Leader · 09-23-2005, 05:06 AM

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:06 AM

Interesting development.

How will ME react?

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, told the UN General Assembly in New York this week that a seat on the Security Council would help Israel "take its rightful place as a country with full and equal rights in this institution". Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group".

What equal rights??
Israel is already a full member of UN, isn't it?

Leader · 09-23-2005, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

What equal rights??
Israel is already a full member of UN, isn't it?

Why does it matter who's on the UNSC? Can you name one important thing that the UNSC has done in the last 10 years?

Asim Aquil · 09-23-2005, 05:21 AM

It gave the Kashmiris the right of self-determination.

But it just handicaps the UN. The bulk of the resolutions are just vetoed. Those are unfair rights. Anyone wanting to join in, want to just want a veto power to tackle their political problems.

It should be abolished and all resolutions should be passed, after getting a majority vote from all member nations.

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:24 AM

All of sudden, somany nations want to have a permanent seat in the UNSC...adding what value?

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader

Why does it matter who's on the UNSC? Can you name one important thing that the UNSC has done in the last 10 years?

No Sir,

IMHO US urgently needs to reform. With its present form, we could aswell do without it.

Leader · 09-23-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

It gave the Kashmiris the right of self-determination.

I don't see them self-determining themselves.

Quote:

But it just handicaps the UN. The bulk of the resolutions are just vetoed. Those are unfair rights. Anyone wanting to join in, want to just want a veto power to tackle their political problems.

It should be abolished and all resolutions should be passed, after getting a majority vote from all member nations.

That's pointless. No one is going to respect a body that gives the US the same representation as Haiti. If an organization doesn't represent the real powers in the world it will be deemed irrelevant and ignored by those powers.

Leader · 09-23-2005, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

No Sir,

IMHO US urgently needs to reform. With its present form, we could aswell do without it.

US?

Leader · 09-23-2005, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

All of sudden, somany nations want to have a permanent seat in the UNSC...adding what value?

None really. It's kind of like a "gold star" now. It's like recongition that you have a say in internation events. I think the prevailing wisdom is that if you get a seat on the UNSC you can influence world events. For the most part that's not true.

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:34 AM

Quote:

The Ugly Duckling's Growing Approval
Posted By Mark Radulich on 09.23.05

Since Israel was created in 1948, after UN Resolution 181 partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Israel has been the ugly duckling of the international community.

Since Israel was created in 1948, after UN Resolution 181 partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Israel has been the ugly duckling of the international community. This has mostly been driven by a historical general hatred of the Jewish people. The creation of Israel on “Arab soil” has only exacerbated the world’s hatred of the Israeli’s. In the eyes of those who would rather see the Jews, “pushed into the sea,” the fact that they handily won the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, The 1967 Six-Day War, and of course the 1973 Yom Kippur War, so soon after first the Holocaust and then their recent establishment of a country, has only reinforced said peoples desire to bomb Israel back to the Biblical Age.

While it is common knowledge that the US has had diplomatic relations with Israel since its creation, China, Russia, The European Union, Turkey and many African nations such as South Africa also recognize Israel. By the same token, historically, Israel was not formally recognized or actively boycotted against by most if not all of the Arab League Countries. However, over time, other than Iran and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, most of the Middle Eastern countries have either abandoned the boycott or just don’t enforce it anymore.

Though the creation of Israel is the result of a UN Resolution, there is a considerable anti-Semitic component behind the policies pursued there and expressed without challenge. On most occasions the US will stick up for Israel, but not all the time and certainly with our close relationship to Saudi Arabia, the US has done its fair share of playing both sides to our own advantage.

However, the ugly duckling of the global community, Israel, as a result of the recent Gaza pullout, has been making some fairly positive headlines, especially with respect to the UN. According to several sources, including The Independent, “Israel is seeking to capitalise on what it sees as an increase in international contacts - including with Muslim countries - by seeking a place on the UN Security Council.

It has indicated that it wants to join other countries in being allocated a rotating place on the Security Council for the first time in the 57-year history of the state. The move follows contacts including an unprecedented meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, which both countries said was partly in recognition of Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza.”

I fully support the Gaza pullout despite being very much pro-Israel. One of the many reasons I thought it was a good idea, no matter what happens to that area, is that within all reasonable arguments, pulling out of Gaza and firmly supporting an equal Palestinian state wipes the political crud off of Israel’s face. I know many pro-Israel hawks believe that the Palestinians can’t be trusted and this only exposes more Israeli’s to death and destruction but for lack of a better phrase, so what? Israel needs to be concerned with how it looks to the global community, not how the Palestinians will squander their latest chance at stability. There’s nothing stopping Israel from defending itself when it has to but in the meantime, the devils must be given their due. This gesture will and already has begun to reframe Israel’s image in the global community, for the better.

Recent meetings between Pakistan and Israel are just the latest piece of evidence that pulling out of Gaza supports the bigger picture in establishing stronger international relations. Though Pakistani President Musharraf isn’t exactly throwing his arms wide open to Ariel Sharon, comments like this, “Pakistan and Israel need to talk about how the sides can move toward establishing formal relations,” are cause for hope that Arab-Israeli tensions will thaw as time moves on.

On September 3rd, a self-described meeting between Silvan Shalom of Israel and Khurseed Mahmoud Kasuri of Pakistan, was seen as historic as it began to cement, at the very least, economic relations between Pakistan and Israel.

Iran Emrooz, a Persian-language Internet news website based in Germany, wrote that, "The meeting between Pakistan and Israel is a great blow to the policies of the Islamic republic based on an unabated antagonism with Israel and the 'Palestiniation' of its diplomacy which, in the past two decades, were the cause of many crises in Iran's foreign relations and increases in tensions with the United States, resulting in huge damage to our national interests."

With the Israeli’s seeking a seat on the UN Security Council and the recent changes for the better in relations between the greater world community and Israel itself, it makes the tensions between Jerusalem and Tehran that much more tenuous, for the mullahs that is.

For example, “Israel and Iran clashed at the UN General Assembly, accusing each other of threatening Middle East and world peace with their respective nuclear programs.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom took the floor to denounce what he called the "evil regime" in Tehran and urged the UN nuclear watchdog agency and the Security Council to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons, AFP said.

As Shalom spoke, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors met in Vienna to discuss a draft resolution by Britain, France and Germany urging that Iran be reported to the Security Council for breaching international atomic safeguards.

"I call on them to stop this evil regime (Tehran) from acquiring nuclear weapons," Shalom told assembly members, referring to the IAEA governors.”

The Israeli’s are also once again accusing Tehran of having the, “know-how” to make nukes in a relatively short period of time. In the past this sort of rhetoric may have been seen as Zionist propaganda but now that the world is starting to see Israel in a positive light, it may seem more like good old common sense.

Obviously anti-Semitism is wrong and treating the sovereign nation of Israel like it’s a colonial empire when its very existence is at the satisfaction of the United Nations itself is an exercise in trite hypocrisy. I often argue that the United States must alter its way of dealing with the global community. The global community, especially the Gulf States, must alter their way of dealing with Israel because endless condemnation and support of terrorism isn’t going to make them go away. Israel may be the world’s ugly duckling but there’s a lot of potential for them to become something resembling a swan.

Isreal has too many issues to solve with its neighbors, any premature inclusion to UNSC will only cause further political turmoil in the region.

Neo · 09-23-2005, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader

None really. It's kind of like a "gold star" now. It's like recongition that you have a say in internation events. I think the prevailing wisdom is that if you get a seat on the UNSC you can influence world events. For the most part that's not true.

Its more like having a prestigious status of belonging to some elite club

Gazi · 09-23-2005, 06:12 AM

Israel does not apply for an permanent Security Councl seat.

Today Pakistan and Germany are also in the Security Council as changeing members.
Israel apllys for this changeing seats.

And the most important thing is: Israel aplies for the year 2018.
So many blood will flow to this date in the Middle East.

Asim Aquil · 09-23-2005, 07:26 AM

Actually no. The US would be in a position to sway a whole lot many votes in its favor. Thats the thing, the world will have to agree. All the 5 veto power keeps flipping each other off with the veto. If not them, their allies.

Kashmiris got the right. One country's not letting them exercise that right, thats another thing. Add India into that equation and it'll veto that move or anything passed in its favor. Israel will (assuming its a permanent seat) want to veto anything pro-Palestine.

Its the VETO that messes things up. At the least if the UNSC has to exist, its veto powers should be stripped off and only a majority vote should exist.

09-23-2005, 05:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
Neo Silent lurker *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-06-05 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 7,920 Country:	Israel seeks seat on Security Council By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem Published: 22 September 2005 Israel is seeking to capitalise on what it sees as an increase in international contacts - including with Muslim countries - by seeking a place on the UN Security Council. It has indicated that it wants to join other countries in being allocated a rotating place on the Security Council for the first time in the 57-year history of the state. The move follows contacts including an unprecedented meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, which both countries said was partly in recognition of Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza. Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, told the UN General Assembly in New York this week that a seat on the Security Council would help Israel "take its rightful place as a country with full and equal rights in this institution". Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group". Although the group has been allowed to have a vice-president of the General Assembly for the first time - its UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman - membership of the group was conditional on it not having a seat on the Security Council. This was to ensure that the frequency with which the existing members took their seats was not reduced. Mr Gillerman has just become the first Israeli to chair a session of the General Assembly since Abba Eban in the early 1950s. Mr Shalom said he had met counterparts from more than 10 Muslim and Arab countries this week - something he said would have been unthinkable even two years ago. The highest profile foreign figure to back the bid is the controversial US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Mr Bolton told Jewish leaders in New York that it was no longer tenable to have a single UN member which was ineligible to be a Security Council candidate. Mark Regev, a foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday that "in a new climate and atmosphere" Israel judged that the right time had come to signify its desire to be a candidate for council membership. Israel is seeking to capitalise on what it sees as an increase in international contacts - including with Muslim countries - by seeking a place on the UN Security Council. It has indicated that it wants to join other countries in being allocated a rotating place on the Security Council for the first time in the 57-year history of the state. The move follows contacts including an unprecedented meeting between the foreign ministers of Israel and Pakistan, which both countries said was partly in recognition of Israel's withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza. Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, told the UN General Assembly in New York this week that a seat on the Security Council would help Israel "take its rightful place as a country with full and equal rights in this institution". Israel was not a member of any voting bloc because of the hostility of Arab countries in the region until 2000, when it was admitted to the "west European and others group". Although the group has been allowed to have a vice-president of the General Assembly for the first time - its UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman - membership of the group was conditional on it not having a seat on the Security Council. This was to ensure that the frequency with which the existing members took their seats was not reduced. Mr Gillerman has just become the first Israeli to chair a session of the General Assembly since Abba Eban in the early 1950s. Mr Shalom said he had met counterparts from more than 10 Muslim and Arab countries this week - something he said would have been unthinkable even two years ago. The highest profile foreign figure to back the bid is the controversial US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Mr Bolton told Jewish leaders in New York that it was no longer tenable to have a single UN member which was ineligible to be a Security Council candidate. Mark Regev, a foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday that "in a new climate and atmosphere" Israel judged that the right time had come to signify its desire to be a candidate for council membership. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle314239.ece

09-23-2005, 05:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Leader Ubi dubium ibi libertas *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-04-03 Location: Boston, MA, USPRA Posts: 5,124	Why? __________________ "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" NEVER FORGET

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Guerilla Warfare	troung	The Staff College	13	04-05-2006 02:25 AM
25,000 civilians KilledIn Iraq	jimmy22	The War in Iraq	88	08-13-2005 11:41 AM
Al Qaeda Finances and Funding	Ray	Political Discussions	3	08-03-2005 12:00 PM
Failure Isn't An Option	Shek	The War in Iraq	94	07-07-2005 01:04 AM
Sikhs oppose Undia's UN security council bid	Sher-e-Punjab	South Asian Defense Topics	76	11-19-2004 06:27 AM

09-23-2005, 05:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
Neo Silent lurker *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-06-05 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 7,920 Country:	Interesting development. How will ME react?

09-23-2005, 05:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
Asim Aquil Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-11-04 Location: Dubai Posts: 8,135 Country:	It gave the Kashmiris the right of self-determination. But it just handicaps the UN. The bulk of the resolutions are just vetoed. Those are unfair rights. Anyone wanting to join in, want to just want a veto power to tackle their political problems. It should be abolished and all resolutions should be passed, after getting a majority vote from all member nations.

09-23-2005, 05:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
Neo Silent lurker *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-06-05 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 7,920 Country:	All of sudden, somany nations want to have a permanent seat in the UNSC...adding what value?

09-23-2005, 06:12 AM	#14 (permalink)
Gazi Regular Join Date: 09-22-05 Posts: 59	Israel does not apply for an permanent Security Councl seat. Today Pakistan and Germany are also in the Security Council as changeing members. Israel apllys for this changeing seats. And the most important thing is: Israel aplies for the year 2018. So many blood will flow to this date in the Middle East.

09-23-2005, 07:26 AM	#15 (permalink)
Asim Aquil Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-11-04 Location: Dubai Posts: 8,135 Country:	Actually no. The US would be in a position to sway a whole lot many votes in its favor. Thats the thing, the world will have to agree. All the 5 veto power keeps flipping each other off with the veto. If not them, their allies. Kashmiris got the right. One country's not letting them exercise that right, thats another thing. Add India into that equation and it'll veto that move or anything passed in its favor. Israel will (assuming its a permanent seat) want to veto anything pro-Palestine. Its the VETO that messes things up. At the least if the UNSC has to exist, its veto powers should be stripped off and only a majority vote should exist.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)