The Security Council veto:An Israeli Privilege [Archives:2003/670/Opinion]

September 22 2003

It is well known that the veto (sometimes called “Executive Authority”) is an exclusive right of the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. But in actuality, the veto is also a right accorded to Israel, which is not even a member of the UNSC – permanent or non-permanent. In fact, one might surmise that the veto has been used by the United States for the benefit of Israel more than it has been used for its own indigenous needs or policy considerations. This usage would surely be considered as out of context with the intended real purposes for which this privilege was granted, not to mention the damage this does to the UN's image internationally.
Of all the times the veto was used by the United States in the Security Council, this has been done in most cases with Israel being the implicit beneficiary. In almost all such cases, most, if not all of the members of the Security Council voted for the “vetoed” resolution and the US veto of the respective decree only became an obstacle to the effectiveness of a resolution called for by the Council as an effective means of undertaking the Council's role as an international peacemaker. It is worth mentioning that even in most of the cases that a UN resolution was passed against Israel, or not to the liking of Israel, by the Security Council (or the General Assembly), these resolutions were met with outright defiance by Israel and could not find any avenues for their enforcement. This makes the Zionist state the greatest violator of UN resolutions and the worst renegade of international legitimacy.
As a founding member of the United Nations and an important contributor to the principles behind the establishment of the UN and the rules by which the international organization operates, this unusual use of “Executive Privilege” for the implied benefit of a non-deserving member gives the renegade state special status, which is not even enjoyed by countries like Japan and Germany, which have considerably more international economic weight or even India (without seeming to take sides in the Indo-Pakistani dispute), which has a sizable chunk of the world's population.
How can the United States allow itself to appear as it seems an “agent” for Israel in the Security Council? That is a question that perplexes the minds of many political analysts. This misuse of a special privilege, on behalf of another unruly member state will continue to have a severe effect on the role of the United States as a responsible user of a privilege granted to it based on the assumption that the US is a leading advocate of world peace and fair treatment of all member states. This will also have a damaging effect on the ability of the UN to carry out its peacekeeping function, responsibly and effectively.
This brings us to the last use of the “veto” by the United States in the latest session of the Security Council, which called for Israel to rescind its “Security Cabinet” decision to give the Government of the Zionist state discretion in removing (by any means) the legally and democratically elected President of the Palestine Authority.
Earlier during the week, the White House and the State Department indicated that they were not comfortable with the Israeli Government decision, in one way or another. Accordingly, one would expect that this lack of comfort should have coincided with the international community's view that such a decision is simply unacceptable and represents a serious threat to any efforts to bring about any peace in the Holy Land. Surely, this lack of consistency in US foreign policy does not help to enhance the image of the United States internationally and in the Arab World.
Perhaps the Bush Administration is under too much pressure from the Zionist lobby in the United States, especially as the Presidential Elections approaches and the chances of a victory for George W. Bush get dimmer, if performance is to be a major factor in the voters' decisions. But to purely rely on the strength of the support to be obtained from the Zionist supporters (pro-Israel organizations and so-called evangelist supporters of Israel) will only be construed as contempt for the wisdom of the American voters. If all that matters in the Bush Administration's view of Government is Israel, than surely the American public will not be taken for fools so easily. Whatever the case, the United States has, over the past three years, been led to embark on several shadowy adventures, all promulgated by Zionist or so called evangelical-Zionists, which have surely not been favorable to the United States as far as the population of the region are concerned. This continuing attitude of blind support for the Zionist state does not help convince the Arab public (we rule out any official positions at the moment, since official views and public concerns in the Middle East have yet to find converging points) that there are any genuine sincere intentions behind the present White House Administration's misguided adventures in the region and the lack of concern for the sensitivities of the Arab and Moslem people of the world.
Even President Bush's hasty news conference with King Abdullah of Jordan last week, had a strong tasteless flair to it, when Mr. Bush made his obviously undiplomatic statement about Mr. Arafat, which was probably an elaboration of the US veto. This not only indicates a lack of diplomatic courtesy toward's his guest, but is damaging to the image of HM King Abdullah amongst his constituency, which is largely Palestinian.
It is worth noting that many of the leading papers in the United States were not in agreement with the wisdom of the Israeli Government's latest arrogant decision.