Friday, December 22, 2017

Sinners of Omission

Just so you know:

128 member states voted for UNGA Resolution A/ES-10/L-22 on the status of Jerusalem. The Resolution calls on the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and declares any such move "null and void."

They refused to be intimidated by Trump.

Here are Trump's gang of 9 who voted against the Resolution:

Guatemala, Hondurus, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, United States, Palau, Togo

Here are the 33 chickenshit abstainers:

Antigua, Argentina, AUSTRALIA, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad-Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu

Another 24 members were AWOL.


Grappler said...

Given the growing demand by US politicians for it to pull out of the UN predominantly based on the UN's position on Israel, it is interesting to examine the economics.

Asking how much the US contributes to the UN is like asking how long is a piece of string and I have seen figures ranging from about $2.5B to $8B, depending on whether peacekeeping and in-kind contributions are included (at US rather than, for instance, Indian rates). Assessments tend to give a figure that is more based on politics than facts A defensible figure is about $5B. On the other hand most of base contribution of around $3B (a little less than it gives Israel currently) and the contribution of others (US contributes 22% of the base budget) is spent in New York on salaries of staff. Added to that should be expenditures by the staff of the missions of the 185 or so countries that are members. This would seem to be a no-brainer for the US. I have seen a range of figures from $1B (which seems absurdly low) to $33B (perhaps a little high) as benefits to the NY economy. It is clear that the US is a net beneficiary both financially and in terms of goodwill from having the UN in New York.

I'm sure there is a long list of countries that would be delighted to have it move there. Unfortunately, Australia's recent voting habits are unlikely to make it a popular choice.

Australia might, under other circumstances, have been a possible alternative venue, but I fear that its recent voting record on Israeli will rule it out. Our good friends across the Tasman might have more of a chance.

MERC said...

Unfortunately, the whole world is paying a terrible price for Israel through the emasculation of international law, the erosion of free speech, the fueling of conflicts around the world, the endless, nauseating bowing and scraping by Western nations, and the corruption of political and media elites. Have I missed anything?

Anonymous said...

Yes you missed the addition arithmetic which states that 65 nations DID NOT vote to emasculate the USA on jerusalem.
That means 1 to 2.

Times are a changing Merc--and as funny, witty, and acerbic as you may be--- as time goes on and failed palestinian leaderships keep missing the boat, well after 70 years there is less pie left for them.
In another 20 years there may be even less.

Time is on israel's side now..........


MERC said...

Time is on Israel's side? A sort of thousand year Reich, eh?