Posted on 12/30/2014 2:39:28 PM PST by Dave346
PA's unilateral resolution calling on Israel to "end the occupation" fails to receive the nine required votes to pass.
Only eight countries voted in favor of the resolution, two voted against, and there were five abstentions. The resolution needed nine votes in favor to have passed.
Australia and the United States voted against.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
I guess a “vote against” something in the Security Council is not the same thing as a “veto”.
Maybe b.husseino could make it the 51st state.
Doesn’t BHussein get 57 votes against Israel? He is dictator over 57 states......
For some reason, I saw PA in the headline and thought Pennsylvania was having problems with the United Nations.
Anybody got the complete vote breakdown, please?
Pennsylvania may wish to apply for membership in the UN...?
It was vetoed.
It would not have passed even if it had received the required nine votes.
A “no” vote from the one of the five permanent members is a veto.
The PA Terrorist Statehood is foiled again.
From the article, it sounds like it’s different ...
“Had the resolution passed, it would have forced the United States - which has stated its firm opposition to such unilateral measures - to use its veto at the Security Council, potentially causing tensions with some of America’s Arab allies in the UN.”
NOW ... since the USA did vote no, I have’t seen it described as a “veto”.
Note this other article ...
Palestinian statehood resolution fails at UN Security Council
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-statehood-resolution-defeated-at-un-security-council/
US veto not needed as motion falls one vote short of nine required supporters, with last minute Nigerian change of heart. France votes in favor; US, Australia vote against, five abstain.
According to the news reports, it wasn’t vetoed by any permanent member, but was simply “voted down”
United Thug Nations
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
As to the discussion of whether this was a veto
Article 27 of the UN Charter states that:1.Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2.Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3.Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
The US vote of no would have been a veto had an additional nation voted yes.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
As to the discussion of whether this was a veto
Article 27 of the UN Charter states that:1.Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2.Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3.Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
The US vote of no would have been a veto had an additional nation voted yes.
Sorry, I directed my response to my ping list to you in error.
If there were a majority, would the Iman in the WH have directed a veto?
A miracle. We have one less bad thing to say about the UN. This is like Entrope reducing. Scratch that. This is Entrope reducing.
You may include me, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.