U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced on Thursday that she would vote against an annual UN resolution condemning Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The resolution entitled "The Occupied Syrian Golan" is scheduled for a vote on Friday.It will be the first time the U.S. votes against the resolution. The country has abstained from voting on the move in the past.In a press release, Haley said that the U.S. "will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights."
The US will NO LONGER abstain. So, this is a definite change, benefiting the Israeli state, in US policy
How is the resolution biased against Israel? Explain Nikki Haley? You say the words, but, what do they mean? Biased against Israel? Reality being Golan was Syrian territory taken/annexed by Israel. And Israel has been creating and sustaining the tensions on the border.The resolution is "biased against Israel" and in light of tensions on the Syrian border, there is no justification for supporting the move, the statement said.
Taking Golan wasn't a fair trade. Syria didn't agree to this theft of territory.
How is this resolution really biased against Israel?
"This resolution does nothing to bring any parties closer to a peace agreement. The United States will vote no," the statement said.I would suggest the resolution could bring parties closer to an agreement. One that condemns Israeli control of Golan, makes clear the territory is not Israel's and should be restored to Syria. It would bolster international law.
Yes, it is time the world distinguishes who stabilizes the region vs who destabilizes the region.Following the announcement, Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon thanked Haley for her decision to vote "no on a despicable resolution.""It is time the world distinguishes those who stabilize the region from those who sow terror," he wrote on Twitter.
Since it's Israel that benefits from the destabilization of the region. Serving it's own expansionist agenda.