'Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: OlmertJERUSALEM (AFP) — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.
Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.
The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.
"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.
"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel.
But a US State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, denied Olmert's claim.
"Mr. Olmert is wrong," the official said.
Even if everything had gone according to plan, "she would have abstained. That was the plan," said the official. "The government of Israel does not make US policy.'"
Welnu geachte politici: met wat voor soort politicus hebben we te maken die publiekelijk dit zegt: "In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.
"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."
Wat zeggen deze woorden? Welke mentaliteit spreekt hier uit? Met wat voor soort premier hebben we hier te maken? Wat betekent deze hoogmoed? Hebben we hier te maken met een man die nog echt redelijk reageert? Of hebben we hier te maken met iemand die gek geworden is? Zo ja, wat zijn dan de politieke gevolgen van deze gekte?
Ik vraag dit omdat een andere vooraanstaande Israeli het Westen als volgt heeft bedreigd: ''We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.' Het is een citaat van de van origine Nederlandse en nu Israelische academicus Martin Levi van Creveld.
Of hebben we ook hier met grootspraak te maken? En als dat niet het geval is wat dan? Bent u bereid het risico te lopen dat het geen grootspraak is? En als het geen grootspraak is, wat betekent dat dan voor het leven en de belangen van degenen die u als volksvertegenwoordiger moet behartigen? U zit er namelijk niet om de belangen van Israel te behartigen, nietwaar? Daarom, wat zijn de politieke consequenties van een dergelijke bedreiging? Heeft u de indruk dat we hier te maken hebben met een schurkenstaat die vriend en vijand bedreigt? Zo ja, wat zijn de politieke consequenties daaruit voordat het straks te laat is?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten