The United States Abstained!

Don’t bet on the U.S., but bet on the history of the region and the certainty of true victory. In terms of this, perhaps it is surprising that the United States refrained from voting for the General Assembly reform decision entitled “the occupied Syrian Golan,” but the longer it has been, the more I realized that American policy is right, because they will not vote to return the occupied Syrian Golan to Syria. That is the logic that is imposed when one owns all the information. Otherwise, what does it mean that they voted with the decision of 167 nations, only opposed by Israel?

This is the logic, and this is the issue.

The new resolution of the General Assembly Security Council, resolution No. 497 of 1981, is one of the Security Council resolutions that banned completely the occupation of Golan and invalidated all the Israeli measures taken there.

This resolution is strong and clear and needs no explanation or detail. It only needs the complete agreement among members of the Security Council, including the United States of America.

It is not in the protocol of American politics to declare any retreat from this position. Why did the United States refrain from voting on the new resolution of the General Assembly yesterday?

This General Assembly’s resolution is devoted to truth and justice, and to renewing the international position of the occupied Golan. The current position is enshrined in American politics; therefore, the United States did not vote in favor of a resolution that places any political burden on them.

Indeed, abstaining from the vote puts a heavy burden on the position of the superpower, since it is assumed it is the sponsor of the draft peace in the region. This burden is increasing loss of confidence in America’s role.

The United States is still, despite its lean toward Israel and vulnerability to pressure from the Jewish Zionists, seeking the confidence of countries in the region, particularly on the question of peace. Just yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that they continue in their quest to establish peace in the region, despite the frustration that they have suffered, and that has hindered their quest to persuade Israel to modify their positions.

The United States, by failing to vote outside the squadron in which it flies with all its allies and friends in the world, with the exception of Israel, should not think that its scramble away from Israel may give rise to positions of friendly Arab governments.

The Gulf Cooperation Council has condemned Israel’s position with all the clarity of international silence. It stressed that the return of the Golan to Syria is the first introduction of peace — no peace without it.

The question is: Why does it embarrass the United States to go against the will of Israel in the interest of the political logic that you know that they are right, and refrain from voting in favor of the resolution in the General Assembly? It might embarrass them, or put them in conflict with the Arabs, but with the whole world?

This position, which creates a political liability by never showing clearly their rejection of the occupation and the attempts to annex the occupied territories, is a position that we would appreciate, one that would represent American liberty and the pursuit of happiness.