First of all, Jewish Virtual Libary has many excellent pages about the UN, including context for the UN treatment of Israel, myths and facts about the UN, and the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions themselves, in all their mindnumbing repetitiveness.
Expat Egghead looks up the many UN resolutions against Israel and finds not only very little similarity to the recent resolutions against Iraq, but notes that in almost all cases, the resolutions against Israel also call for various Arab states to do certain things for the resolution to be fulfilled.
Lets take Security Council Resolution 42 for example. It calls on all parties to cease violence. Well, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have refused. Why should only Israel be blamed for this? Or 438 as well. It calls for a just and durable peace. Just north of where I love there are around 20,000 Hezbollah fighters who think the Taliban are just peachy and would love to try out their recently acquired artillery on my house. Will they hold to 42 and 242 and 438? Snort. Not a chance. Takes two to tango and to make peace. 250 and 251 object to Israel celebrating the achievements of the IDF. Oh great, why just Israel for crying out loud?Egghead also labels the resolutions Open, Complete, or Tough Shit. The majority of them are Complete, meaning that whatever issue they spoke to has been resolved.
Some countries get more attention than others. 271 for example condemns Israel for letting a mad Australian set fire to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Did you ever hear of a Security Council resolution condemning attacks on synagogues? Like the one today in France? Funny that.
487 condemns Israel’s 1982 attack on the Iraqi reactor. Well, I’m sure people around the world view that in a different light now, hence I’ve marked that one ‘Tough shit’. The ones from Lebanon I feel very confident about marking closed. How so? Well, because the Secretary General said they were. Israel has no outstanding issue re Lebanon. In fact it’s Syria who is in violation as it still has around 30,000 troops there. Having an extended picnic no doubt. Both Lebanon and Syria refuse to agree with the Un over this one. Does anyone mantion that in the press these days? The latest resolution, says in part ‘Condemning all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 ‘ Did however gave you the info on 68 resolutions mention that? I suspect not. You’ll get an earful on ‘legitimate defence’. That’s blowing up OAP’s on buses to you and me.
. . . By my count, there are 17 Security Council resolutions that Israel and others need to address. There is only one, repeat one that I can fairly say that Israel could comply with all by itself and isn’t. (It’s really two but the same one repeated), numbers 452 and 465.That’s stopping to build settlements in the West Bank. All the other resolutions would need Arab entities joining in as well.
Palestine Facts has a good overview of the historical context of several of the more infamous resolutions, and points out
Resolutions of the Security Council are of two types, falling under either:As UN Watch points out,
* Chapter VII, dealing with "Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression", resolutions that require compliance by the subject nation and carry the threat of force that may be used to compel compliance, or
* Chapter VI, dealing with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes", resolutions that are meant to be implemented through negotiation or other voluntary means.
The article by Dore Gold, "Baseless Comparisons: UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and Israel ", explains the difference between Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions of the UN and the fact that Israel has never been subject to a Chapter VII resolution. [Emphasis mine - JW]
Chapter VII of the UN Charter refers to cases of aggression or threats to international security, and is entitled "Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.". . . All of the Iraq resolutions include the phrase "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter." [emphasis mine - JW] Some also include the phrase “authorizes Member States … to use all necessary means” (i.e. the use of military force). . . . The other countries that, in the history of the UN, have been subjects of Chapter VII resolutions are: Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Sudan and the former Yugoslavia.Capitalism Magazine gives an overview of the UN trend in condemnations, with this fun tidbit:
The Women's Conference organized by the U.N. has adopted numerous resolutions condemning Zionism as one of the most serious obstacles for the emancipation of women. The first one of these resolutions was passed in 1975, a year after the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. A woman, of course, has yet to lead an Arab nation.And here's an article about the farce that was the 4th Geneva Convention.
<< Home