Proposal: W should also stand up for UN res. on Israel

UN security council resolution 242 (1967) calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict”.
For some reason i can’t look at this on the UN site, but this site has details:

Even if this resolution didn’t exist, or you think it is invalid, does that still make what Israel is doing ok? I in no way support the Palestinian terrorists, but that doesn’t mean i support Israel’s actions in killing innocent Palestinians, and occupying their land.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.

By the way: thanks for your replies MC Master of Cermonies and Jackmannii for your replies to my questions.

Here 's a link with some highlights of the history of Israel and the trans-palestine area.
From Roman times, (70ce IIRC), til the beginings of the twentieth century, jews were a small minority in the area.
"In 1922, a British census showed the Jewish population had risen to about 11% of Palestine’s 750,000 inhabitants. More than 300,000 immigrants arrived in the next 15 years."
I’m not sure why England had such a boner for a Jewish state. My guess is that the US’s infatuation with Israel is related to some of the same issues.

Mooka, here is a (neraly) full list of UNSC resolutions on Israel:

Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed ‘strongest censure’ of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man’s zone in Jerusalem.
Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined ‘flagrant violation’ by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.
Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Res 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Res 250 (Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Res 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel’s military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.
Res 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation’.
Res 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Res 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel’s attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.
Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.
Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.
Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.
Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel’s failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel’s change of status of Jerusalem.
Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.
Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Res 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.
Res 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.
Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel’s settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel’s settlement programme.
Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon.
Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.
Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel’s failure to observe the Council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’.
Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): ‘Censured in the strongest terms’ Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘basic law’.
Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.
Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.
Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.
Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.
Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.
Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel’s attack into West Beirut.
Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.
Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.
Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel’s policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.
Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.
Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.
Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel’s continuous deportation of Palestinians.
Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem’s Haram Al-Sharif.
Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel’s resumption of deportation of Palestinians.
Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): ‘Strongly condemned’ Israel’s decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from ‘Palestinian territories… including Jerusalem.’
Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel’s mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for thir immediate return.

Malthus- the reason why Israel where censured for their attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility is that it was unprovoked and the facility itself was incapable of producing enough weapons-grade material for it to be considered a viable military institution.

If I was a palestinian Arab, I would be pissed as I know how to be at the western powers who more or less gave Jews the lands my ancestors had worked for hundreds of years. I think that a lot of the anti-western sentiment stems from the actions surrounding this.
The first Zionist congress was in response to european anti-semitism. The europeans helped them move to palestine. Then the palestinians started to feel anti-semitic.

That’s quite a list MC. Can any other country top that in quantity?

How many resolutions is Isarel in violation of?

I hear it called “Western guilt” left over from the events of WWII.

in any case I’m more concerned with why the UN has such a boner for UN resolutions against Israel.

England’s intense involvement with Zionism began even before the founding of the nazi party.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that israel invaded territory the un had set aside for palestinian before Israel even officially existed as a state. Not a good first impression. And the month before Israel became a state **Irgun and Lehi **{“militant groups”} **massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. **
If that’s your introduction to the un and its resolutions…

Umm… can I have a cite for this bullshit? Or did you mistakenly think this was the pit and you wanted to rant?

Undoubtably, the answer must be “no”.

Which brings to mind the further question - is this relatively tiny country so very evil, or is the UN maybe just a teensy bit biased in its application of denunciations?

Consider Syria - now owns Lebanon as its vassal state; massive human rights violations; has in the past flattened whole cities, killing all inhabitants. How many ritual denunciations of Syria has the UN bothered to pass, I wonder?

Wait - this is the same body which recently appointed Lybia as chair of its Human Rights Committee. Israel is not even eligible. Scratch my original question - answer is obvious, to all but the most close-minded.

As far as the Iraq nuclear plant raid is concerned, Israel ought to be getting kudos for that - without it, Iraq would no doubt have nukes long before now. I just cannot believe that anyone still buys that “it was a peaceful civilian facility” nonsense. One of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world needs a nuclear power plant for power generation? Pleeeeze. :rolleyes:

Do you really imagine that this one massacre by terrorists fifty years ago is the reason for the UN hatred that has lasted ever since? There have been plenty of much worse massacres since which the UN has apparently not noticed.

It couldn’t possibly be because of the influence of on oil cartel dominated by Arab countries filled with hatred for the very existence of Israel, could it? Naw, that would be too simple …

Nuclear reactors are cleaner and more efficient than oil-driven generators, and the less oil Iraq consumes itself, the more they can sell. Isn’t that a saying in drug circles? “Never smoke your own stash”? And anyway, I’d like to see some sources, if anyone has them, as to what type of reactor it was. Not all nuke plants can be converted into nuclear bombs (the US was supposed to build two such plants in North Korea, plants using radioactive material that cannot be used in bombs). It could very well have been a peaceful civilian facility.

As for UN violations, something like 60+ countries have violated or are still violating UN resolutions, including the US, UK and yes, even Canada. That kind of makes the whole deal with Iraq seem a little more… eh.

I wrote a paper last semester that might provide some insight. Heres the link feel free to use/distribute it so long as nothing is changed

if someone else could mirror that my server would appreciate it.

Well, Lucien Vandenbroucke, then of the Brookings Institution, explains that the type of reactors Iraq had been interested in were much more practical for plutonium production (which nuclear weapons typically use) than power generation. Read the article, especially paragraphs 5-8, for a detailed explanation of why this is true.

Oh, and your “don’t smoke your own stash” thing is downright silly.

Thanks for the link. I’ll give a look over later.

And why is that statement silly? Iraq’s degrading drilling facilities can only produce so much oil per day. If they have to put aside a large amount of it just to keep the lights on, they’re losing out, since they don’t exactly have many other resources to profit from. If they have power from independant sources, they can sell more/most of the oil. More oil sales = more money = more bombs, factories, fancy cars for Saddam, etc.

Read this article, and judge for yourself:

All in favour of “Iraq was building a peaceful nuclear facility”, raise your hands …

“Page cannot be found”.

I think the cost would make it silly, tbey would lose money selling the oil and buying the nuke stuff. Except that I’ve heard the Saud family make reference to when the oil runs out, so I’m suprised that they aren’t all trying to make nukes for power generation in the next twenty years. Maybe there’s 50 to go and they will build them in the 2030’s.

America-hating europe, UN hatred of Israel… I wonder how this can be since we (western) europeans have been the U.S. closest allies the previous century, and the U.N. is situated in New York.

Furthermore every land that is a member of the U.N. has one vote, right (not referring to the security counsil here)? How many votes do the Arab countries control?

Which thing is “almost total bull”? Every single thing I wrote, or just part of it? You’ll note that I put a question mark after “has always had” because I was uncertain of the time that US aid dated from.

So, if the US withdrew aid now, could Israel be self sustaining?

And do you think it is also “total bull” that despite America’s continued help but also criticism, that the Sharon administration (note I’m not saying “Israel” because I don’t believe Sharon is a fair representation of Israel) continues its policies, in particular as regards settlements?

If you think my entire post was “total bull”, fine, but if not, it would be more helpful for you to quote just those parts you disagree with.

And this is a genuine question, not a loaded comment, but how did Israel buy its munitions from whatever other countries in the early days? (Eg, were there a lot of exceedingly rich Israeli/Jewish benefactors involved in the founding of it, so they used their own money?)