Master of Ceremonies: Nice list, but just how many of those resolutions are simply saying “Bad Israel!” and how many are saying “you must do this and this in consequence for that action”?
It seems to me that Israel simply receives more than it’s fair share of criticisms, not that it does anything much worse than other countries in the region. The UN hasn’t exactly impressed me much with being evenhanded or fair.
I’d be interesting to know the answer to that, too. Just a guess, but maybe it has to do with a dismissive attitude toward the Palestinians? I often hear (perhaps unfairly, maybe someone can provide specific examples) that other Arab nations don’t give a rat’s ass about the Palestinians except to use them as an excuse to hate Israel.
Monster:
I believe, though i am not sure, that this is due to UN resolutions generally have more to say on nations who disregard other nations teritory, than nations who disregard, parts of, or their whole populations. The majority of the resolutions cited above are to that effect.
More than it is the UN being unfair on Israel (which really just expresses the majority opinion of it’s member states, it is Israel military that often acts on other countries teritory.
“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”
Arab countries don’t generally have more than one seat on the Security Council. What accounts for the other 14 votes? And note that UNSC resolutions have to survivive Permanent Member vetoes. So every single one of those resolutions survived US vetoes and in some cases the US voted against Israel.
The “oil cartel” became powerful only in the early 70’s with the first oil price shock and as MC’s list indicates many of the resolutions were before that.
In short the idea that UNSC resolutions against Israel are a result of Arab “hatred” and the “oil cartel” is pure nonsense.
It may be that if you are sitting there, a whole and self-determined country, and someone offers to accept your ‘right of existence’ it probably doesn’t look like that great of a deal. Israel does have a UN resolution that determines it’s existence. That same one also decrees a separate Palestine, and this was an option that was declined and is still a matter of heated debate - this doesn’t alter the fact that Israel is very much there in black and white, alongside.
This might be, in typical brain-knotting fashion, a reason why we don’t see an orchestrated effort from anyone for full acceptance of Resolution 181 for an independent Palestine.
Well in all fairness a fair amount of critisism could for sure be directed towards the arab states for not really caring for the palestinians, hell some of them (syria i believe for example), has most of the time wanted to make palestine part of their own territory. The same goes for not accepting the state of Israels right to exist.
But I believe much of the rethorics back then went something like: Israel must have the occupied country as a security zone, since it neighbours does not accept its existence, and would invade given the chance. In light of this, the “right to existence” WAS a great deal since it basically meant that the arab states would admit their obligation to respect Israel’s territory if Israel withdrew.
Cite?
Also, since when does Saudi Arabia stand for all other Arab nations?
And if these are the pre-1967 borders, if so, then the Israeli military would be very hesitant pulling out of Golan Heights, and I am sure no Israeli wants to give up the Kotel just so that Saudi Arabia acknowledges Israel’s “right to exist”.
Perhaps the Saudis are interested in Peace with the West and it’s friends for economic stability. I don’t know. They certainly speak with both sides.
My very limited understanding is that the problem lies in the fact that Israel isn’t at war with any of the Arab nations. It is at “war” with Hamas and the suicide bombers.
The Saudi plan asks Israel to turn over approximately half of all the territory which they control to a “government” which has been unable or unwilling to control Hamas. In return Hamas is asked to promise exactly nothing. Not exactly a great deal for the Israelis.
Of course, you won’t be surprised to learn that some folks think that this is just an excuse on the part of the Israelis
I was reacting to the recitation of what I consider a modern urban myth - that Israel would not have beaten its enemies, and could not survive, without US aid. That is indeed completely and utterly untrue, but still appears to be believed by many.
Certainly, such aid was not present in the formation and early battles of Israel, yet Israel survived none-the-less.
As for purchase of munitions - ironically, at the most relevant time (1948), much of the munitions used by Israel came from central Europe (Chezchsolvakia), with the indirect belessing of the Soviet Union - which saw in Israel a “socialist state” and possible ally in the region. The money did indeed come in part from Jews world-wide, and in part by money earned by the various people and organizations living within the territory at the time. Do not fall into the error of assuming that, if the US is not the reason Israel survived, then it must be the “international Jewish conspiracy”.
As for Sharon and his policies, I think that the application of pressure may very well deter him from pursuing them - or it may not. Israel has not responded very positively to such pressure in the past. On the other hand, the value of the settlements is quite dubious, both from a strategic and moral standpoint, and heavily criticised within Israel itself.
Nonsense, eh? Then how exactly do you explain the apparent one-sided fixation on Israel?
The problem you face is that, whatever you may think about the morality or otherwise of Israel’s actions, there is simply no way that this tiny country could possibly merit such hefty condemnation - unless of course we are to presume that other countries such as China, Syria, Lybia etc. have not commit any offences worthy of condemnation in the same manner or to the same extent as Israel. Res Ipsa, man - the thing speaks for itself.
You seem quite oblivious of the efforts made by countries such as China and Russia to “woo” third world countries during the Cold War, long before oil became a major factor. These countries cared nothing for Israel or Palistinians, but were perfectly willing to vie for influence by sponsoring anti-Israeli resolutions at monotinously regular intervals. Naturally, the increasing clout of the oil cartel simply accelerated this process.
zigareten:
I think the confusion arises from the difference between the terms “control” and “occupy”. In contrast to your statement that Israel “controls teritory” the opinion of the world community (the UN) is that it “occupies land”. This is illegal according to international law, so therefore Israel is obliged to return it.
Even if Israel, in the wake of the 11th, renamed it’s affairs with hamas, the PLO, and the palestinians alike, “a war on terrorism”, they are still obliged to return it.
Just as you, if you steal a car, regardless of all other circomstances, still have stolen a car.
Malthus, it really is nonsense.
If your assumption that the geographical size of a country is correlated to it being worthy of critisism, then we can hardly critizise Iraq, which is (compared to the US) only slightly bigger. Right?
Really, your argument is a circular one:
Israel can’t really be wrong, so there must be a conspiracy against Israel, which just shows what Israel has to put up with, so then Israel must be right.
Usually, you return a car to its owners.
In this case, that would be Jordan. Remember, Israel “stole” the WB from Jordan originally (if that is the term you want to use to describe taking territory from countries in a defensive war, and then trying to return them in return for permanent peace treaties).
However, Jordan doesn’t want those territories back - ever. Why? Because of the events of Black September, which indicated that their “Hashimite Kingdom” was in serious danger if more Palistinians were “Jordanians”.
So, the problem is not so simple - it is easy to return territory “stolen” from an already-established country. It is much more difficult to establish an entirely-new country, particularly one which to all intents and purposes is at war with you, and whose citizens appear unable to stop blowing up men, women and children in terror attacks against your population.
Isn’t it amazing how knowing some history complicates such a beautiful black-and-white morality tale?
Not the best analogy since people don’t steal a car and let the owner continue to drive it. The land belongs to people willing to accept the dual state solution of resolution 181 - if not, why wouldn’t it revert back to British mandate? Syria, Lebanon, et al have no business being in the equation and dictating the terms of anything.
So, according to you, the differential treatment accorded to Israel is justified?
I never said Israel cannot be wrong. I said that Israel cannot possibly be the worst offender in the world, or rather an offender so bad that all it is worse than the other offenders put together - which is what the flood of denunciations, taken at face value, implies.
That must be a big relief to the Tibetians, knowing how much objectively better they have it than the Palistinians. :rolleyes:
Riddle me this - do you, or do you not, think that Israel is the worst offender out there? If so, I think you are objectively wrong. If not, you have some explaining to do - as to why this huge amount of denunciations have been passed.
“Then how exactly do you explain the apparent one-sided fixation on Israel?”
The UN is set up in a framework which usually respects national sovereignty. Most of the other human rights abusers are acting against their own citizens and within their borders. Israel, OTOH, has been involved regularly in commiting illegal acts outside its internationally recognized borders and against non-citizens. That is naturally of greater concern to an international organization like the UN.
Other factors include the fact that the UN was intimately involved in the Arab-Israeli issue from the very begining and is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinians.
Finally the Arab-Israeli dispute is of great international importance unlike many others involving human-rights abuses.
I think this combination is fairly unique in recent history and can explain UNSC resolutions better than conspiracy theories involving “oil cartels” and the like.
“You seem quite oblivious of the efforts made by countries such as China and Russia to “woo” third world countries during the Cold War, long before oil became a major factor”
If this was just a matter of Cold-War politics the Western countries would have vetoed these UNSC resolutions; in fact even the US voted against Israel on some of them.
Malthus:
On your mention of “return of land for permanent peace treatys” and “palestine essentially being at war with Israel, if existed” (you didn’t mean Jordan here to did you?) i refer to the disscusion on these issues, above.
Now i am not quite sure if you want to make a point that none of what is generally termed “occupied land” belongs to the not-quite-so-new nation Palestine? Or do you argue that of remaining territories, when palestinian country is subtracted, no one except Israel is making any claim to that land?
As for Israel being attacked (true for some of the land in question), that is a fair point. Worthy of critisism of the arab states that attacked it.
But still if someone knocks you in the head and in return you steal his bike - what does the law say? One can’t go knocking people in the head, but you in return can not make up your own laws in revenge.
Return the bike.
They should return it to stewardship of the UN, not to an entity that is not going to recognize the existence of the neighboring country. You can’t recognize half of a resolution. The land of Palestine that many people refer to is the British mandate Palestine which encompasses Israel, and some of that land is under new ownership.
Anyone not making at least a nominal attempt to understand the complexities of this is part of the problem, not the solution.
I am sure that the Tibetans will be glad to know that you agree with the Chinese that Tibet is and always was an “internal Chinese matter”. 
And of course that their fate is of so little concern to anyone.
I also find it amusing that the fact that Lebanon - the cause of so many UN denunciations of Israel - is right as we speak a Syrian vassal state without any corresponding denunciations has escaped your notice. When Isreal invades, it is “commiting illegal acts outside its internationally recognized borders and against non-citizens”, in an area of “great international importance”. When Syria subsequently invades the very same country, suppresses indigenous governments and establishes its own puppet regime, “dissapears” Lebanese who protest, suddenly neither of these points are true or relevant?
How do you explain that set of double standards?
So, all Israel has to do to avoid international denunciation is formally annex the WB and declare it part of Israel? Then, they can expel its population and all will be okay because it is an “internal matter” of no concern to that agust body?
Funny - I wonder why they, being so evil and imperialistic, have not done that.
I love it when moralizers switch horses in mid-stream to mount this sort of “legalistic” defense of the indefensible.