as of October 2002. I did a quick count, and Israel leads with 32 resolutions (occupied territories), followed by Turkey, 24 (occupation of part of Cyprus, 1974) and Morocco, 16 (calling for self-determination of Western Sahara, after 1975). Turkey and Morocco have overwhelmingly Muslim populations. Israel, Turkey and Morocco are all allies of the United States.
I don’t know the exact number or UNSC resolutions currently being violated by Iraq. The link I provided says “dozen or so”, although I recall having heard on the news that it was over twenty. Perhaps someone can provide the exact number.
As other posters have noted, any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) can veto a proposed resolution. Indeed, according to the previous link,
“Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined.”*
In the light of this data (if anyone has different numbers, I would be happy to see them), Malthus, do you still claim that the UN has a “one-side fixation on Israel”, propelled “by the oil cartel”?
If you’re think Monty Python you could be in good territory…
What those sympathising with Israel against Hamas fail to appreciate is that this is precisely how Israel was formed in the first place - by Zionist terrorist groups stringing up Palestinian villagers and even British soldiers (it was still part of the Empire then). Shattered emotionally, mentally and physically after WWII, and faced with imminent bankruptcy, Britain was in no position to start fighting a guerilla war on another continent.
So Britain handed the issue over the UN. The Zionist terrorists got their reward in the Nation State of Israel.
Hamas and co. are a reaction against Israeli occupation, oppression, and often violent repression. Britain has it’s own record of human rights abuses, but at least never stooped to treating the Catholic Irish the way the Israeli government has been treating Palestinians.
"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”. "
Well I don’t necessarily believe this but IIRC Tibet is recognized as being part of China by the international community. Then of course there is the little matter of the Chinese veto which rules out any UNSC resolutions.
I am not sure exactly what the Lebanon/Syria situation is and to what extent Syria is violating international law and to what extent it's interventions are approved by the Lebanese governemnt but I don't think it's doing anything as blatant as building permanent settlements on occupied territory. Once again the issue isn't how morally bad the actions of the government are but how clear-cut the violation of international law. Many governments, including the US, have installed and supported puppet governments of their choosing around the world.
Note btw that in the Sheba farms dispute the UN has ruled against Syria and for Israel. As such this is of greater practical importance than many of the UN resolutions we are talking about.
“So, all Israel has to do to avoid international denunciation is formally annex the WB and declare it part of Israel?”
Well obviously not since such an annexation wouldn’t be recognized internationally.
“I love it when moralizers switch horses in mid-stream to mount this sort of “legalistic” defense of the indefensible”
All I have tried to do is offer an explanation of UNSC actions based on the framework under which the UN operates, its own history with respect to the region and the relative importance of the dispute in world affairs. As such I think it’s a lot better than half-baked theories about “oil cartels” and the like which don’t fit the facts.
But if you want to talk about morality let me remind you of the fact that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. In other words even if you think that the UNSC has been negligent in other areas of the world that doesn’t invalidate its resolutions with respect to Israel.
First, I will say two things - I am totally in favour of a two-state solution, with an independant Palistine with a democratic Palistinian government; second, I disapprove of the “settlement” policy, as a land-grab that will make the founding of a Palistinian state difficult if not impossible.
However, this task is made more difficult, not easier, by imposing simplistic “moral” solutions not based on a real knowledge of the complex history of the region.
“Palistine” has in fact never been an independant state, for a very long time. Originally part of the Turkish empire, it fell under the British Mandate after WW1, was divided (essentially) between Israel and Jordan after 1948, and the WB part of it was taken in battle in 1967.
The original Israeli intention for the WB was to give it back to Jordan in return for a comprehensive set of peace treaties. Isreal has only managed to actually do this once - with Egypt, in return for the Siani (also taken in battle). The reason? It is domestically very difficult for arab countries to even attempt to make peace. Sadat was widely reviled for his peace initiative, and lost his life to an assassin for it.
Jordan is a shakey monarchy. The majority of its people already are Palistinians, not Jordanians. To make peace with Israel would probably cost the Hasimite Kingdom its existence - particularly where the result of this peace treaty was to double the number of Palistinians in the country! Remember in “Black September”, the Palistinians attempted to sieze control (with Syrian help), were massacred and their leadership tossed out of the country (they moved to Lebanon, sparking that unfortunate country’s civil wars, and leading to Israel’s interventions). [Funny how only Israel’s role in all of these events has been critisized by the UN! None of the other players were to blame, apparently - odd that :rolleyes: ]
Anyway, to make a long story short, Jordan officially renounced its claim to the WB. So now, no-one “owns” it.
The logical solution, in my opinion, would be to turn the place over to a government elected by the people currently living there - after Israel removes its settlements. That would be just, no?
Only one problem - the place is currently run by the same gang of terrorists who screwed up Jordan and Lebanon, and have shown zero interest in governing democratically (except to hold sham elections). Why are they uninterested? Because without a permanent state of instability, they are unlikely to stay in power. Already, the Palistinians are weary of them and their corruption.
Firstly, you are talking two different animals here - Security Council Resolutions, and General Assembly Resolutions. The massive list posted above was of General Assembly Resolutions - but you knew that, right?
Secondly, I doubt very much whether you could really put Turkey in the “oil cartel camp”. Turkey is in fact generally hostile to that camp, is not an Arab country, and after Attaturk’s reforms is hardly a “muslim” country either.
So I don’t really see where your evidence leads. I maintain that the General Assembly is clearly and obviously biased. The Security Council is too, but in a different way - in no way are Israel, Turkey and Morrocco the worst offenders, but since China and Russia are on the Council, their offences obviously don’t “count”, right?
Thanks alenar for the link:
The Morroco resolutions in particular squelch the Arab Power Theory completely. Now the only question that remains is why supporters of Israel feel so compelled to launch silly,ignorant attacks on the UN with minimal understanding of the issues involved.
“The massive list posted above was of General Assembly Resolutions - but you knew that, right?”
If you are talking about MC’s list you are mistaken; they are UNSC resolutions.
“The Security Council is too, but in a different way - in no way are Israel, Turkey and Morrocco the worst offenders, but since China and Russia are on the Council, their offences obviously don’t “count”, right?”
You are no longer talking about anti-Israel or pro-Arab bias but the inbuilt bias to the benefit of the 5 Permanent members. That’s a fair point but irrelevant to the issue of whether the UN has a special animus towards Israel. And of course a bias for the great powers was inevitable in any kind practical international organization.
Malthus actually the list that I posted was of UNSC resolutions. Yes Security Council resolutions are different from General Assembly resolutions as countries are obligated to follow them.
having lived in Turkey (briefly), I agree with alot of what you said, but it is still a Muslim country but fiercely secular. The General Assembly doesn’t have a real bias (that’s not to say it’s resolutions are always fair), but just reflects the opinions of all the countries of the world.
So, if you are powerful enough, you are above the so-called “law”?
Thank you, that was just the point I was making.
Then you should read up about it. In my humble opinion, militarially occupying a country, installing a puppet government, and making political figures you disagree with “disappear” are far worse than what Israel is currently doing.
I notice that Arafat is still around, still alive. If he crossed Syria and was in Lebanon, neither of those statements would be true.
Check my posts carefully. Where exactly did I argue that “two wrongs make a right”? Or is this just a stale old strawman?
All along I have argued that the UN has been acting with double standards, and displays gross and obvious bias against Israel. I have seen nothing to contradict that.
The Lebanon example is a perfect case in point. I looked at the “UN SC Resolutions Violated” website; I quite failed to find any mention of Syria. Why is that, when Israel’s actions in Lebanon have been so roundly denounced? One wonders, yes one does.
Well, I’ll admit to the bike example being a bit rethorical. I’ll also admit to the complexity of the palestine-politics. I simply anticipated a different debate. You must remember, though, i was responding to you claiming that the geographical size of Israel was related to whether UN resolutions were justified.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Therefore the arab state of “Palestine” has the same foundations as the current jewish state of “Israel”. The palestine people certainly exist.
I agree to your analysis of the motives of the other arab states, they are certainly worthy of criticism in these matters. Even of UN resolutions.
Still occupation of, and military intervention on foreign land is quite likely to cause UN resolutions.
Lastly, concerning the part about the palestine government being terrorrists this is identical to Israel administration rethorics. It would have (a little) more credibility were not the current president of Israel Ariel Sharon, generally held responsible for allowing the mass-killings in Lebanese refugee-camps in the 80s. A Belgian (non-arab!) court recently found that Sharon could, after resigning office, be tried on these grounds.
And here i also believe the bicycle analogy applies: You don’t claim that you can’t give the bicycle back because the owner(s) are jackasses, or murderous maniacs even.
I take it you are aware of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which laid out Britain’s plans to establish Israel as a Zionist state. This is hardly giving up in 1948 because they couldn’t continue, it was a set plan put into motion 30 years earlier.
“So, if you are powerful enough, you are above the so-called “law”?”
Well first of all I am not sure whether Chinese occupation of Tibet is against international law in the first place. Secondly ,like I mentioned, you are talking about a different bias now from Arab/oil cartel theories you started off with it. This is Great Power bias not anti-Israel bias. I don’t necessarily disagree with this but it’s beside the point.
“Explain why when Israel invades Lebanon, it is subject to a flurry of condemnation; yet when Syria takes over Lebanon - nothing.”
One possible explanation is that Syria had at least some support from the Lebanese government whereas Israel was just invading Lebanon. That would make a difference under international law.
Once again the issue isn’t the morality of the policy but how blatantly they violate international law. You seem to have some troube understanding this.
Anyway whatever the reason is, your theory of Arab/OPEC influence fails to explain why so many resolutions were passed against Morroco which is an Arab country.
“All along I have argued that the UN has been acting with double standards, and displays gross and obvious bias against Israel. I have seen nothing to contradict that.”
So does the UN show gross bias against Morroco and Turkey as well? Why?
I have shown why your Arab/OPEC theory doesn’t fit the facts and also given an alternate explanation based on UN history and the framework under which it works.
“I am puzzled by this logic - because Morrocco, an Arab country, has several resolutions against it, the UN cannot be biased against Israel?”
It squelches the theory that Arab countries have a powerful influence in the UNSC which was the theory you started off with.
“I will not respond in kind.”
It’s a bit late to take the moral high ground after your snide remarks about “moralizers switching horses”
Biased answer. There already was a British declaration (that Skip mentioned) in existence for an Israel. An early ‘weapon’ employed was mass immigration by Jews which was arguably more effective than munitions, but not exactly terrorism.
Good point about Sharon. I’d like to point out something - included in an old (and maybe the current) Likud party platform is for Israel to extend to the Jordan River. Groups like Hamas, maybe even the PLO, are working for a Palestine that extends to the sea. Obviously the extremes on each side intend to proceed without the existence of the other side; however, the US recognizes both. The UN recognizes both. The moderates living within each camp can recognize both (and the discrepancy is in the details). Point being, the obstacle is that the respresentative bodies of each of the principles, at this time, will not recognize each other. So how can one reasonably single out one side to ‘do the right thing’, when the result of that is the very definition of a threat to national security.
There has to be a equal, sustained, joint compromise.
If what China is doing and has done to Tibet is okay by international “law”, then I think the “law” is immoral. It should not be supported.
What I remember is that Tibet was a seperate country until it was invaded and annexed.
I think that the General Assembly is biased in one way, and the SC is biased in another.
Wait just a cotton-picking minute - the Israeli invasion was fully supported by elements of the Lebanese government - namely, the Christian Phalangests. You may recall, Christian Phalange militia were those charming people who committed a certain famous massacre against Palistinian refugees, for which Sharon got the blame for not preventing.
So Israel was not, according to your interpretation, “just invading”. They were supporting their allies, which according to you is somehow different under international law. To quote: “That would make a difference under international law. Once again the issue isn’t the morality of the policy but how blatantly they violate international law. You seem to have some troube understanding this.”
Is your opinion of the “legality” of their behaviour different, now that you are in possession of more facts?
You seem to be asserting that Turkey (a non-muslim, non-arab, non-oil producing country) is somehow relevant. Why?
You further seem to suggest that the UN has only one possible axis of cleavage - between arabs and Israel. There is more than one issue out there.
It is perfectly possible that the Arab countries are capable of combining to hammer a mutual enemy, and yet do not fully rule on all matters. You are setting up a strawman (that arabs get their way on everything) and beating it to death. I simply say that the Arab countries have a fixed hatred of Israel (surey you do not dispute that?), and on this one issue combine to produce a regular stream of denunciations. Leading to bias, as only the US cares enough about Israel to bother opposing them - and at that, not always.
Not true. See above.
Arabs are not a united force, getting their way in all things. In fact, they are remarkably divided - except when it comes to Israel.
I find your focus on legality as opposed to morality puzzling, to be sure. Maybe I was wrong about you being a moralizer. If so, I apologize.
The problem then surely is the fact that no “Palistine” was set up on the West Bank, post-1948. In all honesty, I don’t know why Jordan simply annexed it. Though I do note that they were never condemned by the UN for denying Palistinian statehood, and wonder why.
As for the “terrorist” angle, I would have no problem with a democratically-elected ex-terrorist as a leader of Palistine. The problem is, in this case, his demonstrated corruption and unwillingness to face un-rigged elections. He is in fact a dictator, and the PA commits a comparable number of human-rights abuses on its own people as are committed against the Palistinians by their Israeli enemies. This is discouraging.
It is not a question of bicycles, but rather of the rider. A competent rider must be found, or this particular bicycle is going straight into the ditch the moment it is handed back.
Say what you will about Sharon - a bloody-handed general, to be sure, and with most disagreeable policies - and apparently linked to corruption. But he is not a dictator, and when voted out he will go. That is the difference between them, and a most vital difference it is.
