Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RoofGardener

Israel and the Untied Nations

68 posts in this topic

There is an oft-repeated nostrum that Israel is in breach of several UN Resolutions relating (mostly) to the Arab wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973.

I disagree with this, and would like to propose the following:

"Israel is unique on the Arabian Peninsula in that it respects the will of the UN, and has complied with all UN resolutions"

Well... has it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the title a deliberate pun, or a typo? If so, it's a good one.

Well, as regards UN Resolutions, that fearsome weapon, perhaps it might be suggested by some that having influential friends in the country that's either most influential on the UN, or alternatively can ignore the UN completely if it suits them, can be very useful in making sure that any UN Resolutions that are directed its way are not as onerous as they might otherwise have been, so therefore would not be too difficult to comply with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A little of Both, Colonel.

OK, lets kick of with Resolution 242.

You hear this cited quite often in discussions about Israel, usually in the context of "Illegal occupation", and as an example of Israel ignoring UN resolutions.

Background:

Resolution 242 was adopted as part of the ceasefire (and subsequent peace negotiations) between various Arab nations and Israel following from the 1967 war. It created and applied a new standard of behaviour that had never before been levied against any nation. In this case, it was the principle that armed conflict - even as the defender - can never be an excuse to permanently annexe territory. (This arose because Israel had ended up holding Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory at the point of the ceasefire).

The usual mantra goes that - because Israel still holds some of the above territory - it has therefore ignored the resolution.

The truth, as is so often the case, is more complex, more interesting, and many may find it surprising.

Resolution 242 required that all parties must meet with a UN representative, and negotiate in good faith for a permanent peace. The aim was to achieve both of the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution was accepted by Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

It was REJECTED by Syria and - most tellingly - the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.

The resolution paved the way for multiple bilateral peace negotiations, in which Israel ultimately withdrew from land taken from Egypt (the Sinai and Gaza Strip), and Jordan (the East bank). A similar proposition to Syria regarding the Golan Heights was rejected by Syria, which refused to participate in any aspect of the peace treaty. The PLO - far from recognising Israel - refused to even recognise the peace process, and refused to meet, on the grounds that they where Washing Their Hair that night, or Polishing the Family Grievences, or whatever. Accordingly, they where totally marginalised - as ever.

It is worth noting that prior to the final settlement of the peace treaties, the Arabs massively breached resolution 242 by launching the Yom Kippur war, and invading Israel. Their Epic Fail, despite MASSIVE donations of equipment and training by the Soviet Onion, forced them back to the negotiating table, where Resolution 242 was patiently waiting for them.

It is also worth noting that Israel continues to occupy the Golan Heights, to the extent of extending Israeli law over them, and encouraging settlement. This has triggered additional UN resolutions against Israel. In response, Israel points out that Syria has refused to accept the terms of Resolution 242 in that they have repeatedly refused to adopt part (2) of the resolution and recognise Israel's right to exist even after 50 years, and that accordingly, the Syrians can go and boil their collective heads.

Edited by RoofGardener
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gardener... I thought you were joking LOL!

Then I read on. How sad. :blush:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gardener... I thought you were joking LOL!

Then I read on. How sad. :blush:

Your point? Is he wrong on the facts?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Interesting point And Then.

I've noticed very few people have bothered to respond to this thread. I was expecting a HEAP of vitriol to be dumped on my head... but so far... nothing.

I've also noticed that UN Resolutions don't feature as often in peoples critiques of Israel. Co-incidence, or Causuality ?

It's a shame really. I was looking forwards to the debate. I started with Res 242 because it seemed such a bedrock to many of the anti-Israel brigade, and also because it is the easiest to debunk. Some of the other Resolutions "against" Israel are.... trickier. A couple are VERY difficult to refute because Israel was bang out of order. It is difficult to imagine WHAT the Knesset was thinking to give the order to.....

.... well... with the lack of interest in this thread, I guess we'll never find out now. :P

Lucky break for the Israeli's, huh ? :-*

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point And Then.

I've noticed very few people have bothered to respond to this thread. I was expecting a HEAP of vitriol to be dumped on my head... but so far... nothing.

I've also noticed that UN Resolutions don't feature as often in peoples critiques of Israel. Co-incidence, or Causuality ?

It's a shame really. I was looking forwards to the debate. I started with Res 242 because it seemed such a bedrock to many of the anti-Israel brigade, and also because it is the easiest to debunk. Some of the other Resolutions "against" Israel are.... trickier. A couple are VERY difficult to refute because Israel was bang out of order. It is difficult to imagine WHAT the Knesset was thinking to give the order to.....

.... well... with the lack of interest in this thread, I guess we'll never find out now. :P

Lucky break for the Israeli's, huh ? :-*

Oh yeah...there's NO doubt that the Israelis step in it stupidly at times. But nothing they've done to date justifies the sheer volume of acts against them or the unrelenting hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the so called Road Map. All the Palestinians have to do to have their own nation is to follow it, but as has been pointed out, they won't, because peace is the last thing they want...as long as Israel exists. I'm not saying every Palestinian feels this way, but so many do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the so called Road Map. All the Palestinians have to do to have their own nation is to follow it, but as has been pointed out, they won't, because peace is the last thing they want...as long as Israel exists. I'm not saying every Palestinian feels this way, but so many do.

Spot on, Gummug! And how can most of them even be blamed anymore? The current generation and the one before have been relentlessly indoctrinated in hatred of the Jew - PERIOD.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the so called Road Map. All the Palestinians have to do to have their own nation is to follow it, but as has been pointed out, they won't, because peace is the last thing they want...as long as Israel exists. I'm not saying every Palestinian feels this way, but so many do.

The Road Map isn't for Palestine only. It's mutual. And for the record, one shouldn't say what so many Palestinians feel unless you have some actual data showing it. But the usual crowd does, and it's bologna. So careful w/ what's for lunch.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2014/p52epressrelease.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the so called Road Map. All the Palestinians have to do to have their own nation is to follow it, but as has been pointed out, they won't, because peace is the last thing they want...as long as Israel exists. I'm not saying every Palestinian feels this way, but so many do.

Its not in the interest of the Palestinians Arab brothers/neighbours for there to be peace, every time peace is almost achieved a terrorist group strikes, throwing the whole thing in the air, then we see Israel retaliating in what is self defence. What is never mentioned is the amount of Palestinians living and working in Israel. if the factions in the region just left Israel and the Palestinian authority alone im sure peace would at long last be found.

i really do feel for Israel its like a fort on the edge of the frontier. and i'd hate the UK to share the neighbours Israel does.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Road Map isn't for Palestine only. It's mutual. And for the record, one shouldn't say what so many Palestinians feel unless you have some actual data showing it. But the usual crowd does, and it's bologna. So careful w/ what's for lunch.

http://www.pcpsr.org...essrelease.html

The last I heard, Israel tries to comply with the Road Map. Many of her neighbors do not.

Many is not the majority. It takes more than one for a jihad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last I heard, Israel tries to comply with the Road Map. Many of her neighbors do not.

Many is not the majority. It takes more than one for a jihad.

So you just ignore the data that I just provided you about what Palestinians really think, and with what do you replace it with instead? Show me what you have to show for the majority, or "not all but many". "The last I heard", the last you heard was probably more sourceless BS you read on this message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Road Map isn't for Palestine only. It's mutual. And for the record, one shouldn't say what so many Palestinians feel unless you have some actual data showing it. But the usual crowd does, and it's bologna. So careful w/ what's for lunch.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2014/p52epressrelease.html

Yes it is mutual. You have to balance out what the Palestinian feels and what their actions are. They do not include an Israel. That poll is pretty much useless (I didn’t say it wasn’t factual), although it is telling. I don’t see what the Palestinian thinks about the existence of Israel? Even if reconciliation would occur, no nation can survive with a divided Homeland. But if reconciliation would occur and the Palestinian finally was to declare an independent state, then Israel will negotiate with that entity and not Fatah or Hamas.

Section 4 shows 76% want the land that was abandoned/captured back to ’67 or even ’48 and another 15% want a religious society. Those are two things that will never happen as it would threaten the security of both nations or I should say for Israel and a would-be nation. Here again we must look to history for understanding. When the Ottomans owned the Levant, most land was state land. After WWI that state land went over to British control. And when Israel declared independence on the day before the British Mandate was to end, became the sole owner of state lands. Since most Palestinians did not own their own land then was beholding to the Jews, their new landlords.

Now that goes against Allah, but when the Arab league attacked Israel in behalf of the Palestinian and then lost. The Palestinian was not in a really great position to try to say “we didn’t mean it, we want our land back”. That is laughable. The only recourse was the panic that occurred. As far as returning land that was captured in conflict, why? Since ’67, the world political map has changed many times by conflict. As far as I know none of that land has been returned (other than perhaps due to civil war), except the Sinai and West Bank (to Jordan). I don’t see the UN forcing Russia to return the Crimea. At the very least Russia should recompense Ukraine with an equal tract of land elsewhere along the border and repatriate all Ukrainian born Russians.

The bottom line is that the longer the Palestinian puts off declaring statehood, the less land it will have. The Palestinian occupies the land illegally and therefore has no protections under the law, other than public opinion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is mutual. You have to balance out what the Palestinian feels and what their actions are. They do not include an Israel. That poll is pretty much useless (I didn't say it wasn't factual), although it is telling. I don't see what the Palestinian thinks about the existence of Israel? Even if reconciliation would occur, no nation can survive with a divided Homeland. But if reconciliation would occur and the Palestinian finally was to declare an independent state, then Israel will negotiate with that entity and not Fatah or Hamas.

Section 4 shows 76% want the land that was abandoned/captured back to '67 or even '48 and another 15% want a religious society. Those are two things that will never happen as it would threaten the security of both nations or I should say for Israel and a would-be nation. Here again we must look to history for understanding. When the Ottomans owned the Levant, most land was state land. After WWI that state land went over to British control. And when Israel declared independence on the day before the British Mandate was to end, became the sole owner of state lands. Since most Palestinians did not own their own land then was beholding to the Jews, their new landlords.

Now that goes against Allah, but when the Arab league attacked Israel in behalf of the Palestinian and then lost. The Palestinian was not in a really great position to try to say "we didn't mean it, we want our land back". That is laughable. The only recourse was the panic that occurred. As far as returning land that was captured in conflict, why? Since '67, the world political map has changed many times by conflict. As far as I know none of that land has been returned (other than perhaps due to civil war), except the Sinai and West Bank (to Jordan). I don't see the UN forcing Russia to return the Crimea. At the very least Russia should recompense Ukraine with an equal tract of land elsewhere along the border and repatriate all Ukrainian born Russians.

The bottom line is that the longer the Palestinian puts off declaring statehood, the less land it will have. The Palestinian occupies the land illegally and therefore has no protections under the law, other than public opinion.

Again, provide your sources for these ridiculous claims about "most Palestinians" much less what Allah thinks. You don't have any sources for that other than your own hate and imagination. Rights don't come from govt. I read what "the Palestinians" feel and what they think and what they say. I post it here and then you go right back to drooling over fear and hatred and wars against religion which you want more of.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, provide your sources for these ridiculous claims about "most Palestinians" much less what Allah thinks. You don't have any sources for that other than your own hate and imagination. Rights don't come from govt. I read what "the Palestinians" feel and what they think and what they say. I post it here and then you go right back to drooling over fear and hatred and wars against religion which you want more of.

http://palwatch.org/site/modules/videos/popup/video.aspx?doc_id=9312

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=11559

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655

Just a few - doubtless you will deny their veracity but others here can see the truth since they aren't as wilfully blinded as you seem to be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any polls and I sure as hell don't see any "most Palestinians". So what? So oppress the rights of 800,000 children in Gaza for that? Pfft you're a real piece of sighted work, andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support

1. Human Rights

2. International Law

3. Geneva Convention

4. Civil Liberty

Therefore, Zionists, I'm not going to make a sole denial for Palestinians unlike any other group of people on this planet. The little resident Zionist cheerleading squad just isn't that effective for me to turn into a raging hypocrite with a double standard just for Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support

1. Human Rights

2. International Law

3. Geneva Convention

4. Civil Liberty

Therefore, Zionists, I'm not going to make a sole denial for Palestinians unlike any other group of people on this planet. The little resident Zionist cheerleading squad just isn't that effective for me to turn into a raging hypocrite with a double standard just for Israel.

:nw:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, provide your sources for these ridiculous claims about "most Palestinians" much less what Allah thinks. You don't have any sources for that other than your own hate and imagination.

I gave sources, to bad you’re not in this conversation. And the Quran is pretty clear about Shirk.

Rights don't come from govt.

OK?? And I never said they did.

I read what "the Palestinians" feel and what they think and what they say.

Never said you didn’t. But you are also very selective about everything they feel and think. That’s what and then has been trying to tell you, but you’ll have nothing to do with it. That makes you very disingenuous in my book.

I post it here and then you go right back to drooling over fear and hatred and wars against religion which you want more of.

You’re the only one saying that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support

1. Human Rights

2. International Law

3. Geneva Convention

4. Civil Liberty

Therefore, Zionists, I'm not going to make a sole denial for Palestinians unlike any other group of people on this planet. The little resident Zionist cheerleading squad just isn't that effective for me to turn into a raging hypocrite with a double standard just for Israel.

First of all, Zionism is not a dirty word. It is not anti-Human Rights, anti-International Law, anti-Geneva Convention, or anti-Civil Liberty. *It is* to protect the Rights of Jews in a Jewish state from attacks of those that would violate those Rights. The environment that Israel is in the middle of is heavily biased against the Jewish state. Nobody else will step up to protect the Jew’s Rights, will you?

But if you were truly supportive of these 4 pillars, then you should be railing against Islam far more than Israel. Do we see that? Not just no, but HELL NO! Especially when it comes to woman’s rights. These pillars are based in Judeo-Christian principles, therefore morals and the law runs parallel. If they come into conflict with the Quran, they are abrogated in favor of Sharia Law. So by your own admission, you show yourself to be disingenuous yet again. Your support is lip service.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Zionism is not a dirty word. It is not anti-Human Rights, anti-International Law, anti-Geneva Convention, or anti-Civil Liberty. *It is* to protect the Rights of Jews in a Jewish state from attacks of those that would violate those Rights. The environment that Israel is in the middle of is heavily biased against the Jewish state. Nobody else will step up to protect the Jew's Rights, will you?

But if you were truly supportive of these 4 pillars, then you should be railing against Islam far more than Israel. Do we see that? Not just no, but HELL NO! Especially when it comes to woman's rights. These pillars are based in Judeo-Christian principles, therefore morals and the law runs parallel. If they come into conflict with the Quran, they are abrogated in favor of Sharia Law. So by your own admission, you show yourself to be disingenuous yet again. Your support is lip service.

+1 Sums it up quite succinctly - and fairly.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Zionism is not a dirty word. It is not anti-Human Rights, anti-International Law, anti-Geneva Convention, or anti-Civil Liberty. *It is* to protect the Rights of Jews in a Jewish state from attacks of those that would violate those Rights. The environment that Israel is in the middle of is heavily biased against the Jewish state. Nobody else will step up to protect the Jew's Rights, will you?

But if you were truly supportive of these 4 pillars, then you should be railing against Islam far more than Israel. Do we see that? Not just no, but HELL NO! Especially when it comes to woman's rights. These pillars are based in Judeo-Christian principles, therefore morals and the law runs parallel. If they come into conflict with the Quran, they are abrogated in favor of Sharia Law. So by your own admission, you show yourself to be disingenuous yet again. Your support is lip service.

Ethnic Cleansing is a dirty policy. It's just the Zionists who happen to be carrying it out at the moment and so yes, they're dirty by extension. It is anti-human rights, anti-international law, anti-Geneva Convention, and anti Civil liberty. Only a fool would even need to be told this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

+1 Sums it up quite succinctly - and fairly.

We're going to war against Islamic countries and we're subsidizing ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Not you, for how important you think all that is. It's someone else's sons and daughters. Phew, that's convenient. So I think the policy is pretty much as perfect as you could ever want it and has been for decades. Coming from that, even words seem to be a threat to you, even the mere suggestion of NOT ETHNIC CLEANSING ANYMORE. But oh, I ask too much!

If some powerful political group was ethnic cleansing you, for whatever your ethnicity or skin color is, I would support the Americans who bore arms against them in kind. And why wouldn't I? Why shouldn't I? Why is your life worth so much less than someone else's? Is there some political minutia from the 1900s to justify it? Some religious scripture from 1700 BC?

I gave sources, to bad you're not in this conversation. And the Quran is pretty clear about Shirk.

OK?? And I never said they did.

Never said you didn't. But you are also very selective about everything they feel and think. That's what and then has been trying to tell you, but you'll have nothing to do with it. That makes you very disingenuous in my book.

You're the only one saying that.

You never said? Okay so where do rights come from? Where are your sources? I don't see one link from you on this thread and I'm never going to excuse your lack of sources, get used to it. Are you going to try denying human rights when they're opposed to ethnic cleansing again? You've said that.

No, I don't have to defend Islam to defend 800,000 Palestinian kids being cut off from the world indefinitely because I'm not going to engage in your paranoid racist cleansing over religious BS, draconian clashes of civilization, neocon fantasy wipes about what we're doing in the world today. You think we're in a war of religion and a clash of civilization and it's stunning to see a dupe believe you. Go find some sources from the policymakers of the US government who agree with any of your fantastic claims about what we're doing over there. You can't do it and you never will.

There is no fear, paranoia, hatred, religion, ethnicity, nationalism, politics from 1948, or any other pathetic excuse up your sleeve to defend ethnic cleansing. Like I would even have to tell a human being this.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Zionism is not a dirty word. It is not anti-Human Rights, anti-International Law, anti-Geneva Convention, or anti-Civil Liberty. *It is* to protect the Rights of Jews in a Jewish state from attacks of those that would violate those Rights. The environment that Israel is in the middle of is heavily biased against the Jewish state. Nobody else will step up to protect the Jew's Rights, will you?

Yeah by denying the rights of the Palestinian

Especially when it comes to woman's rights.

An entire Surah in Quran describes the rights of women.

Prophet Mohammed(SM) said that those couple are lucky whose first child is a girl.

Bible says that you women had to bear child it is a curse on the other hand Quran says that it is a blessing.

I think you should stop your hatred of Islam

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.