Israel defends its destruction of Lebanon with reference to UN Security Council Resolution 1391, calling on Lebanon to seize control of its entire territory. In this context it is interesting to consider Israel’s own record when it comes to UN resolutions.
From my blog.
The Israeli Ambassador to Norway, Miryam Shomrat, has kindly answered questions from readers of the daily Aftenposten. One question read: “Is Israel free to pick and choose which UN Resolutions are to be complied with?” Her Excellency replied as follows:
That’s quite a study in disingenuity. Three follow-ups come to mind:
1. If it’s fine and dandy to ignore UN General Assembly resolutions at will because they aren’t legally binding, why are we constantly reminded that Israel was established under a UN General Assembly resolution? Indeed, Israel’s own establishment proclamation cites this resolution immediately before declaring the state:
The ambassador herself complains in another reply: “The historical fact is that when the State of Israel was established the Arab countries attacked it a [sic] war of aggression and at the end of the war refused to sign peace agreements and establish recognised borders – which Israel wanted.” But if a barrage of UN General Assembly resolutions critical of Israel count for nil, why was it so wrong for Arab states to reject the particular resolution authorizing Israel’s creation in the former British Mandate? (For the record, I don’t personally oppose it, necessarily.)
2. Is it really true that “Israel is adhering to Security Council resolutions”? If by this one means, ‘adhering to some Security Council resolutions’, then it is doubtless so, though not mind-bendingly impressive. But what about the following, Ms. Ambassador?
262 (1968) Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
267 (1969) Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
271 (1969) Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.
298 (1971) Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
446 (1979) Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and “in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”
452 (1979) Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 (1980) Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel’s settlements policy.
471 (1980) Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
484 (1980) Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
487 (1981) Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.
497 (1981) Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
573 (1985) Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
592 (1986) Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
605 (1987) Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention.
607 (1986) Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
608 (1988) Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
636 (1989) Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
641 (1989) Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
672 (1990) Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
673 (1990) Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.
681 (1990) Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
904 (1994) Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, “to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers.”
1073 (1996) Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured.
1322 (2000) Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1402 (2002) Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Demands that Israel go through with “the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay.”
1405 (2002) Israel Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1435 (2002) Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1515 (2003) Calls on Israel to fulfil its obligations under the Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution.
1544 (2004) Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law.
The above list relies on this compilation by Professor Stephen Zunes, updated from the primary sources. Note that it only includes resolutions which Israel currently is flaunting; otherwise it would have been longer. For instance, UNSC Resolution 425 (1978), calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, was ignored by the former for 22 years.
3. To the extremely limited extent that passed UNSC resolutions are palatable to Israel, could that possibly be because the US, after adopting Israel as a client state in the early 1970s, has used its veto power more than all other permanent members during that period combined? After all, since Ambassador George Bush cast the first pro-Israel veto in 1972, forty UNSC Resolutions critical of Israel have been shot down by the USA, the most recent one calling for a halt to the Lebanon slaughter.
Often, the threat of US veto compels the other members of the UNSC to seriously water down their proposals in order to get anything passed:
[snip]
The United States, Israel’s closest ally, insisted on dropping any condemnation or allusion to the possibility that Israel deliberately targeted the post in the town of Khiam near the eastern end of the border with Israel.
[snip]
The initial draft proposed by China would have had the council express shock and distress at Israel’s “apparently deliberate targeting” of the U.N. base and condemn “this coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post.”
[snip]
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman called the statement “very fair and balanced” and said it was right for the council to adopt it in memory of the four peacekeepers.”
The UNSC great power veto is itself a concession to practicalities, made in order to get the major victors of WWII on board the UN ship. The way in which the USA is overusing it on behalf of a client state amounts to abusing an already questionable institution, and reflects rather poorly on client and patron alike.
no surprise there.
Next they will be saying they are targetting terrorists as they massacre some more kids.
Thanks….now I can address some kossacks. Freedom for the middle east dues not include Gaza or West Bank.
Put a diary there.
You know I got your back.
it would be ironic if the UN somehow replaced Israel as the occupying force of southern Lebanon.
Yeah, but I can’t see that happening. Israel has made sure of that.
Any way to cross post at dkos?
Thanks, but I don’t have time to bicker with the AIPAC commandos.
lol…just post and come back here. Truth has power.
.
Live report from BBC World radio just a few minutes ago: hardened rescue workers are still finding victims underneath the rubble of the destroyed three story appartment building. They just pulled out the body of a boy – about 10 years old – and laid the body aside to be placed in a body bag and taken to the mortuary.
Israeli talking point:
Just 27 bodies have been counted at the hospital where victims were transported. No other persons are reported missing.
IDF: Building did not collapse by air strike
Israeli military officials said the building did not collapse until the early morning, and that “munitions” stored in the house might have brought it down. But the house appeared to have been hit from above, and residents said the walls and ceiling came down around them immediately after the first bomb.
US Media Alibis for Qana Massacre
More UNIFIL deaths —
After searching and digging for nine days, the body of a UNIFIL civilian and his wife were recovered from the rubble of their home in Tyre, destroyed by an Israeli air strike.
BEIRUT (The Daily Star of Lebanon) July 28 — Deadly air strike highlights jewish state’s traditional disregard for safety of peacekeepers
Recent talk of a new international force to police a proposed buffer zone in South Lebanon prompted a flurry of media reports purporting to explain Israel’s reluctance to have the mission overseen by the United Nations. The coverage was accurate in portraying Israeli officialdom as mistrustful of the world body, but it failed completely to objectively describe the history behind the bad blood.
«« click on image to enlargeMemorial service at the UNIFIL headquarters in the town of Naqoura, southern Lebanon. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said that many questions that still surround their deaths must be answered. AP Photo/UNIFILTuesday’s attack (Qana massacre – Oui) was just the latest in a long line of incidents that have poisoned relations between Israel and the UN since the very beginning of their relationship. And Western media coverage of the incident has mimicked the misleading versions they provided of previous troubles, consistently insinuating that the UN has largely been to blame. A fitting example was Wednesday night’s broadcast of “Insight” on CNN International. Host Jonathan Mann discussed the Khiam attack with Jonathan Paris, an academic from Oxford University who for some inexplicable reason was treated as an “expert” on the subject.
The host and the “expert” demonstrated their ignorance from the start, repeatedly describing the peacekeepers killed more than 24 hours earlier as having been assigned to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was created in 1978 after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in March of that year. In actual fact, the four officers were members of Observer Group-Lebanon, a force set up way back in 1948 to monitor the armistice that ended the first Arab-Israeli war.
≈ Cross-posted from Londonbear’s diary —
Israel’s “Talking Points” for Bloggers ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY