...So that's 31 now, right?

In 30 separate cases between 1972 and 1992, the United States has vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 96 instead of 66.

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 188 - 192)

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not
13. .withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 192 - 194)

___________________
sig edited: no political imagery allowed. please reref to the sig guidelines

Last edited by PeacefulWarrior on Sep-17-2003 at 20:54

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index...79082157270.xml The case history: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html If the US are claim to be leading the way on the road-map to peace, surely there should be some impartiality? Can they really claim to be negotiating in the best interests of both parties considering this history of swatting down virtually every resolution presented that concerns Isreal? I'm not a fan of Arafat either, but surely we have to realise that it is not in the best interests of the road-map for Isreal to assisinate the leader of the people they claim to be eager to negotiate with?

i agree that harming arafat will cause more harm then good, but i belive the resolution is scewed regardless. the resolution does not say that it will cause harm but as you quoted it says that:

quote:

"the measure failed to adequately criticize Palestinian extremists seeking to undermine the Middle East peace process."

Israel obviously thinks that arafat is an "extremist seeking to undermine the Middle East peace process." hence therefore the resolution makes little sense except that of arab countries banding together in order to save arafat's legitamecy.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If the US are claim to be leading the way on the road-map to peace, surely there should be some impartiality? Can they really claim to be negotiating in the best interests of both parties considering this history of swatting down virtually every resolution presented that concerns Isreal?

Any US claim to neutrality in the Palestine dispute is a joke anyway, and everyone in that area, or who follows it in the most minor way knows it.

That isn't to say that the US is interested in giving the Palestinians the shaft outright, but defence of Israel has been stated US foreign policy since the formation of the government there...how that can gel with the idea of the US being effective brokers of peace has always been baffling to me.

The US is willing to slap the wrists of either side, but when the chips are down they invariably give more concessions to the Israelis.

I for one wish the peace settlement process could be more of a UN issue than a US one, the problem of course being the inherent weakness of the UN which doesn't seem to have any hope for change in my lifetime, but that's another topic.

___________________
Einen Moment von Freundlichkeit wie daß in einem Traum

I forgot.. can somebody please remind me how many UN resolutions are out there condeming Palestinian terrorism exist or have been vetoed...?



well so much for impartiality I guess...

Well I'm not going to comment on past vetoes (I haven't looked at them) but here are the reasons given for this one:

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United States vetoed a U.N. resolution that would have demanded Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Eleven of the 15 Security Council members voted for the resolution on Tuesday and three members abstained -- Britain, Bulgaria and Germany. The U.S. veto killed the resolution.

In the Middle East, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said: "This is a sad day for the United Nations. I hope the U.S. veto will not be interpreted by Israel as a license to kill Yasser Arafat."

The resolution, which was proposed by Sudan and Syria, demanded that Israel back down from its threat to "remove" Arafat.

The Israeli Security Cabinet decided in principle last week to remove Arafat, calling him an obstacle to peace, but it provided no specifics about possible action.

International criticism escalated Sunday following Israeli Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's remark that killing Arafat was an option. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom backtracked Monday, saying that such was not official policy.

The Arab League -- which proposed the U.N. resolution through Security Council member Syria -- called Israel's action the equivalent of a declaration of war on Middle East peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government blames Arafat for not stopping terrorist attacks that have killed dozens of Israelis in recent weeks. Arafat remains confined to his compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, surrounded by supporters.

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian observer to the United Nations, warned that "serious consequences may follow the use of this veto, and the United states will bear the consequences for that," The Associated Press reported.

After the vote, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte reiterated the American position that the resolution lacked balance.

"As we said yesterday, we will not support any resolution that evades the explicit threat to Middle East peace process posed by Hamas and other such terrorist groups," Negroponte said.

Negroponte said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has made it clear he does not support the "elimination of Mr. Arafat or his forced exile."

"While Mr. Arafat is part of the problem, we believe this problem is best solved through diplomatic isolation and we have made this view clear," he said.

The rejected resolution would have demanded "that Israel, the occupying power, desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority."

It would have called for the cessation of "all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction."

It also would have condemned both Israel's attacks on militant leaders and Palestinian suicide bombings, "all of which caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims."

"The fact that the U.S. delegation used its veto is something extremely regrettable," said Syria's U.N. ambassador, Fayssal Mekdad.

"If Israel wants to live in peace in the region, and it's clear it doesn't want to live in peace in the region, it wants to live with its expansion, with its settlements, with its occupation, something that not only Arabs and Palestinians would not accept, but everybody in the world will not accept," Mekdad said.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman commended the resolution's rejection.

"This was a very lopsided resolution, very biased resolution, and I therefore wish to commend those countries that did not support it," he said. "This was a resolution which in a very macabre way criticized the victims of terror rather than the perpetrators of terror."

Terrorism against Israelis by Palestinians and Israeli military attacks on Palestinian militants continue despite international pressure on both sides to end the violence and proceed with the Mideast peace plan.

The road map -- backed by the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia -- calls for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state by 2005.

The road map has suffered a series of blows during an upswing in violence. Two Hamas terrorist bombings September 9 killed 15 Israelis, followed a day later by an Israeli airstrike that wounded Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar. The attack also killed Zahar's son and a bodyguard and wounded at least 20 others.

Palestinian security sources told CNN high-level discussions were under way between Palestinian militant factions and the Palestinian Authority for a renewal of a truce against Israeli targets.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a military offshoot of Arafat's Fatah movement, declared a temporary cease-fire in June, but it fell apart last month. All three are considered terrorist organizations by the the United States and Israel and European Union foreign ministers recently voted to consider Hamas a terror group.



Therefore, it appears that it wasn't rejected for the reasons that the resolution called for Israel to not expel Arafat (the US's stance on this issue is clear, the US has told Sharon that Arafat should not be expelled or harmed numerous times) but rather the acompanying "unimportant" text contained within the resolution outside of Arafat's expulsion.

___________________
Retro ...

Also, one must ask ones self, if Sudan and Syria (the members who drew up the resolution) were genuinely concerned with the safety of Arafat, why not make that the sole clause of the resolution??? It appears that they are attempting to gain some political maneuvering by masquerading offical condemnation of Israel under the guise of "Oh lets help Arafat".

Coming from Sudan and Syria I wouldn't be surprised if the resolution were not diplomatically neutral with respect to the participants involved.

___________________
Retro ...

CortexBomb, i will compliment what Yoepus has said.

quote:

The PLO gained observer status at the UN General Assembly in 1974, with the right to speak in formal sessions of the Security Council when the interests of the Palestinian people are involved.. ... In July 1998, the General Assembly adopted a new resolution conferring upon Palestine additional rights and privileges which have traditionally been exclusive to Member States.

http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/go...ted_Nations.asp (official website of palestinian authority)

yet despite this representation and right beside all the resolutions of condemnation agianst israel, the palestinian authority has yet to recieve one. many of you here say israel is just as bad as the palestinians - by looking at the UN it would seem that israel is responsible for ALL the problems... i wish the UN was more fair.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

While I find it disappointing that the US has vetoed a resolution that is critical of Israeli policy, I do agree (for maybe the only time ever) with Negroponte that there has to be balance in any resolution regarding the situation.

The US should not be taking Israel's side as much as they do, nor should they take the Palestinian "side". The US should be honestly trying to be a neutral party in the situation.

The biggest problem with the veto is the unfortunate consequences it may have unwittingly allowed. Israel's government may very well see this veto as a green light to do whatever they will to Arafat and the whole P.A.

The most unfortunate thing about this situation is that a resolution actually had to be brought forward. Had Israel not decided, and announced the fact, that Arafat needed to be "removed"; this situation would probably not have come to this point. It is also unfortunate that many people (including myself) know that Israel is one of the only "civilized" nations to use assassination as a method to "remove" individuals. I was (and I assume many others were) wondering when the assassination would happen when I heard the news. Israel may not choose to use assassintation in this case, but it is an unfortunate fact that the world knows they use that as a tactic and thus it is anticipated.

Both sides need to get their heads out of their respective asses and stop the cycle of violence.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel It is also unfortunate that many people (including myself) know that Israel is one of the only "civilized" nations to use assassination as a method to "remove" individuals.

personal question, do you think this tactic is wrong?
do you think it was wrong for the US to use its time sensitive targeting when it obviously went after saddam and his son's on two seperate air force led occasions?
i do not see what is wrong with targeting those who you have declared war agianst and those who have declared war agianst you.
israel has so far only targeted memeber of hamas, islamic jihad, and possibly the al-aqsa brigade (although im dont think so). no memeber of the palestinian authority has ever been targetted.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy personal question, do you think this tactic is wrong? do you think it was wrong for the US to use its time sensitive targeting when it obviously went after saddam and his son's on two seperate air force led occasions? i do not see what is wrong with targeting those who you have declared war agianst and those who have declared war agianst you. israel has so far only targeted memeber of hamas, islamic jihad, and possibly the al-aqsa brigade (although im dont think so). no memeber of the palestinian authority has ever been targetted.

I did not agree with the Iraq war. That being said I understand that in a "live war" your goal is to disable the command and control of the enemy thus making cohesion impossible. Since the command and control of the Iraqi government and military was Saddam, I can understand the military necessity.

My talk about Israel using assassintaion was not speaking only of the current situation in Israel. Historically speaking, Moussad agents have been ordered to kill individuals that the agency deems "dangerous" for one reason or another. The only specific that comes to mind at the moment is the killing of an American ballistics expert who was in Iraq during the 1980s working on Saddams super-gun. He was murdered in a Bagdhad alley and if I remember the report I saw correctly (I am tlaking off the cuff here, not looking up sources) the Israelis pretty much admitted to the killing. Israel does not even play lip service to ruling out assassination as a means to their ends. That was my point.

If you want my opinion on the "targeted killings" of leaders of Hamas and other organizations it is this. Using an apache or F-16 as a gun platform to shoot a missile into a house in the middle of the night to "target" a militant leader is a bit like using a steamroller to crush an ant.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel My talk about Israel using assassintaion was not speaking only of the current situation in Israel. Historically speaking, Moussad agents have been ordered to kill individuals that the agency deems "dangerous" for one reason or another. The only specific that comes to mind at the moment is the killing of an American ballistics expert who was in Iraq during the 1980s working on Saddams super-gun. He was murdered in a Bagdhad alley and if I remember the report I saw correctly (I am tlaking off the cuff here, not looking up sources) the Israelis pretty much admitted to the killing. Israel does not even play lip service to ruling out assassination as a means to their ends. That was my point.

ok, my bad, i thought you were refering to the 'targeted killings', which in my mind are to disable the command and control of the enemy, as you said.

quote:

If you want my opinion on the "targeted killings" of leaders of Hamas and other organizations it is this. Using an apache or F-16 as a gun platform to shoot a missile into a house in the middle of the night to "target" a militant leader is a bit like using a steamroller to crush an ant. MrS

its my opinion that these tatictics cause far less damage to both sides then sending in a brigade of troops to do the same mission.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.