Ends and Means

Thu, 06/25/2009 - 3:37pm

Our FP colleague Marc Lynch notes that Obama’s principled stand on Israeli settlement expansion and a two-state solution may be paying off in other ways, most notably in an easing in checkpoints, etc., on the West Bank. This is encouraging news and I don’t want to sound like a killjoy, but it is important to keep the big picture in mind.

After all, as Marc notes, at the same time that Israel is easing restrictions on the West Bank, they've apparently approved the construction of another 240 homes at an outpost near the Palestinian city of Ramallah. One hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.

At this point, freezing settlement expansion, lifting checkpoints, building up more effective and professional Palestinian security forces, reforming Fatah, trying to get Hamas to recognize Israel, etc., are all just means to an end; they are not ends in themselves. As Obama appears to understand, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be put to rest until there are two states for two peoples, and the Palestinian state cannot be some sort of permanently crippled Bantustan akin to the open-air prison that now exists in Gaza. Until Israelis, Palestinians, and their supporters elsewhere get to that finish line, in short, we haven’t really solved anything. 

Getty Images 



Advertisement

 

"Why the insistence that the

Professor Walt,

"trying to get Hamas to recognize Israel"

This will never ever happen which is why without Hamas being defeated the Palestinians can never make peace.

Hamas doesn't even recognize the Palestinian Authority let alone Israel.

Clint,

Nice of you to steal someone else's work without atribution
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/171/29885.html

"Why the insistence that the 2-state solution is the only acceptable possibility?"

Because a one state solution that would be like merging Rhode Island with the Taleban.

"repugnant wish to preserve Israel's Jewish ethnic purity."

You mean except the one million muslim Israeli citizens. Plus the Druze citizens, the Chritians citizens and the African citizens. Not to mention the 2 million Arab Jews in Israel.

"It proposes to partition historic Palestine"
It's already partitioned as all of Jordan is 80% of the Palestine Mandate and there has neve been any other legal entity called Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png

Underreported

For more regional coverage on the issue of settlements, please visit: http://el-shimy.blogspot.com

Commenting etiquette

Hi all,

Please refrain from pasting entire posts or articles from other sites into the comments. Just put in a url if you want to share another piece. I'm going to have to start deleting posts if this gets out of hand.

Josh

Deputy Web Editor

1-state solution is better

One state solution is better:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0914/p09s01-coop.html

Americans are the problem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503427.html

FP is censoring anti-zionist posts

Just fyi: FP is now censoring anti-zionist posts, just like the rest of the US media. yea!

1 or 2 state solutions?

Very simple: You can have 1 democratic state solution or a 2-state solution.

If you opt for the 2-state solution, then those 2 states have to be free -- i.e. Palestine can have its army, navy and air-force.

The status quo of one state and one Bantustan is untenable and unjust and invites asymmetric warfare like terrorism.

Another reason why 2-state solution is not a solution

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0530/p09s02-coop.html?page=1

The two-state solution reflects only Israeli interests.

It proposes to partition historic Palestine – an area that includes present-day Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem – massively and inequitably in favor of Israel as a Jewish state.

By definition, this rules out possibility of Palestinian return except to the tiny, segmented West Bank territory that Israeli colonization has created, and to an overcrowded Gaza, which cannot accommodate the returnees. Thus the "peace process" is really about making the Palestinians concede their basic rights to accommodate Israel's demands.

It proposes to partition

It proposes to partition historic Palestine – an area that includes present-day Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem – massively and inequitably in favor of Israel as a Jewish state.

Clint, Mandatory Palestine has already been partitioned both by UN Edict and multiple wars. This isn't about trying to come up with some fair distribution of land ownership as if everything over the past 60 years never happened - it's about trying to turn what hasn't been annexed into a Palestinian state.

By definition, this rules out possibility of Palestinian return except to the tiny, segmented West Bank territory that Israeli colonization has created, and to an overcrowded Gaza, which cannot accommodate the returnees.

That's fine with me. I've never agreed that they have a "right" to return (especially if they've never lived in the area in question), especially when we don't recognize such rights for other losers in conflicts (such as the Germans who were ethnically cleansed out of elsewhere in Europe that wasn't Germany at the end of World War 2, and out of some places - like Silesia, or Konigsburg- that had been part of Germany for centuries).

Thus the "peace process" is really about making the Palestinians concede their basic rights to accommodate Israel's demands.

If the Palestinians would give up their so-called "right", they'd be much more likely to get some type of state in what's left of the Palestinian Territories.

Besides, I love how you are screeching about how this is "accommodating Israel's demands". Well, no shit, but Israel is the dominant partner in the Israel-Palestinian negotiations (this is discounting the US, of course). They hold the territory, as well as most of the cards, which means that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are really about trying to convince them to give up territory for the Palestinians to directly control in exchange for favors like diplomatic recognition from the Arab World, and less defense spending requirements.

Mandatory Palestine has

Mandatory Palestine has already been partitioned both by UN Edict and multiple wars. This isn't about trying to come up with some fair distribution of land ownership as if everything over the past 60 years never happened - it's about trying to turn what hasn't been annexed into a Palestinian state.

If at all possible we should try to get something approximating a fair solution. Because without that we might likely not get peace.

Consider for example the US civil war. If we had looked hard for a fair way to end slavery, perhaps converting slaves to indentured servants for some period plus a reform of the southern banking industry etc -- something people could live with -- we might have found a way to avoid the war. Instead we got slaves mistreated and white southerners mistreated and the resentment reverberates to the present day, well over a hundred years later. To the point that Dixiecrats supported Bush through eight disastrous years.

But maybe there was no acceptable solution. Maybe anything that was fair enough would have been rejected, and war was the only possible choice.

If we're going after peace for israel we need no preconditions. Everything is negotiable, including israel's borders. Maybe US borders too. But there may be no acceptable solution, and maybe israel is doomed to many more wars.

I've never agreed that they have a "right" to return (especially if they've never lived in the area in question), especially when we don't recognize such rights for other losers in conflicts (such as the Germans who were ethnically cleansed out of elsewhere in Europe that wasn't Germany at the end of World War 2, and out of some places - like Silesia, or Konigsburg- that had been part of Germany for centuries).

Things are different now, and we're yet to establish how different. When germany's borders got settled there was no UN. It all got handled by negotations among the victors. Then we set up the UN and we agreed that nations don't get to change their borders by conquest plus ethnic cleansing. We're working out the details of what that means, and the details aren't worked out. Israel was about the last to get established under the old rules. Now we generally agree that consenting minorities can split off from existing countries to make their own smaller countries -- we had a lot of that with the end of colonialism, and more with the breakup of the USSR and warsaw pact, etc. We generally agree that it's wrong to conquer other countries and take their land and borders are generally supposed to stay in the same place after wars, eg iran/iraq war and Gulf War etc. It isn't completely coherent.

But the UN is agreed that the old ways do not work and we don't let countries annex conquered land and kill or evict the previous occupants. Silesia etc is no longer a precedent.

If the Palestinians would give up their so-called "right", they'd be much more likely to get some type of state in what's left of the Palestinian Territories.

It's a negotiating point. Sure, the more of their rights they give up before the negotiations start, the easier it will be for them to get a treaty that gives them something. Hell, if they agreed to give up all tangible results and settle for a statement that there is a palestinian people who have suffered and who deserve respect and condolences, I expect they could get a signed treaty from israel in less than six months.

If we're talking UN-fair and not right-of-conquest, palestinians have some sort of right and we can see what they'll settle for. I could imagine something like $100 billion in 50 equal yearly installments, payable at once if the UN determines that israel starts a war and forfeit if the UN decides that palestine starts a war. The USA could guarantee payment and everybody's happy. If they agree.

Besides, I love how you are screeching about how this is "accommodating Israel's demands". Well, no shit, but Israel is the dominant partner in the Israel-Palestinian negotiations (this is discounting the US, of course).

The USA gave israel victory in 1973. So we are entirely responsible for their current dominance. Without US support israel would almost certainly be under economic sanction by most of the world. If the USA supported sanctions it would probably take about 2 weeks to get them approved. So the current situation is entirely our responsibility, and arguing about "dominant partner" is entirely beside the point. We must look at what the USA should do, for whatever reasons we think are appropriate. We can discuss what we think is in the USA's interests. We can discuss what we think would be fair. We can discuss what we owe to israel because of our part in the Holocaust, or what we owe to palestinians because of our part in their problems. Or we can look at zionist votes and what the US congress owes those voters and campaign contributors and blackmailers. Whatever we tbink we want. But it doesn't particularly make sense to talk about current realities. Because the current unstable equilibrium could disappear in months. (Or possibly minutes, given nukes.)

The central problem is that there's enough water in israel/palestine for maybe 7 million people to live in decent style with no agriculture. Israelis and palestinians want agriculture. There is not enough water to go around, there isn't even enough water for all the israelis who'd want to live there if they had peace. It would be very hard to get an acceptable solution. If we leaned on the israelis enough to get something palestinians could actually accept, the israelis would resent it for generations.

I think we need to give up on peace. Back off from the region,. Cut all ties to israel and allow sanctions. If the UN asks, establish a no-fly zone over israel/palestine. Oil embargo on israel/palestine. If they have a war, try to negotiate a cease-fire complete with UN observers and UN troops.

And if israel comes out dominant with an impartial USA then more power to them, provided they start following the Geneva conventions.

Consider for example the US

Consider for example the US civil war. If we had looked hard for a fair way to end slavery, perhaps converting slaves to indentured servants for some period plus a reform of the southern banking industry etc -- something people could live with -- we might have found a way to avoid the war. Instead we got slaves mistreated and white southerners mistreated and the resentment reverberates to the present day, well over a hundred years later. To the point that Dixiecrats supported Bush through eight disastrous years.

Interesting that you bring that up, because that is definitely a case of borders and state survival being settled by war.

When germany's borders got settled there was no UN.

The UN has existed since 1945, and several incidences of the ethnic cleansing of German folks out of other places in Europe than Germany proper (and even in parts of Germany proper) took place after World War II. The final Konigsberg expulsion took place in 1949 at the hands of the Soviets, who were UN members.

Now we generally agree that consenting minorities can split off from existing countries to make their own smaller countries -- we had a lot of that with the end of colonialism, and more with the breakup of the USSR and warsaw pact, etc.

Nationalism and self-determination. Dangerous ideas if there ever were some.

Silesia etc is no longer a precedent.

True, although it was at the time - the organized part of the Silesian expulsions took place after 1946, until it started petering out until completion by 1960.

The USA gave israel victory in 1973.

Sort of. Had we not given them logistical support, they may have been forced to use nukes, but I doubt they'd lose completely.

The UN has existed since

The UN has existed since 1945, and several incidences of the ethnic cleansing of German folks out of other places in Europe than Germany proper (and even in parts of Germany proper) took place after World War II. The final Konigsberg expulsion took place in 1949 at the hands of the Soviets, who were UN members.

Sure. The UN was new then. But notice how in recent years russia makes a clear distinction. Russians consider chechnya part of their nation and they occupied the place with a heavy death rate to keep it. They consider georgia and ossetia to be separate nations and they do only quick incursions and then leave. The concept that nations no longer extend their borders by conquest has a lot of power and russia looks for ways to challenge it indirectly.

"Now we generally agree that consenting minorities can split off from existing countries to make their own smaller countries -- we had a lot of that with the end of colonialism, and more with the breakup of the USSR and warsaw pact, etc."

Nationalism and self-determination. Dangerous ideas if there ever were some.

Agreed. The UN couldn't make a dent in those, coming at a time when anticolonialism was so strong.

"The USA gave israel victory in 1973."

Sort of. Had we not given them logistical support, they may have been forced to use nukes, but I doubt they'd lose completely.

No, not completely. They'd have lost half the sinai and the golan heights. Would they have used nukes at that point? I'd like to believe they wouldn't be that crazy, but it's hard to be sure. If they did -- assuming as we are that the USA was not strongly on their side -- likely there would shortly be no israel.

In 1972 israelis were saying that they didn't want a peace treaty. What good was it? Arabs couldn't fight. Why should they negotiate with somebody who couldn't fight?

1973 was a rude shock to them and if the USA hadn't won it for them it would have been much worse. They could have negotiated at a disadvantage. Or they could have refused to negotiate and prepared to start another war and take back what they'd lost, with utter disapproval from everybody outside the USA. Again, without US support they'd probably be under sanctions, and the sinai didn't nearly produce enough oil for them -- and they didn't produce enough food to feed themselves and they couldn't produce enough weapons without importing a lot.

The USA is entirely responsible for israel's dominant position in the middle east. They would not be where they are without our active support. It is not an act of god unless we are god's agent. So this is not just a reality that we must bow down to. It is a choice -- our choice -- that we must take responsibility for.

Half Memory

This is one of the least helpful myths about the Middle East; actually, it has been ever since 1948.

Arab governments across the Middle East promulgated for decades the argument that Israel could never have won the wars it fought without unfair Western help. Western (specifically British) help in organizing Arab armies in the years after World War II didn't count; massive Soviet support of the Arab governments most hostile to Israel in the 1960s and '70s absolutely didn't count. The only reason Arabs kept losing wars to Israel was because of outside interference -- therefore, Arabs are justified in refusing to talk to Israel except through Israel's friends in Washington, and if peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved it is, by definition, Washington's fault.

The specific case of the 1973 war is somewhat problematic, as it was the one conflict in the region when an Arab army inflicted serious reversals on the Israelis. Certainly the early successes of the Egyptian army in crossing the Suez Canal and blunting Israeli counterattacks with Soviet anti-tank weapons came as a nasty surprise to an Israeli government that had dismissed Sadat's repeated threats as one long bluff. One the other hand, the fighting on Israel's western front was confined entirely to the Sinai; the Egyptian army never approached the Israeli border or made significant preparations to do so. Egypt's objective in the war was to enter negotiations for the return of indisputably Egyptian territory from a position of strength, not to destroy the Jewish state -- a goal Sadat recognized was well beyond Egypt's strength. In the complete absence of American support, the war would very likely have been longer and much costlier for the Israelis. It might also have resulted in the complete destruction of Egypt's army in the Sinai and the Israeli occupation of Damascus, or in direct Soviet intervention on the Arab side.

These are interesting historical "what-ifs," but the point here is that Arab self-deception about having been cheated out of victory by unfair American support of Israel has been a hindrance to peace negotiations for decades (Sadat, more realistic both about Arab capabilities and about his own objectives than most Arabs, was for that reason perfectly able to negotiate and reach a peace with Israel). The effect of that self-deception has been to justify Arab refusal to concede that the only peace possible in the region is one that recognizes Israel's existence as a Jewish state explicitly. In the present circumstance, it may also bolster Palestinian reluctance to resolve enough of their factional differences to form a government capable of reaching a settlement with Israel -- if Israel is completely dependent on the Americans, so that only the Americans can deliver a just peace, why should Palestinian factions give up anything that's important to them just to enable themselves to negotiate?

The peculiar situation we face now in the region is that Israel, facing an American administration less prepared than any before it to stand for obstinacy and evasion on key issues like settlement expansion, could bow to American pressure on every point and still find itself with no one to negotiate with. Palestinian factions, some of which still cling to rejection of Israel's right to exist as a crucial debating point, could continue in stalemate, consoling themselves with the belief that this is all someone else'e fault. After all, if it weren't for the Americans, there would be no Israel and no need to negotiate anything.

These are interesting

These are interesting historical "what-ifs," but the point here is that Arab self-deception about having been cheated out of victory by unfair American support of Israel has been a hindrance to peace negotiations for decades

Yes, that belief on the part of arabs balanced against the israeli belief that they are the super-race who cannot be defeated certainly made it harder to reach agreements.

if Israel is completely dependent on the Americans, so that only the Americans can deliver a just peace, why should Palestinian factions give up anything that's important to them just to enable themselves to negotiate?

Well, one reason is that the USA is still totally committed to israel's continued existence as a jewish nation with nonjewish second-class citizens. So if they want a peace the USA doesn't support then they have to wait until the US changes its policy (not likely any time soon) or wait until the US becomes unimportant (not likely within the next 3 years).

The US position is that peace would be good for israel, while israel's position is that they have no use for peace. This is not the sort of disagreement that gives palestinians a big opportunity for "victory".

The peculiar situation we face now in the region is that Israel, facing an American administration less prepared than any before it to stand for obstinacy and evasion on key issues like settlement expansion, could bow to American pressure on every point and still find itself with no one to negotiate with.

Let's try it and see if it turns out that way. There's little to lose.

Palestinian factions, some of which still cling to rejection of Israel's right to exist as a crucial debating point, could continue in stalemate, consoling themselves with the belief that this is all someone else'e fault. After all, if it weren't for the Americans, there would be no Israel and no need to negotiate anything.

Israel's existence at this point is indeed entirely due to the USA, but that's cold comfort to palestinians.

Everyone thinks that....

Everyone thinks that the Israelis, being rational Westerners just because many speak excellent American English and were educated in the US, can be pressured while the irrational Palestinians who, in the words of a senior State Department official, "have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" must receive concessions even though they were the repeated losers in the Arabs' aggressive wars.

In his book "Crazy States", General Yehizkiel Dror describes the case of Quaddafi, and the principle that it pays to behave as if you were crazy even if you aren't, to compel caution by others. As we have seen, this strategy ultimately failed Quaddafi. That the Palestinians and Iranians are now using it doesn't mean it will work any better.

But the Israelis--now that's a whole different kettle of fish. They behave as if they were rational, but don't forget that Israel is a country with not only a history including Masada, but a so-called "Masada complex". Thus we cannot dismiss out of hand the idea that if Israel feels itself existentially threatened, it will take down a good part of the Middle East with nukes, even at the cost of its own annihilation.

Interestingly, the country which threatens loudly to take down Israel with nukes, arguing that it can survive a nuclear attack itself, Iran, has no such history of self-immolation, while the Israelis, who do not speak of it, do.

So let's have a little more respect for Israel's existential needs; a failure or forced emasculation, security wise, could well cause the resultant prevailing radioactive winds to take out a lot more than the Middle East. The pro Saudi lobby (Walt, Carter, and friends) talks a good game, but when push comes to shove, they have nothing comparable to a Masada history to back it up.

Netanyahu showed the mailed fist in the most polite way when he said, in effect, 'you don't get to tell us where Jews can live in our own country'.

Note that the above is an analysis, not an advocacy.

David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles

PhD from LSE == crap

"So let's have a little more respect for Israel's existential needs..."

Why? It is an illegal racist apartheid state formed due to an historical colonial aberration.

Should we also respect for Nazi Germany's existential needs?

What about Apartheid South Africa's?

You say "...the country which threatens loudly to take down Israel with nukes, arguing that it can survive a nuclear attack itself, Iran, has no such history of self-immolation, while the Israelis, who do not speak of it, do."

This is a lie on many levels, as Zionists' lies are.

When has Iran said it will USE NUKES to take down Israel? It has said nukes are against its religious tenets.

Israel has history of self-immolation? Since when? You are equating Judaism with Zionism. (Again).

Do you know what the biggest reason for anti-Semitism is? Zionism. (Which is just fine for the Zionists since they thrive on anti-Semitism). If there were no anti-Semitism, Isreal would lose its main raison d'etre.

Goes to show a PhD from the LSE ain't worth the paper its printed on.

"So let's have a little more

"So let's have a little more respect for Israel's existential needs..."

Why? It is an illegal racist apartheid state formed due to an historical colonial aberration.

I thought he made that clear. We must respect their needs because they have nukes.

Should we also respect for Nazi Germany's existential needs?

Nazi germany never got nukes. If they had had 200 or so nukes and a good delivery system we would have had a lot of respect for their existential needs.

Sternlight points out quite correctly that israel would nuke their neighbors and die rather than accept a political defeat or diplomatic settlement they don't want.

Cognitive Dissonance

Perhaps one should look up the phrase "existential threat" before posting falsehoods about what another said.

Arrogance and stupidty

Maybe one should keep one's big mouth closed if one is a racist apartheid fanatical land-grabbing fascist with a PhD from LSE.

Let's see

Let's see if Israel has a right to exist.

This is what David Ben-Gurion said:

I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

They behave as if they were

They behave as if they were rational,

This is open to debate

but don't forget that Israel is a country with not only a history including Masada, but a so-called "Masada complex". Thus we cannot dismiss out of hand the idea that if Israel feels itself existentially threatened, it will take down a good part of the Middle East with nukes, even at the cost of its own annihilation.

This is not open to debate. The possibility looks very real to people who study the evidence.

So, iran shows no such tendency, and iran has not threatened israel unless you count mistranlated remarks by one politician who has no foreign policy authority. But many israelis do show a masada complex, as do many palestinians. And a small regional nuclear war could damage every nation that uses the mediterranean sea.

So all nations that have an interest in the mediterranean, that still have hope for a peaceful solution, should do their best to assist in a peaceful solution that must include a nuclear-weapons-free middle east. This is a necessity for lebanon, syria, turkey, greece, italy, france, spain, the north african nations, etc.

They cannot depend on MAD to stay israel's hand. Only disarmament is acceptable, nothing less. And in exchange israel must get a peace they can accept. The alternative is israel's destruction accompanied by massive damage all round.

Netanyahu showed the mailed fist in the most polite way when he said, in effect, 'you don't get to tell us where Jews can live in our own country'.

Netanyahu is a blind fool, working in israel's worst interests. Or maybe he's a smart politician preparing the way for a workable peace, and people who like him are the fools that he has to work around.

Regardless, I hope you'll keep posting zionist positions for everybody to see. You are doing the world an important service by making your points so clearly. We need more people like you to spread the truth about zionism.

Cognitive Dissonance

Anyone who has read the original Farsi knows that the President of Iran's remarks were not mistranslated, despite what certain anti-Israel spin doctors would have us believe.

There is a comprehensive Wikipedia article on this matter and the attempts at spin by anti-Israel Westerners and pro-Iranian apologists. The most useful excerpt from that article, by the New York Times, no friend of the current Israeli administration, is:

"In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated:

But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive."

vanished

What is wrong with the current version of Israel vanishing, and a just one replacing it? Best of luck to the Iranians.

UN Edicts..........hahahahaha!

I love how Zionists quote UN edicts to justify their miraculous creation......but THEN flout them whenever necessary.

I will believe the "edict" to create Israel out of thin year, the second that they abide by resolution #242.

Israel has flouted more than 70 UN resolutions -- it is a pariah state.

Here is a _partial_ list of the UN resolutions Israel has scoffed at:

UN resolution No. 237 -- 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

No. 242 -- 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and 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.

No. 248 -- 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)

No. 250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.

251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.

252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.

259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect

271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….

338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....

339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.

381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.

425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people 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 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.

469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.

471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.

508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)

509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).

512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.

513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.

515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.

516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.

517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.

518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut

520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)

573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)

592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.

605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.

611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).

681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.

904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.

1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)

1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.

Distortions

There is a big difference between binding resolutions of the Security Council, and non-binding resolutions of the General Assembly, which represent Arab propaganda and not international law.

Israel was created by a valid UN resolution which is part of International law. The legal governing authority, the British, handed the Mandate over the the UN for partition.

Even in the case of binding resolutions, pro-Arab propagandists continue to distort the difference between "territories" (meaning some) and "the territories" (meaning all).

Further, the non-binding character of the cited resolutions is embedded even in the resolutions themselves, with the operative language being "declares" "condemns" "expresses" "calls upon" etc. Such language has no standing as international law; it's just somebody's opinion, in this case an anti-Israel voting bloc.

Israel==Pariah state

Israel flouts international opinion and is thus a pariah state. Most of the community of nations do not agree with the implmentation of Israeli apartheid nor with its immoral bombing of civilians every couple of years. I look forward to the one state solution with full democracy.

1-state or 2-state solution?

Very simple: You can have 1 democratic state solution or a 2-state solution.

If you opt for the 2-state solution, then those 2 states have to be free -- i.e. Palestine can have its army, navy and air-force.

The status quo of one state and one Bantustan is untenable and unjust and invites asymmetric warfare like terrorism.

Chas Freeman's views

http://www.mepc.org/whats/cwf090612.asp

I liked this small part especially:

"...the United States has transferred more than $100 billion directly to Israel and as much as another $100 billion indirectly. We have also spent well over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives on wars that relate at least in part to the objective of securing peace for Israel.

Yet there has never been a national intelligence estimate (NIE) on the prospects for Middle East peace or, for that matter, on the prospects for the state of Israel in its absence. Nor has there been such a review of either the impact of the US-Israeli strategic partnership on our relations with the Arab or Islamic worlds or the role that Arab and Muslim perceptions of it may play in stimulating anti-American terrorism.

There has been no independent evaluation of the perpetually unsuccessful “peace process” despite repeated charges from the peace movement in Israel that their government gives lip service to peace while acting to stall it so as to wrest ever more land from Palestinians. Our understanding of events in the Holy Land has been left to be defined by AIPAC and other American supporters of the settler movement in Israeli-occupied Arab lands. They have brazenly – and quite successfully – insisted that the Likud Party and related right-wing factions in Israeli politics should have the right to decide U.S. policy as well as the policy of Israel.

Is it possible that the suspension of independent judgment by the United States has something to do with the utter failure of our forty-year effort to produce a just and lasting peace between Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs? Could it be that in this instance, as in others, foreign policy by franchise serves the interest of the operators of the franchise more than it benefits anyone else? Might our unconditional, unexamined support of the Jewish holy war for land in Palestine have something to do with the expanding holy war against us by some Arabs and Muslims? Israelis regularly ask these questions and vigorously debate them. Until recently, at least, Americans, by contrast, have been effectively enjoined from asking them and hence from considering policies that might secure Israel while securing ourselves.

Such silencing of debate is a perversion of democracy. The Likud lobby does not simply seek to ensure that the positions it advocates receive favorable consideration in the policy-making process, as it is fully entitled to do. It strives to block contrary views by applying odious labels to their spokespersons, distorting their records, ostracizing them, and obstructing the circulation of their views in the media. It prefers to operate in the shadows.

Its characteristic mode of attack is the whisper campaign and hit-and-run; having struck, it denies that it was even on the scene. Like the Bolsheviks, the Likud lobby falsely claims to represent a majority – in this case, a majority of the American Jewish community – when it does not. Its thought police are in fact especially vicious in their suppression of contrary opinion among the three-fourths of Jewish Americans who favor peace over continuing land grabs in the Holy Land."

Just and lasting peace

Israel is a member State of the UN, created by the UN as a Jewish State. The Palestinians are sworn to destroy it. There can be no just and lasting peace until the Palestinians abandon that intention in their governing documents, their government, their schools, and their controlled press.

Everything else is a smoke screen by pro-Arab and Palestinian propagandists to avoid using the key which unlocks everything else. That is not a condition; it is both a de facto and de jure reality which the Palestinians and some others continue to be in denial about.

Ha!ha! Zionists quoting the UN!! Gotta love it

I love how Zionists quote UN edicts to justify their miraculous creation......but THEN flout them whenever necessary.

Israel just bombed the UN compound in Gaza in past war -- bloody racist apartheid fascists.

I will believe the "edict" to create Israel out of thin air -- or rather, out of the previously existing state of Palestine -- the second that they abide by UN resolution #242.

Israel has flouted more than 70 UN resolutions -- it is a pariah state.

Here is a _partial_ list of the UN resolutions Israel has scoffed at:

UN resolution No. 237 -- 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

No. 242 -- 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and 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.

No. 248 -- 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)

No. 250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.

251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.

252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.

259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect

271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….

338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....

339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.

381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.

425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people 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 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.

469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.

471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.

508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)

509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).

512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.

513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.

515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.

516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.

517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.

518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut

520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)

573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)

592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.

605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.

611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).

681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.

904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.

1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)

1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.

Israel is not a member of the

Israel is not a member of the NPT and has got nukes.

Iran is a member and does not have nukes.

Israel is member of the following set of states: Pakistan and North Korea.

It is a pariah nation, whose opinion regarding its "right" to exist is laughable.