ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Quote:

the developing democracy in Iraq

I like that line. Here's another.

Quote:

the developing secularism in the Southern Baptist Federation

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
the developing democracy in Iraq

I like that line. Here's another.

Quote:
the developing secularism in the Southern Baptist Federation

With people like you offering such hope, encouragement, and positive reinforcement, how can anybody possibly expect not to succeed in a worthwhile endeavor?

0 Replies

Okay, some official hope, encouragement, and positive reinforcement:

Quote:

In Iraq, al-Qaida terrorists and other extremists are fighting and killing in what will be an unsuccessful attempt to stop the rise of a free society.

In 2003, a U.S.-led coalition overthrew the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Now, terrorists have joined the remnants of the ousted regime in fomenting sectarian violence. They have made Iraq a crucial front in the global war on terrorism.

President George W. Bush says, "The challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly twelve-million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December":

"Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed - but so are Iraqi and coalition forces. We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds."

The coalition is training Iraqi troops to defend their nation and helping the Iraqi government to better serve the Iraqi people. Mr. Bush says the coalition "will not leave until this work is done":

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. . . .If we yield Iraq to men like bin-Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen".

"The Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of violence," says Mr. Bush. He says the U.S. "will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the war on terror."

The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.

source: Voice of America/Radio Free Europe

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:
I fail to see how your article in any way is connected to the previous conversations or the thread. Perhaps you could explain the connnection.

You have surely noticed that the organizations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere including Hamas and Hezbollah promoting attacks against Israel, the USA, and the developing democracy in Iraq are all Jihadists. And you don't think that is relevant?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine all have different goals some of which have nothing to do with "Jihadist." Hezbollah wanted their soldiers back and something about getting that disputed territory back. (not really read up on that) Palestine wants to get out from under the occupation of Israel. The Sunnis in Iraq just simply want to be back in power and the other violence is all of the parties jockeying to be in power over the other ones. Iran and Syria, I have no idea except that leader of Iran seems a bit of a loose cannon, kind of like our own leader making inflammatory remarks.

However, none of that has anything to do with the legislation the article brought up. Her entire article is nothing but a bunch of bull hockey because she draws a line connecting the bill and the the situation in the ME where no such line exist.

Unless you feel that all and any muslims are to be denied due process because of some muslim Jihadist then your entire argument falls flat on its face.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Okay, some official hope, encouragement, and positive reinforcement:

Quote:
In Iraq, al-Qaida terrorists and other extremists are fighting and killing in what will be an unsuccessful attempt to stop the rise of a free society.

In 2003, a U.S.-led coalition overthrew the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Now, terrorists have joined the remnants of the ousted regime in fomenting sectarian violence. They have made Iraq a crucial front in the global war on terrorism.

President George W. Bush says, "The challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly twelve-million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December":

"Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed - but so are Iraqi and coalition forces. We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds."

The coalition is training Iraqi troops to defend their nation and helping the Iraqi government to better serve the Iraqi people. Mr. Bush says the coalition "will not leave until this work is done":

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. . . .If we yield Iraq to men like bin-Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen".

"The Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of violence," says Mr. Bush. He says the U.S. "will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the war on terror."

The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.
source: Voice of America/Radio Free Europe

And Walter, wouldn't this be far more appropriate on the Iraq thread?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Walter, wouldn't this be far more appropriate on the Iraq thread?

Especially, since you re-posted it: yes :wink:

0 Replies

emphasis added

revel wrote:

...
Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine all have different goals some of which have nothing to do with "Jihadist." Hezbollah wanted their soldiers back and something about getting that disputed territory back. (not really read up on that) Palestine wants to get out from under the occupation of Israel. The Sunnis in Iraq just simply want to be back in power and the other violence is all of the parties jockeying to be in power over the other ones. Iran and Syria, I have no idea except that leader of Iran seems a bit of a loose cannon, kind of like our own leader making inflammatory remarks.
...

It is true that: "Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine [et al] all have different goals some of which have nothing to do with "Jihadist." " But some of which do have to do with jihadists and jihad.

It is also true that: Of the many goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, some other Palestinians, Iran, et al, one is a common goal. That one common goal is the elimination of the state of Israel.

So no matter how many other different goals each has, they each have one goal that is the same for each of them. It is that one goal that is pertinent to the discussion in this thread.

Again, that one goal that is the same for each of them, is the elimination of the state of Israel.

0 Replies

And why shouldn't Israel be forced to move? The land belongs to the Palestinians. The conservatives make such a big deal about the supposed development of nuclear weapons by Iran but they never say a thing about the hundreds of nuclear weapons possessed by Israel. Why should Muslim countries not have the same nuclear weapons possessed by Israel?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
the developing democracy in Iraq

I like that line. Here's another.

Quote:
the developing secularism in the Southern Baptist Federation

With people like you offering such hope, encouragement, and positive reinforcement, how can anybody possibly expect not to succeed in a worthwhile endeavor?

Aside from the delusional notion that anything said here will be consequential...

my comment didn't have Iraq as its subject. It had as subject your ubiquitous substitutions of talking point cliches for actual thought.

0 Replies

Quote:

Unwritten history
The challenges of writing Palestinian history reflect the larger challenges facing the Palestinians' quest for statehood

By Rashid Khalidi | October 1, 2006

AS I WRITE, with rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah unable to agree on the fundamental basis for a new coalition government, and with the devastating effects of the Israeli and international boycott provoked by Hamas's victory in last January's elections, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip appears to be tottering. Whether it survives or not, the prospect of the independent state that the Palestinians have never had, and that many expected to emerge from this Authority, seems as distant as ever.

The United Nations resolution of 1947 that led to the establishment of Israel called for such a state. In the years before that, Palestinians similarly failed to win independence from the British, who held a League of Nations mandate over Palestine, in part because of internal rivalries, but also because of the constellation of forces arrayed against them.

Why did the Palestinians fail to establish an independent state before 1948, and what was the impact of that failure in the years that followed, down to the present? These questions are important, first, because Palestinian history must be properly understood if we are to comprehend the present, and because this history has significance in its own right.

In the West this is a hidden history, one that is obscured by the riveting and tragic narrative of modern Jewish history. In a sense, the history of the Palestinians has disappeared under the powerful impact of the painful and amply recounted story of the catastrophic fate of the Jews of Europe in the 20th century. However, achieving any serious understanding of the Middle East conflict requires comprehension of Palestinian history in its own terms, which includes but cannot be subsumed by Jewish and Israeli history.

This effort is important for another reason: namely, to ascribe agency to the Palestinians, to avoid seeing them either as no more than helpless victims of forces greater then themselves, or alternatively as driven solely by self-destructive tendencies and uncontrollable dissension.

The Palestinians were facing an uphill struggle from the beginning of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1920 and still face one today. Palestinian society and politics were and are divided and faction-ridden, in ways that gave hostile forces many cleavages to exploit. But the Palestinians had many assets, were far from helpless, and often faced a range of choices, whether in the 1920s or the 1990s, some of which were better, or at least less bad, than others.

Writing this history from such a perspective makes it possible to put the Palestinians at the center of a critical phase of their own story, and also to understand some of their present dilemmas. Doing so, however, is an uphill struggle in itself, and the unique challenges it presents reflect some of the larger challenges that have faced, and still face, the Palestinian quest for statehood.

ALTHOUGH A FRESH LOOK at Palestinian history is needed, it cannot be ``revisionist" history in the standard sense, along the lines of what has emerged from Israel in recent years. Revisionist history requires as a foil an established, authoritative master narrative that is fundamentally flawed in some way. Thus, the ``revisionist" works written by a number of Israeli historians-such as Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, and Benny Morris-argue against the country's nationalist mythology, which has become the backbone of the received version of the history of the conflict as it is perceived in the West.

One of the most important of these myths about the infant state of Israel has the number of Arab armies that invaded Israel after its establishment ranging from five to seven. However, there were only seven independent Arab states in 1948, two of which, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, did not even have regular armies. Lebanon's army never crossed the international frontier, Transjordan's and Iraq's never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state, while Syria's made only minor incursions. The only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state was that of the Egyptian army. This story of an invasion by multiple, massive Arab armies is not just an important element of the Israeli myth of origin, it is a nearly universal myth...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/01/unwritten_history/?page=full

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
the developing democracy in Iraq

I like that line. Here's another.

Quote:
the developing secularism in the Southern Baptist Federation

With people like you offering such hope, encouragement, and positive reinforcement, how can anybody possibly expect not to succeed in a worthwhile endeavor?

Aside from the delusional notion that anything said here will be consequential...

my comment didn't have Iraq as its subject. It had as subject your ubiquitous substitutions of talking point cliches for actual thought.

Oh I see. Of course there is no rational reason to assume that a line in response to a quote post re Iraq also referred to Iraq, especially in light of the many other positive and encouraging notations you have offered on that subject over the last many months. (cough) But then your cliches of course are far superior to anybody elses as you have long implied. And if that is a bit unfair, then I will retract it and just say that I would rather be cliched than a popinjay.

The posted piece from the Boston Globe however is thin on substance but the thesis seems to boil down to this phrase:

Quote:

Transjordan's and Iraq's never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state, while Syria's made only minor incursions. The only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state was that of the Egyptian army.

Even before we ponder what might constitute a "minor excursion", the Jews answer with their own response to 'myths' re their own history of Israel:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf4.html

0 Replies

MarionT wrote:

And why shouldn't Israel be forced to move? The land belongs to the Palestinians. The conservatives make such a big deal about the supposed development of nuclear weapons by Iran but they never say a thing about the hundreds of nuclear weapons possessed by Israel. Why should Muslim countries not have the same nuclear weapons possessed by Israel?

Palestine does not belong to the Arabs.

Palestine does not belong to the Jews.

Gaza of Palestine and part of the West Bank of Palestine belong to the Arabs.

Israel of Palestine belongs to the Jews.

By what logic, MarionT, do you say otherwise?

Britannica wrote:

A RELEVANT TIME LINE
...
1000 BC: Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except
................Philistra and Phoenicia).
0950 BC: Solomon King of Israel.
0721 BC: Israel conquered, but Judaea Continues.
0516 BC: 2nd Temple in Judaea.
0333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers
................Palestine.
0161 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to
................conquer All Palestine Plus.
0135 BC: Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
0040 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
0073 AD: Jerusalem conquered and all resistance ceases.
0638 AD: Arabs conquer Jerusalem.
1099 AD: Crusaders conquer Palestine.
1187 AD: Saladin conquers Palestine.
1229 AD: Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD: Turks conquer Palestine.
1516 AD: Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD: Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD: Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
...
1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
................British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD: 5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1921 AD: 46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots
................in Palestine.
1929 AD: 133 Jews killed 339 wounded
................116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936 thru 39 AD: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded
.........................3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
............................135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
............................110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish
................State and into an Arab State.
1948 AD: Jews declare independence and establish the
................State of Israel.
................War breaks out between Jews defending Israel
................and Arabs attempting to invade Israel.
................State of Israel successfully defends itself and
................conquers part of Arab Palestine.
...

0 Replies

emphasis added

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Unwritten history
The challenges of writing Palestinian history reflect the larger challenges facing the Palestinians' quest for statehood

By Rashid Khalidi | October 1, 2006

...

One of the most important of these myths about the infant state of Israel has the number of Arab armies that invaded Israel after its establishment ranging from five to seven. However, there were only seven independent Arab states in 1948, two of which, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, did not even have regular armies. Lebanon's army never crossed the international frontier, Transjordan's and Iraq's never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state, while Syria's made only minor incursions. The only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state was that of the Egyptian army. This story of an invasion by multiple, massive Arab armies is not just an important element of the Israeli myth of origin, it is a nearly universal myth...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/01/unwritten_history/?page=full

invaded Israel Some only invaded Palestine and threatened to invade Israel, but were stopped by Israeli defense fighters.
the international frontier International frontier of what: Palestine? or Transjordan? If Palestine, it was because they were discouraged from doing so by Israeli defense fighters.
never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state Because they were discouraged from doing so by Israeli defense fighters.
made only minor incursions. They were unable to make major incursions because of the effective defense of Israel by Israeli defense fighters.
only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state Was terminated by the Israeli defense fighters.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

emphasis added

blatham wrote:
Quote:
Unwritten history
The challenges of writing Palestinian history reflect the larger challenges facing the Palestinians' quest for statehood

By Rashid Khalidi | October 1, 2006

...

One of the most important of these myths about the infant state of Israel has the number of Arab armies that invaded Israel after its establishment ranging from five to seven. However, there were only seven independent Arab states in 1948, two of which, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, did not even have regular armies. Lebanon's army never crossed the international frontier, Transjordan's and Iraq's never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state, while Syria's made only minor incursions. The only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state was that of the Egyptian army. This story of an invasion by multiple, massive Arab armies is not just an important element of the Israeli myth of origin, it is a nearly universal myth...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/01/unwritten_history/?page=full

invaded Israel Some only invaded Palestine and threatened to invade Israel, but were stopped by Israeli defense fighters.
the international frontier International frontier of what: Palestine? or Transjordan? If Palestine, it was because they were discouraged from doing so by Israeli defense fighters.
never entered the territory the UN allotted to the Jewish state Because they were discouraged from doing so by Israeli defense fighters.
made only minor incursions. They were unable to make major incursions because of the effective defense of Israel by Israeli defense fighters.
only serious incursion into the territory of the Jewish state Was terminated by the Israeli defense fighters.

If my source in my previous post is accurate, the writer also got it wrong as to which countries or groups were threatening Israel.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Containment is working. Ican is not posting elsewhere. Keep up the good work.

Here: ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?
and
There: THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

...

:wink:

I recommend Foxfyre's link to those interested in what the Jews think.

Foxfyre wrote:

... the Jews answer with their own response to 'myths' re their own history of Israel:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf4.html

0 Replies

Israel rejects Syrian offer on the Golan Heights
Israel rejects Syrian offer on the Golan Heights
By Dion Nissenbaum
McClatchy Newspapers
10/16/06

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem stands in front of a photo of President Bashar Assad in his office in Damascus, Syria. (Dion Nissenbaum/MCT)DAMASCUS, Syria - The first and last thing that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem looks at each day at work is a large map of the Middle East with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights shaded in distinctive brown.

"This is my territory," Moallem said as he pointed to the land at the heart of chilly relations between Syria and Israel. "This is my life."

In the wake of this summer's war in Lebanon, the Golan Heights have re-emerged at the center of the latest land-for-peace proposal that some see as a chance to reshape regional dynamics. In an unexpected move, Syrian President Bashar Assad has offered to end his conflict with Israel if it gives back the disputed territory it's held for nearly 40 years.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and influential U.S. diplomats have rejected the proposal as a meaningless feint from a weak authoritarian ruler. But others, including a growing number of influential Israelis, see the offer as an opportunity to jump-start dormant negotiations at a time when the Middle East is drifting towards further instability.

Israel's defense minister, internal security minister and some of its veteran peace negotiators have urged Olmert to use the opening to lure Syria away from its alliance with hard-line groups that they think pose a greater threat to regional stability.

"I believe it is imperative for Israel to penetrate and shatter the vicious triangle comprised of Iran, Syria and Hamas by creating an impenetrable channel of communication," Uri Savir, Israel's chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians, wrote in The Jerusalem Post.

Assad surprised Israel with the offer. Only weeks earlier, as Israeli soldiers began withdrawing from Lebanon after a stalemated fight with the militant group Hezbollah, Assad delivered a derisive speech in which he hailed Hezbollah and said it had "shattered the myth of an invincible army."

Now the 40-year-old Syrian president is offering to sit down with Israel and talk.

In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Moallem said Syria was willing to normalize relations with Israel for the first time in history if Israel returned the Golan Heights, a vast swath of mountains that it captured during the 1967 Six Day War.

"Between Syria and Israel, the issue that stands between us is the Golan Heights," Moallem said. "After each war there is a narrow window of opportunity for peace, and it depends on what effort and message you do to enlarge it."

Moallem said the Syrian offer was likely to stand for only a few months, and Assad has warned that he may consider attacking Israel if his entreaties are rebuffed.

"My hope for peace could change one day," Assad told the German magazine Der Spiegel late last month. "And when hope disappears, then maybe war really is the only answer."

That threat has kept Israel's military on alert along the Syrian border, although few expect Syria to attack anytime soon, if at all.

Assad's offer has been rejected by Olmert, who wants to see Syria sever its links to Hezbollah and the militant group Hamas before they agree to peace talks.

On Monday, Olmert repeated his rejection in a speech before the Israeli parliament.

U.S. officials also have rejected Assad's gesture.

"We ask him to step outside his office and do something about the situation in his capital city, where there are enemies of peace who operate freely from Damascus and conduct terror activities in the Palestinian territories and in Israel," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David C. Welch told the U.S.-backed Alhurra Television network last week. "If his desire and vision for peace are accurate and real, he would do something about those things."

Moallem dismissed such demands as the unrealistic rhetoric of an American administration that's done nothing but destabilize the Middle East with its uncompromising policies.

"When the Americans are moderate, Syria will be moderate," he said.

Even if Israel were to launch talks with Syria, the initiative could be derailed quickly by the probe into last year's assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. A preliminary investigation suggested that high-level Syrian officials were behind the attack, which forced Assad to pull his troops out of Lebanon.

Still, coming at a time when there are few peaceful options in the simmering Middle East, a growing number of Israeli officials, Western diplomats in the region and intellectuals see a chance to isolate Iran further and undermine militant groups.

"A peace accord with Syria would deal a mortal blow to the current regime in Tehran and would bring its end closer," Israeli commentator Sever Plocker wrote. "A Syrian-Israeli peace will pull the rug out from beneath the feet of the terrorist organizations that are based in Damascus, will help the Palestinians regain their sanity and will serve as leverage for a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace."

Assad's offer is Syria's latest attempt to settle the long-standing dispute over the Golan Heights. The president made a similar offer three years ago, which was greeted with the same skepticism. Perhaps the best chance to settle the issue came in 2000, when U.S.-brokered negotiations broke down over whether Israel would give Syria access to the Sea of Galilee.

0 Replies

Hamas to Muslims: Attack US targets

Signaling a change in tactics, Hamas' military wing on Wednesday called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets after an apparent misfiring of an IDF artillery shell in the Gaza Strip.

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

While critical of the US, Hamas has always focused its violent campaign of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israeli targets. Wednesday's threat signaled that the group is identifying with global Islamic extremist movements, such as al-Qaida.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets.

"Our battle is against the occupation on the Palestinian land. We have no interest to transfer the battle," he said, though he said America was indirectly responsible for Wednesday's bloodshed because of its support for Israel.

"We urge the Arab nation and the governments of the Arab countries to protest the world's silence and the American bias," he said.

Hamas' political wing, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, claims it is independent of the military wing. But the two entities both report to the group's secretive leadership, headquartered in Syria, and frequently coordinate with each other.

The US, like Israel, considers Hamas a terrorist group.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The US, like Israel, considers Hamas a terrorist group.

And I'm sure Hamas would consider Israel a terrorist organization when you consider all the innocent people they have deliberately killed. Israel does a far better job of slaughtering innocent people than the "terrorist" groups.

Came across this;

Quote:

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel
The following is a list of UN resolutions that concern Palestine (Arab and Jewish land), Israel only or bordering states (such as Lebanon).[1][2] From 1967 to 1988 the UN Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[3][4] It should be noted that as of September 2006 ,no resolution concerning Israel was made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

United Nations Security Council resolutions
1947 UN Partition Plan
Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups to cease acts of violence
Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948)
Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 89 (November 17 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22 1967): 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. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 338 (October 22 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
Resolution 339 (October 23 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of June 16 2000.
Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".. Israeli settlements in the occupied territories thus declared illegal.
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (August 20 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 508
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 1559 (September 2 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

SOURCE

0 Replies

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the UN was as persistent in condemning those who continually threaten and attack Israel? There is no history of Israel attacking anybody without credible provocation such as imminent threat of attack or actual attacks. That is where Israel can claim the high road and its enemies cannot.

In my opnion, the UN lost their claim to the high road some time ago.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no history of Israel attacking anybody without credible provocation such as imminent threat of attack or actual attacks.

You're saying you support the Israelian attacks on German UN-boats and on the French peacekeepers (at least the latter were "only two seconds away" from firing back at the Israleian air force - the Germans only filmed it.)

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know