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

Then you can let Walter know as he obviously doesn't now.

Walter is a historian; the implication is clear to most - except for people like McG.

So this is now Able2Lookup? Huh, someone should tell Craven to change the logo.

Fine for me. I'm waiting for the answer. (I admit that it's some time ago since I read Pappe and Nur Masalha, but in English.)

They use those encamped Palestinian emigrants as an excuse not to support the UN's 1947 resolution.

Interestingly, the Pals were largely assimilated into SA and Kuwait before the first Gulf War. Since most of the Pals supported Saddam, the two countries kicked the Pals out.

And you back your opinion with what sources?

It was all over the mass media, and need not be supported.

Then it should be really easy for you to back it up, shouldn't it? Otherwise people might think that you're just, you know, making stuff up...

Perhaps he read a bit about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?

Most of us have; what are you trying to say or imply?

Oh, sorry. That's okay then - which of the various books do you prefer, McG, btw?

Seems, I looked Advocates response ...

Interestingly, the Pals were largely assimilated into SA and Kuwait before the first Gulf War. Since most of the Pals supported Saddam, the two countries kicked the Pals out.

... to narrow-minded, like it was written there.

And before you advice that, McG - certainly I will re-read about the Parthians as well, just in case to go back as far as that.

Walter, what did you read about the '48 war, and what is the link?

OE, you have my permission to think what you want.

That's one view.

Thew more common is that Palestinian refugee camps were established after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That's a relief. Thanks.

Where is the contradiction, and what is "thew?"

"thew" got somehow srewed up, sorry.

The sentence should read:

The more common view is ...

Those camps were established during as well as after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

My previously posted sentence is present tense.

My sentence is my answer to the question why the countries in which those refugee camps are currently located have not and do not yet invite those encamped Arabs to be assimilated. That is: they continue to use those encamped Palestinian emigrants as an excuse FOR CONTINUING not to support the UN's 1947 resolution advocating establishment of an independent Arab state and an independent Jewish state in Palestine.

During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.

On June, 14, 1967, through Resolution No. 237, the Security Council called upon 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." In subsequent resolutions, the Security Council deplored Israel for the delay in its implementation of Resolution 237. Yet, Israel continued to defy the world community, including the United States. The Security Council, in the face of Israel's defiance, passed no less than five subsequent resolutions demanding that Israel comply but to this day, thirty five years after June 14, 1967, the defiance continues.

Compliance with UN resolutions cannot be unilateral. Regarding some important ones, see:

Wednesday, September 25, 2002
"Baseless Comparisons": UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and Israel

Regarding the key UN Security Council resolutions that address the Arab-Israeli conflict, Dore Gold and Doni Remba are of course completely correct. The key points are buried, a bit too hurriedly, in this (excessively legalistic) passage from Dore Gold's piece.:


Two chapters of the UN Charter clarify the powers of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes" - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.


It is widely believed in the Arab world, and uncritically repeated by too many people here, that UN Security Resolutions 242 & 338 (the fundamental post-1967 resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict) simply require that Israel withdraw from lands seized in 1967. But this is just a myth--or, to put it more bluntly, bullshit. What these resolutions require is that Israel should give back territories seized in 1967 (with small adjustments) as part of negotiated peace agreements. That is, these requirements come into effect only if the relevant Arab countries formally make peace with Israel, on the basis of agreements--achieved through negotiations--that recognize Israel's right to exist and assure its security. (And, of course, it's worth remembering that Israel has already given back most of the land it seized in the 1967 war, as part of the peace treaty with Egypt.)

This is, of course, a totally different matter from the UN Security Council resolutions, back in 1990-1991, condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as an act of aggression and demanding unconditional Iraqi withdrawal. The same holds for the terms of the peace agreement accepted by the Iraqi government after losing the war in 1991 (and codified in successive Security Council resolutions). No comparison.

Legality aside, the substantive moral issues are also completely different. But that's a much bigger discussion ....

=> A recent NYTimes op-ed piece by George Fletcher, a scholar of international law, elaborates some of the relevant issues further ("Annan's Careless Language", NYTimes 3/21/2002, p. A37).