Skip to comments.Iraq not alone in defying resolutions of U.N. body
Posted on 09/21/2002 5:09:17 AM PDT by DoctorMichaelEdited on 07/12/2004 3:39:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Iraq may be the most blatant, but it is far from the first country to defy the will of the U.N. Security Council. Officials from the United Nations say they do not keep a statistical record of members' compliance with resolutions of the 15-member council. However, it appears that dozens of resolutions, including those on North Korea and the Middle East, have been disregarded.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"................dubbing the 1990s the "sanctions decade."..........
It was also the decade of CLINTON, where talk was a good substitute for action and leadership.
Not every Security Council demand brought the desired result.
Marie Okabe, a spokeswoman in the U.N. press office, said the organization doesn't compile a list of resolution violators because of that ambiguity.Perhaps, that is an omission to "help" themselves feel better about all their good work? It's clear: the UN is IRRELEVANT!
< snip >
Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
Since this Resolution is dated November 22, 1967, I don't see how it can be clearer. Now, I certainly understand why Israel would not want to comply, but the language, and the intent, cannot be argued.
<snip> Some peace proposals including the recent Saudi proposaldemand withdrawal from the entire West Bank, which would leave Israel 9 miles wide at its most vulnerable point.
The oft-cited UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the 1967 war) does not, in fact, require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. As legal scholar Eugene Rostow put it, "Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces from territories it occupied during the Six-Day Warnot from the territories nor from all the territories, but from some of the territories."
I know that Israel does not want to give up all the territory because it leaves them with that 9-mile-wide strip. Fine. But don't use that as an excuse not to read what is clearly written!
Go ahead and say, "We will not honor UN Resolution 242 because it leaves our country virtually split in two." As least that's honest.
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:Can one who watches the events in Israel possibly conclude that this criteria has been met?
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
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.
Well, 242 was passed 35 years ago, and the level of violence has waxed and waned over that period of time. I'm not surprised that nothing's been done if people can't figure out the meaning of the words "withdrawal...from territories".
Look, if Israel wants to ignore 242, fine. Just don't be surprised, or shocked, or disgusted when their enemies ignore it also. Just don't send my sons to fight there.